<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_05_1915224</id>
	<title>NASA May Drop Ares I-Y Test Flight</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1257451020000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Matt\_dk writes <i>"Just one week after the first test launch of the Ares I-X rocket, <a href="http://spacefellowship.com/2009/11/05/nasa-may-drop-ares-i-y-test-flight/">NASA says it may decide to cancel a follow-up launch called Ares 1-Y</a>, which wasn't scheduled until 2014. Reportedly, program managers recommended dropping the flight because, currently, there isn't funding to get an upper stage engine ready in time. Depending on whether the Obama administration decides to continue the Ares I program, this decision may be moot. Earlier this week Sen. Bill Nelson said Obama may make a decision on NASA's future path, based on the report by the Augustine Commission, by the end of November."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Matt \ _dk writes " Just one week after the first test launch of the Ares I-X rocket , NASA says it may decide to cancel a follow-up launch called Ares 1-Y , which was n't scheduled until 2014 .
Reportedly , program managers recommended dropping the flight because , currently , there is n't funding to get an upper stage engine ready in time .
Depending on whether the Obama administration decides to continue the Ares I program , this decision may be moot .
Earlier this week Sen. Bill Nelson said Obama may make a decision on NASA 's future path , based on the report by the Augustine Commission , by the end of November .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Matt\_dk writes "Just one week after the first test launch of the Ares I-X rocket, NASA says it may decide to cancel a follow-up launch called Ares 1-Y, which wasn't scheduled until 2014.
Reportedly, program managers recommended dropping the flight because, currently, there isn't funding to get an upper stage engine ready in time.
Depending on whether the Obama administration decides to continue the Ares I program, this decision may be moot.
Earlier this week Sen. Bill Nelson said Obama may make a decision on NASA's future path, based on the report by the Augustine Commission, by the end of November.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30001426</id>
	<title>Re:Blew Your Wad Too Early</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257423720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We will be paying for the George W Bush's disastrous presidency for a very long time.</p></div><p>And our kids will be paying for BO's policies even longer.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We will be paying for the George W Bush 's disastrous presidency for a very long time.And our kids will be paying for BO 's policies even longer .
: (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We will be paying for the George W Bush's disastrous presidency for a very long time.And our kids will be paying for BO's policies even longer.
:(
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30002058</id>
	<title>Re:Space program != science</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1257429420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Blah blah blah, We get it.  You want to drive your neighbor's yoke instead of the brown fellah in the big house the swamp.</p><p>But the proper thing to do, if you find you can spend less on defense contractors, is to take the savings and *not* find something else to spend it on.  It's not your money, therefore you should always spend as little of it as possible.  Don't invent "worthwhile causes" to justify keeping your budget high and maintaining your little bureaucratic fiefdom.</p><p>If space programs are vital to the national interest, then they should be undertaken.  If they are not (and as someone who spent some time in the industry and would like to spend more time there, I must admit that they probably are not.  At least not manned space projects), then they have no business being funded at the point of a gun.  There are other deep pockets than the collective pocket.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Blah blah blah , We get it .
You want to drive your neighbor 's yoke instead of the brown fellah in the big house the swamp.But the proper thing to do , if you find you can spend less on defense contractors , is to take the savings and * not * find something else to spend it on .
It 's not your money , therefore you should always spend as little of it as possible .
Do n't invent " worthwhile causes " to justify keeping your budget high and maintaining your little bureaucratic fiefdom.If space programs are vital to the national interest , then they should be undertaken .
If they are not ( and as someone who spent some time in the industry and would like to spend more time there , I must admit that they probably are not .
At least not manned space projects ) , then they have no business being funded at the point of a gun .
There are other deep pockets than the collective pocket .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blah blah blah, We get it.
You want to drive your neighbor's yoke instead of the brown fellah in the big house the swamp.But the proper thing to do, if you find you can spend less on defense contractors, is to take the savings and *not* find something else to spend it on.
It's not your money, therefore you should always spend as little of it as possible.
Don't invent "worthwhile causes" to justify keeping your budget high and maintaining your little bureaucratic fiefdom.If space programs are vital to the national interest, then they should be undertaken.
If they are not (and as someone who spent some time in the industry and would like to spend more time there, I must admit that they probably are not.
At least not manned space projects), then they have no business being funded at the point of a gun.
There are other deep pockets than the collective pocket.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30000754</id>
	<title>Re:Space program != science</title>
	<author>codemaster2b</author>
	<datestamp>1257420240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You raise good points, but let me question one of your assumptions. First lets suppose that we do in fact spend $88 Billion on our military annually. You are right to refer to our military as "a dormant lion of a military that needs nothing more than a twitchy trigger finger on its leash to free an unholy uproar of annihilation and chaos", in fact, most militaries are. If you ever studied the Roman Empire you might remember that the biggest problems in government happened when the the military had nothing to do. If they weren't needed, could you cut military spending? Um... no. Because soldiers like to get paid. If they don't, things like government coups happen. I seriously doubt we are completely immune to this.

So, basically, since we have a military, we must maintain it and feed it money so it doesn't turn around and gnaw our faces off.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You raise good points , but let me question one of your assumptions .
First lets suppose that we do in fact spend $ 88 Billion on our military annually .
You are right to refer to our military as " a dormant lion of a military that needs nothing more than a twitchy trigger finger on its leash to free an unholy uproar of annihilation and chaos " , in fact , most militaries are .
If you ever studied the Roman Empire you might remember that the biggest problems in government happened when the the military had nothing to do .
If they were n't needed , could you cut military spending ?
Um... no .
Because soldiers like to get paid .
If they do n't , things like government coups happen .
I seriously doubt we are completely immune to this .
So , basically , since we have a military , we must maintain it and feed it money so it does n't turn around and gnaw our faces off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You raise good points, but let me question one of your assumptions.
First lets suppose that we do in fact spend $88 Billion on our military annually.
You are right to refer to our military as "a dormant lion of a military that needs nothing more than a twitchy trigger finger on its leash to free an unholy uproar of annihilation and chaos", in fact, most militaries are.
If you ever studied the Roman Empire you might remember that the biggest problems in government happened when the the military had nothing to do.
If they weren't needed, could you cut military spending?
Um... no.
Because soldiers like to get paid.
If they don't, things like government coups happen.
I seriously doubt we are completely immune to this.
So, basically, since we have a military, we must maintain it and feed it money so it doesn't turn around and gnaw our faces off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999234</id>
	<title>The whole program should be scrapped</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257413580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The design is inherently unsafe, segmented SRB's.  Cost per manned launches estimated to be about $1 billion, the test launch cost $500 million.  That's about the same as a shuttle launch, epic fail on controlling cost, Falcon X claims to be able to do that for 1/10 the cost.  Just another example of government waste.  Oh yeah the SRB's are extremely harmful to the environment when compared with liquid fueled rockets.  The private sector can and will do this better for less money and much greater safety.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The design is inherently unsafe , segmented SRB 's .
Cost per manned launches estimated to be about $ 1 billion , the test launch cost $ 500 million .
That 's about the same as a shuttle launch , epic fail on controlling cost , Falcon X claims to be able to do that for 1/10 the cost .
Just another example of government waste .
Oh yeah the SRB 's are extremely harmful to the environment when compared with liquid fueled rockets .
The private sector can and will do this better for less money and much greater safety .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The design is inherently unsafe, segmented SRB's.
Cost per manned launches estimated to be about $1 billion, the test launch cost $500 million.
That's about the same as a shuttle launch, epic fail on controlling cost, Falcon X claims to be able to do that for 1/10 the cost.
Just another example of government waste.
Oh yeah the SRB's are extremely harmful to the environment when compared with liquid fueled rockets.
The private sector can and will do this better for less money and much greater safety.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999040</id>
	<title>Re:Blew Your Wad Too Early</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257412800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>or at least getting Afghanistan right the first time</p></div><p>or why not just get the hell out of deciding whats good for other cultures and peoples ?
<br> <br>
Dont blame George W, you been at this for the last 50 years<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>or at least getting Afghanistan right the first timeor why not just get the hell out of deciding whats good for other cultures and peoples ?
Dont blame George W , you been at this for the last 50 years ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or at least getting Afghanistan right the first timeor why not just get the hell out of deciding whats good for other cultures and peoples ?
Dont blame George W, you been at this for the last 50 years ....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999662</id>
	<title>Re:Blew Your Wad Too Early</title>
	<author>Nadaka</author>
	<datestamp>1257415320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>when the economy gets better while unemployment rises. It means the wealthy are earning much more than when only one of those conditions are true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>when the economy gets better while unemployment rises .
It means the wealthy are earning much more than when only one of those conditions are true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>when the economy gets better while unemployment rises.
It means the wealthy are earning much more than when only one of those conditions are true.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999256</id>
	<title>Re:Blew Your Wad Too Early</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257413700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>keep rooting for a Great Depression</p><p>that's what you and your lot's retarded sense of economics would lead to</p><p>thankfully, the grownups have taken over running this country</p><p>or, should I say, thank God</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>keep rooting for a Great Depressionthat 's what you and your lot 's retarded sense of economics would lead tothankfully , the grownups have taken over running this countryor , should I say , thank God</tokentext>
<sentencetext>keep rooting for a Great Depressionthat's what you and your lot's retarded sense of economics would lead tothankfully, the grownups have taken over running this countryor, should I say, thank God</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30001550</id>
	<title>Re:Ares should be funded and continued.</title>
	<author>camperdave</author>
	<datestamp>1257424560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, it would be foolish to continue with Ares-1.  It has no distict advantages over the Delta-IV and Atlas rockets, or the proposed commercial rockets (Falcon 9).  It can't lift much more, and it costs a lot more.  NASA's been trimming the Orion crew module to make it light enough to lift. (Backwards thinking.  Design the crew module, then build a rocket large enough to lift it.)<br> <br>
The biggest cost (both in terms of dollars and time) in rocket development is the design and testing of new engines.  This cost could have been completely avoided if NASA had adopted the DIRECT plan.  The DIRECT plan involves taking the engines out of the shuttle and tacking them onto the bottom of the external tank.  Mount the Orion crew module on the top of the external tank, and away you go.  This configuration, called the J-130 could be flying in three years.  It would easily be able to lift a fully stocked Orion crew module, plus an extra 20 metric tons of supplies to the ISS.  The Jupiter, because it is made of existing shuttle parts, allows most of the people currently employed in building and deploying shuttles to keep their jobs (especially if the shuttle program is stretched out for a couple of years.<br> <br>
By adding a fourth engine and an upper stage, you transform the J-130 into the J-246.  It is capable of lofting 85 metric tons into orbit.  The upper stage is similar to the upper stage currently used on Centaur rockets.  (It can even use an existing Centaur upper stage, I believe.)  Because it uses the same core configuration as the J-130 (which is itself a minor variation of the existing shuttle), it can be built, deployed, and launched on the same lauch pad, using the same gantry cranes, by the same experienced personnel that will be running the J-130.  ARES cannot do this because the rockets are so dissimilar.<br> <br>
Now, the ARES program is called a 1.5 launch configuration.  The 1 launch is the ARES-V, and the 0.5 launch is the ARES-1 with the crew.  No matter what you call it, it is still two launches (of significantly different rockets).  With the DIRECT plan, you still launch two rockets, but because they are both carrying cargo, you wind up with more tonnage in orbit.  Also, since the rockets are practically identical (apart from the upper stage and additional first stage engine), you don't need separately trained personnel.  Best of all, both the J-130 and J-246 can be built and flown with NASA's current budget.  We could be on the moon by 2020 if we so desire.<br> <br>
Now don't think that all of the development that went into ARES would be lost.  By no means!  Development of the human rated RS-68s would continue.  When ready, they would replace the SSMEs used on the Jupiter core.  Development of the J-2X could continue as well.  The thing is, they would be optional upgrades, and not required equipment.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , it would be foolish to continue with Ares-1 .
It has no distict advantages over the Delta-IV and Atlas rockets , or the proposed commercial rockets ( Falcon 9 ) .
It ca n't lift much more , and it costs a lot more .
NASA 's been trimming the Orion crew module to make it light enough to lift .
( Backwards thinking .
Design the crew module , then build a rocket large enough to lift it .
) The biggest cost ( both in terms of dollars and time ) in rocket development is the design and testing of new engines .
This cost could have been completely avoided if NASA had adopted the DIRECT plan .
The DIRECT plan involves taking the engines out of the shuttle and tacking them onto the bottom of the external tank .
Mount the Orion crew module on the top of the external tank , and away you go .
This configuration , called the J-130 could be flying in three years .
It would easily be able to lift a fully stocked Orion crew module , plus an extra 20 metric tons of supplies to the ISS .
The Jupiter , because it is made of existing shuttle parts , allows most of the people currently employed in building and deploying shuttles to keep their jobs ( especially if the shuttle program is stretched out for a couple of years .
By adding a fourth engine and an upper stage , you transform the J-130 into the J-246 .
It is capable of lofting 85 metric tons into orbit .
The upper stage is similar to the upper stage currently used on Centaur rockets .
( It can even use an existing Centaur upper stage , I believe .
) Because it uses the same core configuration as the J-130 ( which is itself a minor variation of the existing shuttle ) , it can be built , deployed , and launched on the same lauch pad , using the same gantry cranes , by the same experienced personnel that will be running the J-130 .
ARES can not do this because the rockets are so dissimilar .
Now , the ARES program is called a 1.5 launch configuration .
The 1 launch is the ARES-V , and the 0.5 launch is the ARES-1 with the crew .
No matter what you call it , it is still two launches ( of significantly different rockets ) .
With the DIRECT plan , you still launch two rockets , but because they are both carrying cargo , you wind up with more tonnage in orbit .
Also , since the rockets are practically identical ( apart from the upper stage and additional first stage engine ) , you do n't need separately trained personnel .
Best of all , both the J-130 and J-246 can be built and flown with NASA 's current budget .
We could be on the moon by 2020 if we so desire .
Now do n't think that all of the development that went into ARES would be lost .
By no means !
Development of the human rated RS-68s would continue .
When ready , they would replace the SSMEs used on the Jupiter core .
Development of the J-2X could continue as well .
The thing is , they would be optional upgrades , and not required equipment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, it would be foolish to continue with Ares-1.
It has no distict advantages over the Delta-IV and Atlas rockets, or the proposed commercial rockets (Falcon 9).
It can't lift much more, and it costs a lot more.
NASA's been trimming the Orion crew module to make it light enough to lift.
(Backwards thinking.
Design the crew module, then build a rocket large enough to lift it.
) 
The biggest cost (both in terms of dollars and time) in rocket development is the design and testing of new engines.
This cost could have been completely avoided if NASA had adopted the DIRECT plan.
The DIRECT plan involves taking the engines out of the shuttle and tacking them onto the bottom of the external tank.
Mount the Orion crew module on the top of the external tank, and away you go.
This configuration, called the J-130 could be flying in three years.
It would easily be able to lift a fully stocked Orion crew module, plus an extra 20 metric tons of supplies to the ISS.
The Jupiter, because it is made of existing shuttle parts, allows most of the people currently employed in building and deploying shuttles to keep their jobs (especially if the shuttle program is stretched out for a couple of years.
By adding a fourth engine and an upper stage, you transform the J-130 into the J-246.
It is capable of lofting 85 metric tons into orbit.
The upper stage is similar to the upper stage currently used on Centaur rockets.
(It can even use an existing Centaur upper stage, I believe.
)  Because it uses the same core configuration as the J-130 (which is itself a minor variation of the existing shuttle), it can be built, deployed, and launched on the same lauch pad, using the same gantry cranes, by the same experienced personnel that will be running the J-130.
ARES cannot do this because the rockets are so dissimilar.
Now, the ARES program is called a 1.5 launch configuration.
The 1 launch is the ARES-V, and the 0.5 launch is the ARES-1 with the crew.
No matter what you call it, it is still two launches (of significantly different rockets).
With the DIRECT plan, you still launch two rockets, but because they are both carrying cargo, you wind up with more tonnage in orbit.
Also, since the rockets are practically identical (apart from the upper stage and additional first stage engine), you don't need separately trained personnel.
Best of all, both the J-130 and J-246 can be built and flown with NASA's current budget.
We could be on the moon by 2020 if we so desire.
Now don't think that all of the development that went into ARES would be lost.
By no means!
Development of the human rated RS-68s would continue.
When ready, they would replace the SSMEs used on the Jupiter core.
Development of the J-2X could continue as well.
The thing is, they would be optional upgrades, and not required equipment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30000768</id>
	<title>Re:More proof...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257420240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>...Considering the trillion dollars spent toward our deficit with no honest gain (car sales and house sales that correlate directly with government money are not honest gains), I'd say it points more toward his own incompetence than an unwillingness to spend.</p></div><p>The economic melt-down and the subsequent financial bail-out both started <i>before</i> Obama took office.
</p><p>Whether this was spent "with no honest gain" depends on whether or not--as was hypothesized at the time by many economists--the economy was about to go into a liquidity crisis and subsequently drop into depression equal to the great depression if immediate action was not taken.  (The current belief is that the great depression could have been averted, had the government not been too timid in its actions).
</p><p>Now, I don't know whether this was really just about to happen, or if it was just doomsaying.  What are the chances-- five percent?  Fifty percent?  90 percent?  And, at what point should you act?
</p><p>Maybe it was a crisis that we would have come out of anyway.  But it seems to me that, if there's even a modest chance that the spending averted another great depression, it's an "honest gain" to me.
</p><p>(And before you say "well, so what-- they all deserved a depression"-- go do some research on what the Great Depression was really like.  It was not a camping trip.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...Considering the trillion dollars spent toward our deficit with no honest gain ( car sales and house sales that correlate directly with government money are not honest gains ) , I 'd say it points more toward his own incompetence than an unwillingness to spend.The economic melt-down and the subsequent financial bail-out both started before Obama took office .
Whether this was spent " with no honest gain " depends on whether or not--as was hypothesized at the time by many economists--the economy was about to go into a liquidity crisis and subsequently drop into depression equal to the great depression if immediate action was not taken .
( The current belief is that the great depression could have been averted , had the government not been too timid in its actions ) .
Now , I do n't know whether this was really just about to happen , or if it was just doomsaying .
What are the chances-- five percent ?
Fifty percent ?
90 percent ?
And , at what point should you act ?
Maybe it was a crisis that we would have come out of anyway .
But it seems to me that , if there 's even a modest chance that the spending averted another great depression , it 's an " honest gain " to me .
( And before you say " well , so what-- they all deserved a depression " -- go do some research on what the Great Depression was really like .
It was not a camping trip .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...Considering the trillion dollars spent toward our deficit with no honest gain (car sales and house sales that correlate directly with government money are not honest gains), I'd say it points more toward his own incompetence than an unwillingness to spend.The economic melt-down and the subsequent financial bail-out both started before Obama took office.
Whether this was spent "with no honest gain" depends on whether or not--as was hypothesized at the time by many economists--the economy was about to go into a liquidity crisis and subsequently drop into depression equal to the great depression if immediate action was not taken.
(The current belief is that the great depression could have been averted, had the government not been too timid in its actions).
Now, I don't know whether this was really just about to happen, or if it was just doomsaying.
What are the chances-- five percent?
Fifty percent?
90 percent?
And, at what point should you act?
Maybe it was a crisis that we would have come out of anyway.
But it seems to me that, if there's even a modest chance that the spending averted another great depression, it's an "honest gain" to me.
(And before you say "well, so what-- they all deserved a depression"-- go do some research on what the Great Depression was really like.
It was not a camping trip.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998764</id>
	<title>More proof...</title>
	<author>ktappe</author>
	<datestamp>1257411660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...that Obama is really a conservative, not a liberal. A liberal would have spent money on space exploration without a second thought. I really wish we would someday get a leader who is interested in science and the future of our species.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...that Obama is really a conservative , not a liberal .
A liberal would have spent money on space exploration without a second thought .
I really wish we would someday get a leader who is interested in science and the future of our species .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...that Obama is really a conservative, not a liberal.
A liberal would have spent money on space exploration without a second thought.
I really wish we would someday get a leader who is interested in science and the future of our species.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30000392</id>
	<title>Re:Government Fail.</title>
	<author>Nyeerrmm</author>
	<datestamp>1257418560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sunk costs don't matter for deciding future policy, only costs to complete it matter.  When analyzing whether or not something should be done, you have to consider whether or not the remaining cost is worthwhile.</p><p>The Augustine Report, on which any policy decision is likely to be based lays out the options and considers the completion costs on a 'stay the course' direction.  And the only place where significant sunk costs may be wasted is on Ares 1.  Ares V hasn't been significantly developed, and all options presented by the committee keep Orion on the table, since CCDEV options are only good for LEO missions.  And considering that Ares 1-X, a shuttle SRB with some simulators stacked on top cost $450M (more than all of SpaceX, designing LVs from scratch), I don't have trouble believing that going back to the drawing board with a shuttle-derived system or an EELV may be cheaper.</p><p>Discontinuing a flawed plan despite sunk costs is very responsible, as long as a well-thought-out plan that learns the lessons of previous failures replaces it.  Let's hope that better decisions are made this time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sunk costs do n't matter for deciding future policy , only costs to complete it matter .
When analyzing whether or not something should be done , you have to consider whether or not the remaining cost is worthwhile.The Augustine Report , on which any policy decision is likely to be based lays out the options and considers the completion costs on a 'stay the course ' direction .
And the only place where significant sunk costs may be wasted is on Ares 1 .
Ares V has n't been significantly developed , and all options presented by the committee keep Orion on the table , since CCDEV options are only good for LEO missions .
And considering that Ares 1-X , a shuttle SRB with some simulators stacked on top cost $ 450M ( more than all of SpaceX , designing LVs from scratch ) , I do n't have trouble believing that going back to the drawing board with a shuttle-derived system or an EELV may be cheaper.Discontinuing a flawed plan despite sunk costs is very responsible , as long as a well-thought-out plan that learns the lessons of previous failures replaces it .
Let 's hope that better decisions are made this time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sunk costs don't matter for deciding future policy, only costs to complete it matter.
When analyzing whether or not something should be done, you have to consider whether or not the remaining cost is worthwhile.The Augustine Report, on which any policy decision is likely to be based lays out the options and considers the completion costs on a 'stay the course' direction.
And the only place where significant sunk costs may be wasted is on Ares 1.
Ares V hasn't been significantly developed, and all options presented by the committee keep Orion on the table, since CCDEV options are only good for LEO missions.
And considering that Ares 1-X, a shuttle SRB with some simulators stacked on top cost $450M (more than all of SpaceX, designing LVs from scratch), I don't have trouble believing that going back to the drawing board with a shuttle-derived system or an EELV may be cheaper.Discontinuing a flawed plan despite sunk costs is very responsible, as long as a well-thought-out plan that learns the lessons of previous failures replaces it.
Let's hope that better decisions are made this time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998884</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999102</id>
	<title>To be fair, W and reagan's</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257413040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>were about the same. Both ran up monster deficits for no real reason. Both had economic bumps up front, so, I could not blame them for that spending. BUT, once the economy turned, they both increased the debts and threw money away. Between their debts, invasions of other countries, stealing of American rights, etc, the American dream is about to be the American nightmare.</htmltext>
<tokenext>were about the same .
Both ran up monster deficits for no real reason .
Both had economic bumps up front , so , I could not blame them for that spending .
BUT , once the economy turned , they both increased the debts and threw money away .
Between their debts , invasions of other countries , stealing of American rights , etc , the American dream is about to be the American nightmare .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>were about the same.
Both ran up monster deficits for no real reason.
Both had economic bumps up front, so, I could not blame them for that spending.
BUT, once the economy turned, they both increased the debts and threw money away.
Between their debts, invasions of other countries, stealing of American rights, etc, the American dream is about to be the American nightmare.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30001840</id>
	<title>Re:More proof...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257427020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not the OP, but what he said is no joke. We're talking about a president that praises the free market at every opportunity, refuses to nationalize assets that have been identified as critical but incapable of supporting themselves, refuses to even <em>breathe</em> the phrase "single-payer", it all adds up to a conservative capitalist pig, and your bloviations about his liberalism change that not a whit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not the OP , but what he said is no joke .
We 're talking about a president that praises the free market at every opportunity , refuses to nationalize assets that have been identified as critical but incapable of supporting themselves , refuses to even breathe the phrase " single-payer " , it all adds up to a conservative capitalist pig , and your bloviations about his liberalism change that not a whit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not the OP, but what he said is no joke.
We're talking about a president that praises the free market at every opportunity, refuses to nationalize assets that have been identified as critical but incapable of supporting themselves, refuses to even breathe the phrase "single-payer", it all adds up to a conservative capitalist pig, and your bloviations about his liberalism change that not a whit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999116</id>
	<title>Ares should be funded and continued.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257413100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cancelling Ares I in my opinion would be pretty foolish, especially after so many resources have been invested into it. Its like, they barely funded the project, so that it struggled to produce, and then after they produced a working system, they decide to kill it off. I know conservatives babble on about private space and so on but I am doubtful that those would be as capable as Ares or that they would be any cheaper. More likely, the American tax payer would likely end up spending millions on some wealthy CEOs salary just like what happens with health care now. The problem with NASA not having enough funding can be solved by making sure it is properly funded rather than spending it on these stupid wars.</p><p>It has been said that Obama is not a liberal as a liberal would usually support the national space program instead of wars, along with a single payer health care, and I agree. We will be paying for Bushs mistakes for a while, and now (conservative) Obamas, and the rotten corruption of the conservatives lack of regulation on the banks and the financials, which are throughly republican and conservative, but after years of trying to kill of social welfare programs and the space program, are the first to line up for a huge government handout for their OWN mistakes. The irony, is, the people who have been denied social welfare because they lost their jobs, lost their jobs because of the mistakes of the wealthy elites, including those who totally screwed up GM and so many other American companies and have massively offshored the US jobs offseas, and are taking billion dollar bonuses while they continue to drive the US econom into the ground and screw US workers. Then we reward them with huge bailouts and welfare for the rich!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cancelling Ares I in my opinion would be pretty foolish , especially after so many resources have been invested into it .
Its like , they barely funded the project , so that it struggled to produce , and then after they produced a working system , they decide to kill it off .
I know conservatives babble on about private space and so on but I am doubtful that those would be as capable as Ares or that they would be any cheaper .
More likely , the American tax payer would likely end up spending millions on some wealthy CEOs salary just like what happens with health care now .
The problem with NASA not having enough funding can be solved by making sure it is properly funded rather than spending it on these stupid wars.It has been said that Obama is not a liberal as a liberal would usually support the national space program instead of wars , along with a single payer health care , and I agree .
We will be paying for Bushs mistakes for a while , and now ( conservative ) Obamas , and the rotten corruption of the conservatives lack of regulation on the banks and the financials , which are throughly republican and conservative , but after years of trying to kill of social welfare programs and the space program , are the first to line up for a huge government handout for their OWN mistakes .
The irony , is , the people who have been denied social welfare because they lost their jobs , lost their jobs because of the mistakes of the wealthy elites , including those who totally screwed up GM and so many other American companies and have massively offshored the US jobs offseas , and are taking billion dollar bonuses while they continue to drive the US econom into the ground and screw US workers .
Then we reward them with huge bailouts and welfare for the rich !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cancelling Ares I in my opinion would be pretty foolish, especially after so many resources have been invested into it.
Its like, they barely funded the project, so that it struggled to produce, and then after they produced a working system, they decide to kill it off.
I know conservatives babble on about private space and so on but I am doubtful that those would be as capable as Ares or that they would be any cheaper.
More likely, the American tax payer would likely end up spending millions on some wealthy CEOs salary just like what happens with health care now.
The problem with NASA not having enough funding can be solved by making sure it is properly funded rather than spending it on these stupid wars.It has been said that Obama is not a liberal as a liberal would usually support the national space program instead of wars, along with a single payer health care, and I agree.
We will be paying for Bushs mistakes for a while, and now (conservative) Obamas, and the rotten corruption of the conservatives lack of regulation on the banks and the financials, which are throughly republican and conservative, but after years of trying to kill of social welfare programs and the space program, are the first to line up for a huge government handout for their OWN mistakes.
The irony, is, the people who have been denied social welfare because they lost their jobs, lost their jobs because of the mistakes of the wealthy elites, including those who totally screwed up GM and so many other American companies and have massively offshored the US jobs offseas, and are taking billion dollar bonuses while they continue to drive the US econom into the ground and screw US workers.
Then we reward them with huge bailouts and welfare for the rich!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30005220</id>
	<title>Re:Blew Your Wad Too Early</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257519960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For anyone interested in the evidence that we used as a basis for the WMD/Invasion beliefs, read the book Curveball. It is excellent and really sheds a damning light on our intelligence agencies (as well as the Brits and Germans). In short, we used unvetted information of one rogue defector. The Germans had the guy, but because of a lack of cooperation between agencies, we never had a chance to vet the guys information. Then when the Germans found out this guy was lying or at the very least, misleading us, they didn't want to look bad so hid it even more. It was a giant clusterfuck of stupidity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For anyone interested in the evidence that we used as a basis for the WMD/Invasion beliefs , read the book Curveball .
It is excellent and really sheds a damning light on our intelligence agencies ( as well as the Brits and Germans ) .
In short , we used unvetted information of one rogue defector .
The Germans had the guy , but because of a lack of cooperation between agencies , we never had a chance to vet the guys information .
Then when the Germans found out this guy was lying or at the very least , misleading us , they did n't want to look bad so hid it even more .
It was a giant clusterfuck of stupidity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For anyone interested in the evidence that we used as a basis for the WMD/Invasion beliefs, read the book Curveball.
It is excellent and really sheds a damning light on our intelligence agencies (as well as the Brits and Germans).
In short, we used unvetted information of one rogue defector.
The Germans had the guy, but because of a lack of cooperation between agencies, we never had a chance to vet the guys information.
Then when the Germans found out this guy was lying or at the very least, misleading us, they didn't want to look bad so hid it even more.
It was a giant clusterfuck of stupidity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998796</id>
	<title>Internal Interest</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257411900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder if NASA is going to be able to keep up internal interest on these projects with the way their budget keeps getting cleaved. Hell, I wonder how they managed to keep people onboard, what with a 5 year delay between test flights.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if NASA is going to be able to keep up internal interest on these projects with the way their budget keeps getting cleaved .
Hell , I wonder how they managed to keep people onboard , what with a 5 year delay between test flights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if NASA is going to be able to keep up internal interest on these projects with the way their budget keeps getting cleaved.
Hell, I wonder how they managed to keep people onboard, what with a 5 year delay between test flights.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30000766</id>
	<title>People just don't get it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257420240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not about war (why some responses seem to think it is...) it's not about the money really - it's about politics.</p><p>The government in just a matter of a couple of weeks dedicated $700 BILLION (with a B) to TARP without question.  But they want to cut NASA's budget which is only $17.2 Billion.  What did / would TARP get us?  Hopefully a bandaid over a problem until the economy works itself out.  What would NASA get us?</p><p>NASA is very good about sharing inventions with the world.  To answer that you need to look at what NASA got us economically over the past few decades:</p><p>Joysticks - developed for the Apollo rover, helped spawn a whole generation of consumer video games<br>Kidney dialysis machines<br>GPS Navigation<br>Satellite TV<br>Temperpedic mattresses (and shock-absorbing helmets)<br>Automotive insulation<br>Firefighter suits (based on space suit technology and NASA developed insluation)<br>Smoke detectors (developed for MANNED SPACE FLIGHT &amp; Skylab!)</p><p>And much much more...</p><p>That small investment created thousands of scientists and inventors, spun off no doubt hundreds of new small businesses opened by former NASA employees, and provided entire new markets of consumer products.  Most importantly, it helped us thrive as a technological nation, with a drive to invent and produce that drug us out of the industrial age and into a tech and service market.</p><p>Not to mention, NASA's budget is about one half of one percent of the Federal budget.  In cold-war days it was 5.5\%.  It's like saying "Well now that gas has gotten so expensive, we're not buying any for our family anymore" - despite the fact that how much you spend on gas as a percentage of your overall budget from two decades ago has actually gone down despite the "price" increase.</p><p>We're talking about refusing to fund innovation here.  NASA is a huge machine of innovation that also happens to explore.</p><p>Full article here: http://www.ossramblings.com/is\_nasa\_too\_expensive</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not about war ( why some responses seem to think it is... ) it 's not about the money really - it 's about politics.The government in just a matter of a couple of weeks dedicated $ 700 BILLION ( with a B ) to TARP without question .
But they want to cut NASA 's budget which is only $ 17.2 Billion .
What did / would TARP get us ?
Hopefully a bandaid over a problem until the economy works itself out .
What would NASA get us ? NASA is very good about sharing inventions with the world .
To answer that you need to look at what NASA got us economically over the past few decades : Joysticks - developed for the Apollo rover , helped spawn a whole generation of consumer video gamesKidney dialysis machinesGPS NavigationSatellite TVTemperpedic mattresses ( and shock-absorbing helmets ) Automotive insulationFirefighter suits ( based on space suit technology and NASA developed insluation ) Smoke detectors ( developed for MANNED SPACE FLIGHT &amp; Skylab !
) And much much more...That small investment created thousands of scientists and inventors , spun off no doubt hundreds of new small businesses opened by former NASA employees , and provided entire new markets of consumer products .
Most importantly , it helped us thrive as a technological nation , with a drive to invent and produce that drug us out of the industrial age and into a tech and service market.Not to mention , NASA 's budget is about one half of one percent of the Federal budget .
In cold-war days it was 5.5 \ % .
It 's like saying " Well now that gas has gotten so expensive , we 're not buying any for our family anymore " - despite the fact that how much you spend on gas as a percentage of your overall budget from two decades ago has actually gone down despite the " price " increase.We 're talking about refusing to fund innovation here .
NASA is a huge machine of innovation that also happens to explore.Full article here : http : //www.ossramblings.com/is \ _nasa \ _too \ _expensive</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not about war (why some responses seem to think it is...) it's not about the money really - it's about politics.The government in just a matter of a couple of weeks dedicated $700 BILLION (with a B) to TARP without question.
But they want to cut NASA's budget which is only $17.2 Billion.
What did / would TARP get us?
Hopefully a bandaid over a problem until the economy works itself out.
What would NASA get us?NASA is very good about sharing inventions with the world.
To answer that you need to look at what NASA got us economically over the past few decades:Joysticks - developed for the Apollo rover, helped spawn a whole generation of consumer video gamesKidney dialysis machinesGPS NavigationSatellite TVTemperpedic mattresses (and shock-absorbing helmets)Automotive insulationFirefighter suits (based on space suit technology and NASA developed insluation)Smoke detectors (developed for MANNED SPACE FLIGHT &amp; Skylab!
)And much much more...That small investment created thousands of scientists and inventors, spun off no doubt hundreds of new small businesses opened by former NASA employees, and provided entire new markets of consumer products.
Most importantly, it helped us thrive as a technological nation, with a drive to invent and produce that drug us out of the industrial age and into a tech and service market.Not to mention, NASA's budget is about one half of one percent of the Federal budget.
In cold-war days it was 5.5\%.
It's like saying "Well now that gas has gotten so expensive, we're not buying any for our family anymore" - despite the fact that how much you spend on gas as a percentage of your overall budget from two decades ago has actually gone down despite the "price" increase.We're talking about refusing to fund innovation here.
NASA is a huge machine of innovation that also happens to explore.Full article here: http://www.ossramblings.com/is\_nasa\_too\_expensive</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999078</id>
	<title>Re:More proof...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257412920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Manned space flight != science.</p><p>Not that it isn't worthwhile as a human endeavour.</p><p>Sure, let's spend money on science, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking that manned space flight is an <i>efficient</i> way to do space science.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Manned space flight ! = science.Not that it is n't worthwhile as a human endeavour.Sure , let 's spend money on science , but let 's not delude ourselves into thinking that manned space flight is an efficient way to do space science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Manned space flight != science.Not that it isn't worthwhile as a human endeavour.Sure, let's spend money on science, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking that manned space flight is an efficient way to do space science.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30004794</id>
	<title>Re:Blew Your Wad Too Early</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257516960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Too bad we spend a trillion dollars invading the wrong country based on obvious lies and fabrications. I think we would have been better off spending that money on cool space toys or at least getting Afghanistan right the first time.</p><p>We will be paying for the George W Bush's disastrous presidency for a very long time.</p></div><p>And we will be paying for Obama's money printing spree for MUCH longer than we will be paying on Bush's spending. At least Bush wasn't printing money on a whim like he was in a Monopoly game.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad we spend a trillion dollars invading the wrong country based on obvious lies and fabrications .
I think we would have been better off spending that money on cool space toys or at least getting Afghanistan right the first time.We will be paying for the George W Bush 's disastrous presidency for a very long time.And we will be paying for Obama 's money printing spree for MUCH longer than we will be paying on Bush 's spending .
At least Bush was n't printing money on a whim like he was in a Monopoly game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too bad we spend a trillion dollars invading the wrong country based on obvious lies and fabrications.
I think we would have been better off spending that money on cool space toys or at least getting Afghanistan right the first time.We will be paying for the George W Bush's disastrous presidency for a very long time.And we will be paying for Obama's money printing spree for MUCH longer than we will be paying on Bush's spending.
At least Bush wasn't printing money on a whim like he was in a Monopoly game.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999844</id>
	<title>Re:Space program != science</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1257416160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm am going to play the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False\_Dichotomy" title="wikipedia.org">false dichotomy</a> [wikipedia.org] debuff card on your  fallacy and add an alternative perspective to the game. From the way you presented your comment it sounded as if you were saying that we have the choice to either invest in useful cheaper science here on the ground, or invest in expensive fluff science up in space. I would assert that we can, and should do both. The federal government annual budget is not a simple pie that is divided into a few equally sized proportions. It is made up of thousands of expenditures on everything from federal employee wages to excessively expensive arms contracts to student grants for college assistance. If we cut spending on some of our more absurd money sinks that are not as valuable to science as say, alternative energy and space exploration, we could easily afford to fund useful science like alternative energy and space exploration simultaneously.
<br> <br>
If you take an hour out of your day (really, you have plenty of time left in your life, you can survive 1 hour) to do some poking around over at <a href="http://www.usaspending.gov/" title="usaspending.gov">USASpending.gov</a> [usaspending.gov] you will see figures pop up like the fact that the top five federal contractors this year were:<p><div class="quote"><p>1 LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... $29.748500571 Billion<br>
2 THE BOEING COMPANY<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... $18.231538802 Billion<br>
3 GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... $12.318737574 Billion<br>
4 NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...	$11.900713440 Billion<br>
5 RAYTHEON COMPANY<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... $11.156782353 Billion</p> </div><p>
Now you may already know this, but if not, another hour of research won't kill you, but each of those companies is very diversified in the types of products the provide to their customers. They work on everything from appliances, to housing, to spacecraft. However, a little more research and a little intuition will show you that these companies are, above all else, arms developers. And the majority of their contracts coming from the federal government are those dedicated to developing the new, powerful, absurdly capable weapons that would have been useful in the Cold War, which ended ~20 years ago. If you add up the total monetary value of the contracts provided to these five companies for FY 2009, you see that, together, $88.356272740 Billion (with a B) was awarded to companies that are essentially developing technology to fight a war that fizzled out 20 years ago. Now of course, neither economics or politics are as simple as I am making this out to be, but it does illustrate a point. While these companies probably are also getting plenty of money for advancing science and engineering in general, the mass majority of the spending by the federal government is spent ramping up what is already the most powerful and capable military in the world right now.
<br> <br>
Suppose, for a second, that the war-machine lobby groups could be quelled long enough that the exorbitant level of funds being diverted to arms development and obscure wars on ideas (terrorism, drugs, etc.) could, instead, be cut significantly and diverted instead to, as you put it, meaningful science pursuits. We could, quite easily, save money on a federal level AND fund space exploration (manned and unmanned) AND fund alternative energy AND fund stem cell research AND fund computer infrastructure development etc. Instead, however, we have allowed our federal government to be infiltrated and overtaken by corrupt, greedy, selfish corporate interests. Thus, rather than funding valuable, civil science and tech, we have a government whose spending levels are out of control. A good amount of that spending goes towards funding wars that are sketchy at best, and a dormant lion of a military that needs nothing more than a twitchy trigger finger on its leash to free an unholy uproar of annihilation and chaos.
<br> <br>
In short, our current priorities are the only thing that keep our country from properly funding the sciences that both you, and I, find valuable simultaneously</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm am going to play the false dichotomy [ wikipedia.org ] debuff card on your fallacy and add an alternative perspective to the game .
From the way you presented your comment it sounded as if you were saying that we have the choice to either invest in useful cheaper science here on the ground , or invest in expensive fluff science up in space .
I would assert that we can , and should do both .
The federal government annual budget is not a simple pie that is divided into a few equally sized proportions .
It is made up of thousands of expenditures on everything from federal employee wages to excessively expensive arms contracts to student grants for college assistance .
If we cut spending on some of our more absurd money sinks that are not as valuable to science as say , alternative energy and space exploration , we could easily afford to fund useful science like alternative energy and space exploration simultaneously .
If you take an hour out of your day ( really , you have plenty of time left in your life , you can survive 1 hour ) to do some poking around over at USASpending.gov [ usaspending.gov ] you will see figures pop up like the fact that the top five federal contractors this year were : 1 LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION ... $ 29.748500571 Billion 2 THE BOEING COMPANY ... $ 18.231538802 Billion 3 GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION ... $ 12.318737574 Billion 4 NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION ... $ 11.900713440 Billion 5 RAYTHEON COMPANY ... $ 11.156782353 Billion Now you may already know this , but if not , another hour of research wo n't kill you , but each of those companies is very diversified in the types of products the provide to their customers .
They work on everything from appliances , to housing , to spacecraft .
However , a little more research and a little intuition will show you that these companies are , above all else , arms developers .
And the majority of their contracts coming from the federal government are those dedicated to developing the new , powerful , absurdly capable weapons that would have been useful in the Cold War , which ended ~ 20 years ago .
If you add up the total monetary value of the contracts provided to these five companies for FY 2009 , you see that , together , $ 88.356272740 Billion ( with a B ) was awarded to companies that are essentially developing technology to fight a war that fizzled out 20 years ago .
Now of course , neither economics or politics are as simple as I am making this out to be , but it does illustrate a point .
While these companies probably are also getting plenty of money for advancing science and engineering in general , the mass majority of the spending by the federal government is spent ramping up what is already the most powerful and capable military in the world right now .
Suppose , for a second , that the war-machine lobby groups could be quelled long enough that the exorbitant level of funds being diverted to arms development and obscure wars on ideas ( terrorism , drugs , etc .
) could , instead , be cut significantly and diverted instead to , as you put it , meaningful science pursuits .
We could , quite easily , save money on a federal level AND fund space exploration ( manned and unmanned ) AND fund alternative energy AND fund stem cell research AND fund computer infrastructure development etc .
Instead , however , we have allowed our federal government to be infiltrated and overtaken by corrupt , greedy , selfish corporate interests .
Thus , rather than funding valuable , civil science and tech , we have a government whose spending levels are out of control .
A good amount of that spending goes towards funding wars that are sketchy at best , and a dormant lion of a military that needs nothing more than a twitchy trigger finger on its leash to free an unholy uproar of annihilation and chaos .
In short , our current priorities are the only thing that keep our country from properly funding the sciences that both you , and I , find valuable simultaneously</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm am going to play the false dichotomy [wikipedia.org] debuff card on your  fallacy and add an alternative perspective to the game.
From the way you presented your comment it sounded as if you were saying that we have the choice to either invest in useful cheaper science here on the ground, or invest in expensive fluff science up in space.
I would assert that we can, and should do both.
The federal government annual budget is not a simple pie that is divided into a few equally sized proportions.
It is made up of thousands of expenditures on everything from federal employee wages to excessively expensive arms contracts to student grants for college assistance.
If we cut spending on some of our more absurd money sinks that are not as valuable to science as say, alternative energy and space exploration, we could easily afford to fund useful science like alternative energy and space exploration simultaneously.
If you take an hour out of your day (really, you have plenty of time left in your life, you can survive 1 hour) to do some poking around over at USASpending.gov [usaspending.gov] you will see figures pop up like the fact that the top five federal contractors this year were:1 LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION ... $29.748500571 Billion
2 THE BOEING COMPANY ... $18.231538802 Billion
3 GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION ... $12.318737574 Billion
4 NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION ...	$11.900713440 Billion
5 RAYTHEON COMPANY ... $11.156782353 Billion 
Now you may already know this, but if not, another hour of research won't kill you, but each of those companies is very diversified in the types of products the provide to their customers.
They work on everything from appliances, to housing, to spacecraft.
However, a little more research and a little intuition will show you that these companies are, above all else, arms developers.
And the majority of their contracts coming from the federal government are those dedicated to developing the new, powerful, absurdly capable weapons that would have been useful in the Cold War, which ended ~20 years ago.
If you add up the total monetary value of the contracts provided to these five companies for FY 2009, you see that, together, $88.356272740 Billion (with a B) was awarded to companies that are essentially developing technology to fight a war that fizzled out 20 years ago.
Now of course, neither economics or politics are as simple as I am making this out to be, but it does illustrate a point.
While these companies probably are also getting plenty of money for advancing science and engineering in general, the mass majority of the spending by the federal government is spent ramping up what is already the most powerful and capable military in the world right now.
Suppose, for a second, that the war-machine lobby groups could be quelled long enough that the exorbitant level of funds being diverted to arms development and obscure wars on ideas (terrorism, drugs, etc.
) could, instead, be cut significantly and diverted instead to, as you put it, meaningful science pursuits.
We could, quite easily, save money on a federal level AND fund space exploration (manned and unmanned) AND fund alternative energy AND fund stem cell research AND fund computer infrastructure development etc.
Instead, however, we have allowed our federal government to be infiltrated and overtaken by corrupt, greedy, selfish corporate interests.
Thus, rather than funding valuable, civil science and tech, we have a government whose spending levels are out of control.
A good amount of that spending goes towards funding wars that are sketchy at best, and a dormant lion of a military that needs nothing more than a twitchy trigger finger on its leash to free an unholy uproar of annihilation and chaos.
In short, our current priorities are the only thing that keep our country from properly funding the sciences that both you, and I, find valuable simultaneously
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998952</id>
	<title>Re:More proof...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257412500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...that Obama is really a conservative, not a liberal.</p></div><p>I hope you're joking...</p><p>I suppose in some very liberal circles, Obama is conservative<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... if you use "conservative" as a "relative" term.  But you usually don't use it in a relative term without stating what it is relative to.  A conservative democrat?  A conservative republican?  Conservative conservative?</p><p>Anyway, Obama seems to be more "populist" than anything.  He won based on his popularity and charisma, not so much his liberal or conservative policies.  From my viewpoint, Obama is very liberal.  But then, I'm very conservative.  So there you have it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...that Obama is really a conservative , not a liberal.I hope you 're joking...I suppose in some very liberal circles , Obama is conservative ... if you use " conservative " as a " relative " term .
But you usually do n't use it in a relative term without stating what it is relative to .
A conservative democrat ?
A conservative republican ?
Conservative conservative ? Anyway , Obama seems to be more " populist " than anything .
He won based on his popularity and charisma , not so much his liberal or conservative policies .
From my viewpoint , Obama is very liberal .
But then , I 'm very conservative .
So there you have it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...that Obama is really a conservative, not a liberal.I hope you're joking...I suppose in some very liberal circles, Obama is conservative ... if you use "conservative" as a "relative" term.
But you usually don't use it in a relative term without stating what it is relative to.
A conservative democrat?
A conservative republican?
Conservative conservative?Anyway, Obama seems to be more "populist" than anything.
He won based on his popularity and charisma, not so much his liberal or conservative policies.
From my viewpoint, Obama is very liberal.
But then, I'm very conservative.
So there you have it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999370</id>
	<title>Making Hay</title>
	<author>Nethemas the Great</author>
	<datestamp>1257414180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The summary is trying to make hay.  There are other tests already on the board between now and the 2014 Ares I-Y test flight.  Project managers simply decided that the objectives of that particular test fly could be achieved by other means (test flights) thereby saving the program unnecessary expenses.  A very helpful thing considering their already tight budget.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary is trying to make hay .
There are other tests already on the board between now and the 2014 Ares I-Y test flight .
Project managers simply decided that the objectives of that particular test fly could be achieved by other means ( test flights ) thereby saving the program unnecessary expenses .
A very helpful thing considering their already tight budget .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary is trying to make hay.
There are other tests already on the board between now and the 2014 Ares I-Y test flight.
Project managers simply decided that the objectives of that particular test fly could be achieved by other means (test flights) thereby saving the program unnecessary expenses.
A very helpful thing considering their already tight budget.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30000794</id>
	<title>Re:Internal Interest</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1257420420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So far, the NASA budget hasn't been <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA\_Budget" title="wikipedia.org">"cleaved"</a> [wikipedia.org] (I interpret that as a significant year to year cut) since the 70s aside from a few years in the late 90's when the US underwent a serious effort to cut overall spending.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So far , the NASA budget has n't been " cleaved " [ wikipedia.org ] ( I interpret that as a significant year to year cut ) since the 70s aside from a few years in the late 90 's when the US underwent a serious effort to cut overall spending .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So far, the NASA budget hasn't been "cleaved" [wikipedia.org] (I interpret that as a significant year to year cut) since the 70s aside from a few years in the late 90's when the US underwent a serious effort to cut overall spending.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30002584</id>
	<title>Re:Blew Your Wad Too Early</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257434940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When did / turn into The Huffington Post?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When did / turn into The Huffington Post ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When did / turn into The Huffington Post?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999146</id>
	<title>Obama might also increase the funds, no?</title>
	<author>blind biker</author>
	<datestamp>1257413220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Change you can believe and stuff? What better than a daring scientific project of national proportions to catalyze the United States, to unite the minds and the hearts of all the people, to inspire them, to give them hope and a vision?</p><p>During the Apollo missions America had a dream larger than life, a vision that propelled her forward for decades to come. The creativity, genius and overpowering enthusiasm that this country showed was what, I think, eventually broke the USSR - the Star Wars "threat" was so much more frightening to the Soviets, because they (the old gard, anyway) still had in mind the Apollo missions and thought that these crazy yankees might just pull this off!</p><p>America is now just a shell of its former self - a gigantic trade and budget deficit, a country wholly subservient to foreign (mostly arab) oil, and almost bought out by the Chinese government.</p><p>You want a stimulus, one that will really stimulate all the people, all their endevours, all their emotions? Give NASA more, much more money, and tell them to dream big!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Change you can believe and stuff ?
What better than a daring scientific project of national proportions to catalyze the United States , to unite the minds and the hearts of all the people , to inspire them , to give them hope and a vision ? During the Apollo missions America had a dream larger than life , a vision that propelled her forward for decades to come .
The creativity , genius and overpowering enthusiasm that this country showed was what , I think , eventually broke the USSR - the Star Wars " threat " was so much more frightening to the Soviets , because they ( the old gard , anyway ) still had in mind the Apollo missions and thought that these crazy yankees might just pull this off ! America is now just a shell of its former self - a gigantic trade and budget deficit , a country wholly subservient to foreign ( mostly arab ) oil , and almost bought out by the Chinese government.You want a stimulus , one that will really stimulate all the people , all their endevours , all their emotions ?
Give NASA more , much more money , and tell them to dream big !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Change you can believe and stuff?
What better than a daring scientific project of national proportions to catalyze the United States, to unite the minds and the hearts of all the people, to inspire them, to give them hope and a vision?During the Apollo missions America had a dream larger than life, a vision that propelled her forward for decades to come.
The creativity, genius and overpowering enthusiasm that this country showed was what, I think, eventually broke the USSR - the Star Wars "threat" was so much more frightening to the Soviets, because they (the old gard, anyway) still had in mind the Apollo missions and thought that these crazy yankees might just pull this off!America is now just a shell of its former self - a gigantic trade and budget deficit, a country wholly subservient to foreign (mostly arab) oil, and almost bought out by the Chinese government.You want a stimulus, one that will really stimulate all the people, all their endevours, all their emotions?
Give NASA more, much more money, and tell them to dream big!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30000596</id>
	<title>Re:Space program != science</title>
	<author>Geoffrey.landis</author>
	<datestamp>1257419520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And if we were overflowing in riches right now, I'd say let's go for it.</p><p>But the practical fact of the situation is that space exploration is only one miniscule part of science, and it is very, <i>very</i> expensive.</p></div><p>The correct statement is "space exploration is only one miniscule part of science, and it is ridiculously cheap."
</p><p>At the moment, the whole NASA budget-- research, robotic exploration, human exploration, aeronautics, all of it-- is less than half of a percent of the federal budget.  Too small to even see on the pie charts.  That's cheap cheap cheap.
</p><p>Here's my proposal.  Let's fund NASA with five percent of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military\_budget\_of\_the\_United\_States" title="wikipedia.org">US military budget</a> [wikipedia.org]-- that is, for every dollar the military gets, a nickel goes to NASA.  This will have the result of roughly <i>tripling</i> NASAs funding.  Sound good?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And if we were overflowing in riches right now , I 'd say let 's go for it.But the practical fact of the situation is that space exploration is only one miniscule part of science , and it is very , very expensive.The correct statement is " space exploration is only one miniscule part of science , and it is ridiculously cheap .
" At the moment , the whole NASA budget-- research , robotic exploration , human exploration , aeronautics , all of it-- is less than half of a percent of the federal budget .
Too small to even see on the pie charts .
That 's cheap cheap cheap .
Here 's my proposal .
Let 's fund NASA with five percent of the US military budget [ wikipedia.org ] -- that is , for every dollar the military gets , a nickel goes to NASA .
This will have the result of roughly tripling NASAs funding .
Sound good ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And if we were overflowing in riches right now, I'd say let's go for it.But the practical fact of the situation is that space exploration is only one miniscule part of science, and it is very, very expensive.The correct statement is "space exploration is only one miniscule part of science, and it is ridiculously cheap.
"
At the moment, the whole NASA budget-- research, robotic exploration, human exploration, aeronautics, all of it-- is less than half of a percent of the federal budget.
Too small to even see on the pie charts.
That's cheap cheap cheap.
Here's my proposal.
Let's fund NASA with five percent of the US military budget [wikipedia.org]-- that is, for every dollar the military gets, a nickel goes to NASA.
This will have the result of roughly tripling NASAs funding.
Sound good?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999230</id>
	<title>Re:More proof...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257413580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're calling him a conservative? Wow.  I am not sure he could describe a conservative (smaller government, less taxation, less spending, less private sector involvement, and the ability to make military decisions rather than ignoring the bloodiest month in Afghanistan).</p><p>Considering the trillion dollars spent toward our deficit with no honest gain (car sales and house sales that correlate directly with government money are not honest gains), I'd say it points more toward his own incompetence than an unwillingness to spend.</p><p>After all, what decision has he made other than to wastefully spend money? It certainly hasn't been anything dealing with Afghanistan or Iraq.</p><p>I'd say the chances for NASA are good, in terms of getting funding, but in terms of getting funding for useful projects, I'd say they are probably not going to do so well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're calling him a conservative ?
Wow. I am not sure he could describe a conservative ( smaller government , less taxation , less spending , less private sector involvement , and the ability to make military decisions rather than ignoring the bloodiest month in Afghanistan ) .Considering the trillion dollars spent toward our deficit with no honest gain ( car sales and house sales that correlate directly with government money are not honest gains ) , I 'd say it points more toward his own incompetence than an unwillingness to spend.After all , what decision has he made other than to wastefully spend money ?
It certainly has n't been anything dealing with Afghanistan or Iraq.I 'd say the chances for NASA are good , in terms of getting funding , but in terms of getting funding for useful projects , I 'd say they are probably not going to do so well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're calling him a conservative?
Wow.  I am not sure he could describe a conservative (smaller government, less taxation, less spending, less private sector involvement, and the ability to make military decisions rather than ignoring the bloodiest month in Afghanistan).Considering the trillion dollars spent toward our deficit with no honest gain (car sales and house sales that correlate directly with government money are not honest gains), I'd say it points more toward his own incompetence than an unwillingness to spend.After all, what decision has he made other than to wastefully spend money?
It certainly hasn't been anything dealing with Afghanistan or Iraq.I'd say the chances for NASA are good, in terms of getting funding, but in terms of getting funding for useful projects, I'd say they are probably not going to do so well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999000</id>
	<title>Sad, but kind of Accurate</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1257412680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Far too many ppl think that NASA and other RD programs do better under conservatives, but Nixon, reagan, and W were by far the worst presidents WRT NASA, or any spending on RD programs. To be fair, reagan did massive cuts in civilian programs (nsf, nasa, nih, etc), but he did increase funding to DARPA (not as much as the cuts).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Far too many ppl think that NASA and other RD programs do better under conservatives , but Nixon , reagan , and W were by far the worst presidents WRT NASA , or any spending on RD programs .
To be fair , reagan did massive cuts in civilian programs ( nsf , nasa , nih , etc ) , but he did increase funding to DARPA ( not as much as the cuts ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Far too many ppl think that NASA and other RD programs do better under conservatives, but Nixon, reagan, and W were by far the worst presidents WRT NASA, or any spending on RD programs.
To be fair, reagan did massive cuts in civilian programs (nsf, nasa, nih, etc), but he did increase funding to DARPA (not as much as the cuts).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30004612</id>
	<title>Re:Space program != science</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1257514260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, Barack Oursaviour says "Change we need! Cut military spending by 40\%!" and the world rejoices.<br> <br>It <i>sounds</i> like a troll, it <i>looks</i> like a troll, but it also <i>makes sense</i>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , Barack Oursaviour says " Change we need !
Cut military spending by 40 \ % !
" and the world rejoices .
It sounds like a troll , it looks like a troll , but it also makes sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, Barack Oursaviour says "Change we need!
Cut military spending by 40\%!
" and the world rejoices.
It sounds like a troll, it looks like a troll, but it also makes sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998926</id>
	<title>Re:Blew Your Wad Too Early</title>
	<author>ColdWetDog</author>
	<datestamp>1257412440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>We will be paying for the George W Bush's disastrous presidency for a very long time.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Don't worry, <i>we</i> aren't paying for it.  Our putative children (and their children) will be paying for it.  We just put in on the big VISA card in the sky.<br> <br>
Ka-Ching!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We will be paying for the George W Bush 's disastrous presidency for a very long time .
Do n't worry , we are n't paying for it .
Our putative children ( and their children ) will be paying for it .
We just put in on the big VISA card in the sky .
Ka-Ching !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We will be paying for the George W Bush's disastrous presidency for a very long time.
Don't worry, we aren't paying for it.
Our putative children (and their children) will be paying for it.
We just put in on the big VISA card in the sky.
Ka-Ching!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999538</id>
	<title>Re:Blew Your Wad Too Early</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1257414840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>We just spent almost a trillion in one year as a "stimulus" that has apparently helped nothing... and if it has, very little and it's really hard to tell and it appears that a lot of it is being wasted.</i></p><p>So, wait, let me get this straight... it's "really hard to tell" if the stimulus has done anything.  But, despite that admission, in the very same sentence, you claim it has "apparently helped nothing... and if it has, very little".</p><p>Uhuh.</p><p>Yup, definitely a clear, unbiased, level-headed analysis, there...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We just spent almost a trillion in one year as a " stimulus " that has apparently helped nothing... and if it has , very little and it 's really hard to tell and it appears that a lot of it is being wasted.So , wait , let me get this straight... it 's " really hard to tell " if the stimulus has done anything .
But , despite that admission , in the very same sentence , you claim it has " apparently helped nothing... and if it has , very little " .Uhuh.Yup , definitely a clear , unbiased , level-headed analysis , there.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We just spent almost a trillion in one year as a "stimulus" that has apparently helped nothing... and if it has, very little and it's really hard to tell and it appears that a lot of it is being wasted.So, wait, let me get this straight... it's "really hard to tell" if the stimulus has done anything.
But, despite that admission, in the very same sentence, you claim it has "apparently helped nothing... and if it has, very little".Uhuh.Yup, definitely a clear, unbiased, level-headed analysis, there...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998760</id>
	<title>To whom it may concern:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257411600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First post.</p><p>Suck it long and hard,<br>Anonymous coward.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First post.Suck it long and hard,Anonymous coward .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First post.Suck it long and hard,Anonymous coward.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998818</id>
	<title>Re:More proof...</title>
	<author>Captain Splendid</author>
	<datestamp>1257411960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Somebody doesn't love his karma!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Somebody does n't love his karma !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somebody doesn't love his karma!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999046</id>
	<title>Space program != science</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257412800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I really wish we would someday get a leader who is interested in science and the future of our species.</p></div></blockquote><p>Have you seen his energy initiatives?  You can pursue science and "the future of our species" without spending billions on pie-in-the-sky space projects.</p><p>Don't get me wrong, I'm a space junkie.  I like Battlestar Galactica just like any other red-blooded American geek.  And if we were overflowing in riches right now, I'd say let's go for it.</p><p>But the practical fact of the situation is that space exploration is only one miniscule part of science, and it is very, <i>very</i> expensive.  Yes, you make engineering discoveries, and some of it is really glamorous on the 6:00 news.  But if you're looking for bang for your buck, let's be honest.  You can pursue science that is much cheaper and which has much more immediate gains by investing in stuff like developing alternative energy, beefing up our computing infrastructure, etc.</p><p>Just because money isn't spent on the stuff that you personally think is neat doesn't mean that it's not being well-spent or being put to productive use.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really wish we would someday get a leader who is interested in science and the future of our species.Have you seen his energy initiatives ?
You can pursue science and " the future of our species " without spending billions on pie-in-the-sky space projects.Do n't get me wrong , I 'm a space junkie .
I like Battlestar Galactica just like any other red-blooded American geek .
And if we were overflowing in riches right now , I 'd say let 's go for it.But the practical fact of the situation is that space exploration is only one miniscule part of science , and it is very , very expensive .
Yes , you make engineering discoveries , and some of it is really glamorous on the 6 : 00 news .
But if you 're looking for bang for your buck , let 's be honest .
You can pursue science that is much cheaper and which has much more immediate gains by investing in stuff like developing alternative energy , beefing up our computing infrastructure , etc.Just because money is n't spent on the stuff that you personally think is neat does n't mean that it 's not being well-spent or being put to productive use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really wish we would someday get a leader who is interested in science and the future of our species.Have you seen his energy initiatives?
You can pursue science and "the future of our species" without spending billions on pie-in-the-sky space projects.Don't get me wrong, I'm a space junkie.
I like Battlestar Galactica just like any other red-blooded American geek.
And if we were overflowing in riches right now, I'd say let's go for it.But the practical fact of the situation is that space exploration is only one miniscule part of science, and it is very, very expensive.
Yes, you make engineering discoveries, and some of it is really glamorous on the 6:00 news.
But if you're looking for bang for your buck, let's be honest.
You can pursue science that is much cheaper and which has much more immediate gains by investing in stuff like developing alternative energy, beefing up our computing infrastructure, etc.Just because money isn't spent on the stuff that you personally think is neat doesn't mean that it's not being well-spent or being put to productive use.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999766</id>
	<title>Merge NASA with DoD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257415800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let NASA compete for a bigger slice of the green pie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let NASA compete for a bigger slice of the green pie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let NASA compete for a bigger slice of the green pie.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30000516</id>
	<title>Re:Obama might also increase the funds, no?</title>
	<author>mewsenews</author>
	<datestamp>1257419100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>America is now just a shell of its former self - a gigantic trade and budget deficit, a country wholly subservient to foreign (mostly arab) oil, and almost bought out by the Chinese government.</p></div></blockquote><p>You've answered your own question about why America will not return to her glory days. More NASA funding would be nice, but the country is still embroiled in Iraq and the economy is still reeling. The government owns General Motors. The shining beacon of individual liberty and "can-do" capitalism has been forever tarnished.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>America is now just a shell of its former self - a gigantic trade and budget deficit , a country wholly subservient to foreign ( mostly arab ) oil , and almost bought out by the Chinese government.You 've answered your own question about why America will not return to her glory days .
More NASA funding would be nice , but the country is still embroiled in Iraq and the economy is still reeling .
The government owns General Motors .
The shining beacon of individual liberty and " can-do " capitalism has been forever tarnished .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>America is now just a shell of its former self - a gigantic trade and budget deficit, a country wholly subservient to foreign (mostly arab) oil, and almost bought out by the Chinese government.You've answered your own question about why America will not return to her glory days.
More NASA funding would be nice, but the country is still embroiled in Iraq and the economy is still reeling.
The government owns General Motors.
The shining beacon of individual liberty and "can-do" capitalism has been forever tarnished.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999900</id>
	<title>Re:Blew Your Wad Too Early</title>
	<author>Aereus</author>
	<datestamp>1257416400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Our national debt went from 4 trillion to over 8 trillion during Bush's tenure in what was supposedly very good economic times. The economic policies pursued during that same administration led to the greatest economic meltdown the country has seen in 80 years. The stimulus package planning was begun under the Bush administration, and finalized in the early months under Obama in order to partially mitigate the poor choices made by our banks and Wall Street.</p><p>A number of recent economic markers are pointing to the economy starting to be on the way up again -- I would say that 12-18 months turnaround on this depression is fairly quick compared to recessions of the past. FDR's economic policies in the 30s may have been shocking back then, but Americans expect far more "socialist" programs out of their government nowadays. Not spending any money certainly wouldn't lead to less unemployment, and very likely would cause the depression to last longer as the banks are still hesitant to do any sort of major lending -- which leads to companies hesitant to do new hiring.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Our national debt went from 4 trillion to over 8 trillion during Bush 's tenure in what was supposedly very good economic times .
The economic policies pursued during that same administration led to the greatest economic meltdown the country has seen in 80 years .
The stimulus package planning was begun under the Bush administration , and finalized in the early months under Obama in order to partially mitigate the poor choices made by our banks and Wall Street.A number of recent economic markers are pointing to the economy starting to be on the way up again -- I would say that 12-18 months turnaround on this depression is fairly quick compared to recessions of the past .
FDR 's economic policies in the 30s may have been shocking back then , but Americans expect far more " socialist " programs out of their government nowadays .
Not spending any money certainly would n't lead to less unemployment , and very likely would cause the depression to last longer as the banks are still hesitant to do any sort of major lending -- which leads to companies hesitant to do new hiring .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our national debt went from 4 trillion to over 8 trillion during Bush's tenure in what was supposedly very good economic times.
The economic policies pursued during that same administration led to the greatest economic meltdown the country has seen in 80 years.
The stimulus package planning was begun under the Bush administration, and finalized in the early months under Obama in order to partially mitigate the poor choices made by our banks and Wall Street.A number of recent economic markers are pointing to the economy starting to be on the way up again -- I would say that 12-18 months turnaround on this depression is fairly quick compared to recessions of the past.
FDR's economic policies in the 30s may have been shocking back then, but Americans expect far more "socialist" programs out of their government nowadays.
Not spending any money certainly wouldn't lead to less unemployment, and very likely would cause the depression to last longer as the banks are still hesitant to do any sort of major lending -- which leads to companies hesitant to do new hiring.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999054</id>
	<title>Re:Blew Your Wad Too Early</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257412860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Too bad we spend a trillion dollars invading the wrong country based on obvious lies and fabrications.</p></div><p>Over what, eight years?</p><p>We just spent almost a trillion <i>in one year</i> as a "stimulus" that has apparently helped nothing... and if it has, very little and it's really hard to tell and it appears that a lot of it is being wasted.  As one economist put it, it's like taking a trillion out of your left pocket and putting it in your right pocket; no net gain.  And the current administration is trying to say that it's working, but that higher unemployment is still on its way... so the economy is getting better and employment is getting worse.  *scratches head*</p><p>But pardon me for interrupting your hate-Bush-more-than-anything-else party.  Just wanted to mention that the current administration appears to like spending more and spending faster... and seems to like it a lot more than the previous administration... to the extent that while promising to get rid of wasteful spending, I haven't heard of a single spending <i>cut</i> - only dramatic increases that appear to have done negligible good...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad we spend a trillion dollars invading the wrong country based on obvious lies and fabrications.Over what , eight years ? We just spent almost a trillion in one year as a " stimulus " that has apparently helped nothing... and if it has , very little and it 's really hard to tell and it appears that a lot of it is being wasted .
As one economist put it , it 's like taking a trillion out of your left pocket and putting it in your right pocket ; no net gain .
And the current administration is trying to say that it 's working , but that higher unemployment is still on its way... so the economy is getting better and employment is getting worse .
* scratches head * But pardon me for interrupting your hate-Bush-more-than-anything-else party .
Just wanted to mention that the current administration appears to like spending more and spending faster... and seems to like it a lot more than the previous administration... to the extent that while promising to get rid of wasteful spending , I have n't heard of a single spending cut - only dramatic increases that appear to have done negligible good.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too bad we spend a trillion dollars invading the wrong country based on obvious lies and fabrications.Over what, eight years?We just spent almost a trillion in one year as a "stimulus" that has apparently helped nothing... and if it has, very little and it's really hard to tell and it appears that a lot of it is being wasted.
As one economist put it, it's like taking a trillion out of your left pocket and putting it in your right pocket; no net gain.
And the current administration is trying to say that it's working, but that higher unemployment is still on its way... so the economy is getting better and employment is getting worse.
*scratches head*But pardon me for interrupting your hate-Bush-more-than-anything-else party.
Just wanted to mention that the current administration appears to like spending more and spending faster... and seems to like it a lot more than the previous administration... to the extent that while promising to get rid of wasteful spending, I haven't heard of a single spending cut - only dramatic increases that appear to have done negligible good...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30001932</id>
	<title>I'll raise you a false dichotomy...</title>
	<author>KingSkippus</author>
	<datestamp>1257427860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I never said that other programs don't need to be cut.  I hope that the insane amount of money that we spend on the military is, in fact, cut quite a bit and repurposed.  I also never implied that we must only engage in one scientific endeavor at a time, either.</p><p>I only said that given that there are a finite number of dollars budgeted for scientific research, which will <i>always</i> be true, that most space "stuff" is pretty low on the list of priorities.</p><p>I'll happily stand with you in trying to get that finite number of dollars increased, especially by reprioritizing science in general relative to other things such as insane military budgets.  If it happens, then maybe we can talk again about how those dollars should be spent, and yeah, maybe the space program will once again be worth it, in its proper place given the new budget.</p><p>Until then, I stand by my post.  There are far more useful ways that we could be spending the dollars that we have, and it doesn't upset me very much that, given the budgets we have to work with, the space program is suffering from a lack of funding.  If it means allocating those funds to more productive scientific endeavors, I'm not against cutting it even further.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I never said that other programs do n't need to be cut .
I hope that the insane amount of money that we spend on the military is , in fact , cut quite a bit and repurposed .
I also never implied that we must only engage in one scientific endeavor at a time , either.I only said that given that there are a finite number of dollars budgeted for scientific research , which will always be true , that most space " stuff " is pretty low on the list of priorities.I 'll happily stand with you in trying to get that finite number of dollars increased , especially by reprioritizing science in general relative to other things such as insane military budgets .
If it happens , then maybe we can talk again about how those dollars should be spent , and yeah , maybe the space program will once again be worth it , in its proper place given the new budget.Until then , I stand by my post .
There are far more useful ways that we could be spending the dollars that we have , and it does n't upset me very much that , given the budgets we have to work with , the space program is suffering from a lack of funding .
If it means allocating those funds to more productive scientific endeavors , I 'm not against cutting it even further .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never said that other programs don't need to be cut.
I hope that the insane amount of money that we spend on the military is, in fact, cut quite a bit and repurposed.
I also never implied that we must only engage in one scientific endeavor at a time, either.I only said that given that there are a finite number of dollars budgeted for scientific research, which will always be true, that most space "stuff" is pretty low on the list of priorities.I'll happily stand with you in trying to get that finite number of dollars increased, especially by reprioritizing science in general relative to other things such as insane military budgets.
If it happens, then maybe we can talk again about how those dollars should be spent, and yeah, maybe the space program will once again be worth it, in its proper place given the new budget.Until then, I stand by my post.
There are far more useful ways that we could be spending the dollars that we have, and it doesn't upset me very much that, given the budgets we have to work with, the space program is suffering from a lack of funding.
If it means allocating those funds to more productive scientific endeavors, I'm not against cutting it even further.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999166</id>
	<title>FRIST STOP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257413340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">right now. I tried, 200 runningj NT tired arguments Members all over</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>right now .
I tried , 200 runningj NT tired arguments Members all over [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>right now.
I tried, 200 runningj NT tired arguments Members all over [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999666</id>
	<title>Re:Blew Your Wad Too Early</title>
	<author>megamerican</author>
	<datestamp>1257415320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Too bad we spend a trillion dollars invading the wrong country based on obvious lies and fabrications. I think we would have been better off spending that money on cool space toys or at least getting Afghanistan right the first time.</p><p>We will be paying for the George W Bush's disastrous presidency for a very long time.</p></div><p>There really is no reason for us to be in <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/hp/ssi/wpc/ResignationLetter.pdf" title="washingtonpost.com" rel="nofollow">Afghanistan either</a> [washingtonpost.com], but the media and White House has framed the debate on whether we sould "stay the course" or add more troops. That is the exact stupid debate we had about Iraq a few years ago. Our only support is from local warlords who don't care about our laws and are only loyal to us because we give them taxpayer money and allow them to engage in the drug trade. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/world/asia/28intel.html?\_r=2" title="nytimes.com" rel="nofollow">Even the NYtimes admits</a> [nytimes.com] that the Presidents brother is in charge of a lot of the drug running and is on the payroll of the CIA.</p><p>The Afghanistan War was never about getting Osama bin Laden. The FBI still doesn't list 9/11 as one of the reasons why he is a Wanted person because they have no proof he was involved. The only "proof" is a video released in December 2001, supposedly found in a house in Afghanistan which supposedly had bin Laden admitting to being involved in the plot. The US media were the only ones to not question its authenticity.</p><p>Why can't people get past the obvious shell game being played?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad we spend a trillion dollars invading the wrong country based on obvious lies and fabrications .
I think we would have been better off spending that money on cool space toys or at least getting Afghanistan right the first time.We will be paying for the George W Bush 's disastrous presidency for a very long time.There really is no reason for us to be in Afghanistan either [ washingtonpost.com ] , but the media and White House has framed the debate on whether we sould " stay the course " or add more troops .
That is the exact stupid debate we had about Iraq a few years ago .
Our only support is from local warlords who do n't care about our laws and are only loyal to us because we give them taxpayer money and allow them to engage in the drug trade .
Even the NYtimes admits [ nytimes.com ] that the Presidents brother is in charge of a lot of the drug running and is on the payroll of the CIA.The Afghanistan War was never about getting Osama bin Laden .
The FBI still does n't list 9/11 as one of the reasons why he is a Wanted person because they have no proof he was involved .
The only " proof " is a video released in December 2001 , supposedly found in a house in Afghanistan which supposedly had bin Laden admitting to being involved in the plot .
The US media were the only ones to not question its authenticity.Why ca n't people get past the obvious shell game being played ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too bad we spend a trillion dollars invading the wrong country based on obvious lies and fabrications.
I think we would have been better off spending that money on cool space toys or at least getting Afghanistan right the first time.We will be paying for the George W Bush's disastrous presidency for a very long time.There really is no reason for us to be in Afghanistan either [washingtonpost.com], but the media and White House has framed the debate on whether we sould "stay the course" or add more troops.
That is the exact stupid debate we had about Iraq a few years ago.
Our only support is from local warlords who don't care about our laws and are only loyal to us because we give them taxpayer money and allow them to engage in the drug trade.
Even the NYtimes admits [nytimes.com] that the Presidents brother is in charge of a lot of the drug running and is on the payroll of the CIA.The Afghanistan War was never about getting Osama bin Laden.
The FBI still doesn't list 9/11 as one of the reasons why he is a Wanted person because they have no proof he was involved.
The only "proof" is a video released in December 2001, supposedly found in a house in Afghanistan which supposedly had bin Laden admitting to being involved in the plot.
The US media were the only ones to not question its authenticity.Why can't people get past the obvious shell game being played?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30009384</id>
	<title>Be a real shame if NASA cancelled Ares</title>
	<author>physburn</author>
	<datestamp>1257500520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its might not be an inoviative program, but it would work with
sufficient funding, with Ares, or a modern launcher, moon
and mars exploration is most likely finished for the next decade
at least. That is unless the US decides to help fund a international
program for space. But an international program would more than
likely be bogged down in politics.
<p>
---
</p><p>
<a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/blogs/space\%20craft/feed.html" title="feeddistiller.com">Space Craft</a> [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ <a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/" title="feeddistiller.com">Feed Distiller</a> [feeddistiller.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its might not be an inoviative program , but it would work with sufficient funding , with Ares , or a modern launcher , moon and mars exploration is most likely finished for the next decade at least .
That is unless the US decides to help fund a international program for space .
But an international program would more than likely be bogged down in politics .
--- Space Craft [ feeddistiller.com ] Feed @ Feed Distiller [ feeddistiller.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its might not be an inoviative program, but it would work with
sufficient funding, with Ares, or a modern launcher, moon
and mars exploration is most likely finished for the next decade
at least.
That is unless the US decides to help fund a international
program for space.
But an international program would more than
likely be bogged down in politics.
---

Space Craft [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999204</id>
	<title>Re:More proof...</title>
	<author>Profane MuthaFucka</author>
	<datestamp>1257413460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another comment from another guy who doesn't understand anything.</p><p>In other words, how are those low low deficits from Republican presidents working out for you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another comment from another guy who does n't understand anything.In other words , how are those low low deficits from Republican presidents working out for you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another comment from another guy who doesn't understand anything.In other words, how are those low low deficits from Republican presidents working out for you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30003812</id>
	<title>Re:Blew Your Wad Too Early</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1257500520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I only have a few classes in macroeconomics, but I have a fair bit more in industrial economics. My analysis of the situation, looking at it more like a company:</p><p>If you don't got liquid capital, the company can't function. You need that for inventory, paying off suppliers and day-to-day operations that generation income. In my world money normally doesn't fall from the sky, so usually you would talk about selling assets to get more cash. Pouring money into the economy can help the liquidity situation.</p><p>However liquidity is only a fix for your cash flow, it's not a fix for spending more money than you have in the first place. You see this with excessive credit card use, they take up new debt to pay off the interest on old debt in a death spiral because their cash flow is good but the profit/loss statement is crap. We had exactly the same in business simulations, a cash strapped company could be helped with liquids but doing the same in a business losing money it only increased your interest payments making it even harder to turn a profit.</p><p>Even in macroeconomics, with the global economy you can not print money like you used to. The moment you set up the US dollar to lose value to cheat away your debts, the investors would abandon it in droves and really kill the economy. You also see it on global interest rates, the other central banks around the world follow each other so you can't keep a sustained interest difference just because you want to. I don't think it's really all that different from my world at all.</p><p>So did the stimulus package help? Well it might have helped to not kill off reasonably sound businesses that would otherwise fail due to short term cash flow, but it will not fix the economy. That requires a much more deeper fix that can't be done by moving around debts, The world's investors aren't more stupid that they can read a country's "balance sheet" with assets and debts and figure out where it's going just as easily as a company's. And if the US was a company, I'd say many red lights are blinking...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I only have a few classes in macroeconomics , but I have a fair bit more in industrial economics .
My analysis of the situation , looking at it more like a company : If you do n't got liquid capital , the company ca n't function .
You need that for inventory , paying off suppliers and day-to-day operations that generation income .
In my world money normally does n't fall from the sky , so usually you would talk about selling assets to get more cash .
Pouring money into the economy can help the liquidity situation.However liquidity is only a fix for your cash flow , it 's not a fix for spending more money than you have in the first place .
You see this with excessive credit card use , they take up new debt to pay off the interest on old debt in a death spiral because their cash flow is good but the profit/loss statement is crap .
We had exactly the same in business simulations , a cash strapped company could be helped with liquids but doing the same in a business losing money it only increased your interest payments making it even harder to turn a profit.Even in macroeconomics , with the global economy you can not print money like you used to .
The moment you set up the US dollar to lose value to cheat away your debts , the investors would abandon it in droves and really kill the economy .
You also see it on global interest rates , the other central banks around the world follow each other so you ca n't keep a sustained interest difference just because you want to .
I do n't think it 's really all that different from my world at all.So did the stimulus package help ?
Well it might have helped to not kill off reasonably sound businesses that would otherwise fail due to short term cash flow , but it will not fix the economy .
That requires a much more deeper fix that ca n't be done by moving around debts , The world 's investors are n't more stupid that they can read a country 's " balance sheet " with assets and debts and figure out where it 's going just as easily as a company 's .
And if the US was a company , I 'd say many red lights are blinking.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I only have a few classes in macroeconomics, but I have a fair bit more in industrial economics.
My analysis of the situation, looking at it more like a company:If you don't got liquid capital, the company can't function.
You need that for inventory, paying off suppliers and day-to-day operations that generation income.
In my world money normally doesn't fall from the sky, so usually you would talk about selling assets to get more cash.
Pouring money into the economy can help the liquidity situation.However liquidity is only a fix for your cash flow, it's not a fix for spending more money than you have in the first place.
You see this with excessive credit card use, they take up new debt to pay off the interest on old debt in a death spiral because their cash flow is good but the profit/loss statement is crap.
We had exactly the same in business simulations, a cash strapped company could be helped with liquids but doing the same in a business losing money it only increased your interest payments making it even harder to turn a profit.Even in macroeconomics, with the global economy you can not print money like you used to.
The moment you set up the US dollar to lose value to cheat away your debts, the investors would abandon it in droves and really kill the economy.
You also see it on global interest rates, the other central banks around the world follow each other so you can't keep a sustained interest difference just because you want to.
I don't think it's really all that different from my world at all.So did the stimulus package help?
Well it might have helped to not kill off reasonably sound businesses that would otherwise fail due to short term cash flow, but it will not fix the economy.
That requires a much more deeper fix that can't be done by moving around debts, The world's investors aren't more stupid that they can read a country's "balance sheet" with assets and debts and figure out where it's going just as easily as a company's.
And if the US was a company, I'd say many red lights are blinking...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998884</id>
	<title>Government Fail.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257412260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So Bush initiates Project Constellation, and at a time when it's barely started, after lots of time and resources have been plown into structuring the project, it's on the verge of being shut down?</p><p>Well, if it's shut down, at least we saw some cool flames at the back of a rocket!111 Durr...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So Bush initiates Project Constellation , and at a time when it 's barely started , after lots of time and resources have been plown into structuring the project , it 's on the verge of being shut down ? Well , if it 's shut down , at least we saw some cool flames at the back of a rocket ! 111 Durr.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So Bush initiates Project Constellation, and at a time when it's barely started, after lots of time and resources have been plown into structuring the project, it's on the verge of being shut down?Well, if it's shut down, at least we saw some cool flames at the back of a rocket!111 Durr...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30001222</id>
	<title>Re:Ares should be funded and continued.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257422460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you kidding me?  Regulation and oversight was blocked by the Democratic lead Congress in 2002.</p><p>I fully endorse the idea that both parties are full of corruption, and I do not call myself a Republican. However, the spending spree and the level of stupidity coming out of the Democratic party is unmatchable. They <b>already</b> want <a href="http://www.senseoncents.com/2009/06/barack-and-barney-look-to-further-plunder-freddie-and-fannie/" title="senseoncents.com" rel="nofollow">Freddie Mae and other lenders to give the high risk loans</a> [senseoncents.com] that got them into the situation in the first place (I do not read the person's blog, but I found it as my Google search... use links from it to get other sources).</p><p>So, point your finger at the Democrats as they not only leverage government to buy these bad loans, but restart the whole process that they created by requiring these loan offerings in the late 90's.</p><p>Go be a tool somewhere else. And in no world is Obama a conservative--he may be more conservative than <b>you</b>, but he is not right of center.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you kidding me ?
Regulation and oversight was blocked by the Democratic lead Congress in 2002.I fully endorse the idea that both parties are full of corruption , and I do not call myself a Republican .
However , the spending spree and the level of stupidity coming out of the Democratic party is unmatchable .
They already want Freddie Mae and other lenders to give the high risk loans [ senseoncents.com ] that got them into the situation in the first place ( I do not read the person 's blog , but I found it as my Google search... use links from it to get other sources ) .So , point your finger at the Democrats as they not only leverage government to buy these bad loans , but restart the whole process that they created by requiring these loan offerings in the late 90 's.Go be a tool somewhere else .
And in no world is Obama a conservative--he may be more conservative than you , but he is not right of center .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you kidding me?
Regulation and oversight was blocked by the Democratic lead Congress in 2002.I fully endorse the idea that both parties are full of corruption, and I do not call myself a Republican.
However, the spending spree and the level of stupidity coming out of the Democratic party is unmatchable.
They already want Freddie Mae and other lenders to give the high risk loans [senseoncents.com] that got them into the situation in the first place (I do not read the person's blog, but I found it as my Google search... use links from it to get other sources).So, point your finger at the Democrats as they not only leverage government to buy these bad loans, but restart the whole process that they created by requiring these loan offerings in the late 90's.Go be a tool somewhere else.
And in no world is Obama a conservative--he may be more conservative than you, but he is not right of center.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999432</id>
	<title>Re:More proof...</title>
	<author>SECProto</author>
	<datestamp>1257414420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, conservative is always used in a relative sense - see for example the Conservative Party of Canada. While they are quite conservative relative to most Canadians and Canadian political parties, they really would not be branded as such south of the 49th.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , conservative is always used in a relative sense - see for example the Conservative Party of Canada .
While they are quite conservative relative to most Canadians and Canadian political parties , they really would not be branded as such south of the 49th .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, conservative is always used in a relative sense - see for example the Conservative Party of Canada.
While they are quite conservative relative to most Canadians and Canadian political parties, they really would not be branded as such south of the 49th.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999568</id>
	<title>Re:More proof...</title>
	<author>kevinNCSU</author>
	<datestamp>1257414960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure not spending money on space flight in a conservative philosophy as I at least would consider space abilities to be very much in line with providing for the national defense.  There's a lot of overlapping technology and abilities in that realm and most conservatives don't have a problem with the government spending money on programs that are huge boons to our technology/industry/defense sectors.  I've lived in both New York and conservative North Carolina and I've never heard any backwoods Conservatives down there complaining about spending money on NASA.  But I have heard a lot of saved the world through government programs liberals complain about spending money on space flight when we could be feeding people instead.  In reality I think there are people on both sides of the fence that support it and people on both sides of the fence that don't</p><p>Either way the one thing we POSITIVELY want to avoid is anyone managing to label supporting space exploration as a "liberal" or "conservative" policy and having party lines drawn on the issue as that way we'll never get it done.  Space Exploration isn't something we can accomplish during the time span that one party is in power, it has to be a common endeavor supported by the entire nation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure not spending money on space flight in a conservative philosophy as I at least would consider space abilities to be very much in line with providing for the national defense .
There 's a lot of overlapping technology and abilities in that realm and most conservatives do n't have a problem with the government spending money on programs that are huge boons to our technology/industry/defense sectors .
I 've lived in both New York and conservative North Carolina and I 've never heard any backwoods Conservatives down there complaining about spending money on NASA .
But I have heard a lot of saved the world through government programs liberals complain about spending money on space flight when we could be feeding people instead .
In reality I think there are people on both sides of the fence that support it and people on both sides of the fence that don'tEither way the one thing we POSITIVELY want to avoid is anyone managing to label supporting space exploration as a " liberal " or " conservative " policy and having party lines drawn on the issue as that way we 'll never get it done .
Space Exploration is n't something we can accomplish during the time span that one party is in power , it has to be a common endeavor supported by the entire nation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure not spending money on space flight in a conservative philosophy as I at least would consider space abilities to be very much in line with providing for the national defense.
There's a lot of overlapping technology and abilities in that realm and most conservatives don't have a problem with the government spending money on programs that are huge boons to our technology/industry/defense sectors.
I've lived in both New York and conservative North Carolina and I've never heard any backwoods Conservatives down there complaining about spending money on NASA.
But I have heard a lot of saved the world through government programs liberals complain about spending money on space flight when we could be feeding people instead.
In reality I think there are people on both sides of the fence that support it and people on both sides of the fence that don'tEither way the one thing we POSITIVELY want to avoid is anyone managing to label supporting space exploration as a "liberal" or "conservative" policy and having party lines drawn on the issue as that way we'll never get it done.
Space Exploration isn't something we can accomplish during the time span that one party is in power, it has to be a common endeavor supported by the entire nation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30001404</id>
	<title>Re:Ares should be funded and continued.</title>
	<author>Grishnakh</author>
	<datestamp>1257423600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Dems and the Reps are both equally corrupt, and amazingly so.</p><p>Single-payer health care sounds like a good idea, but what Obama is trying to pass isn't the answer.  He wants to socialize the costs of everyone's health care across the entire taxpayer base, but he doesn't want to do anything to actually fix the reason that healthcare costs SO much.  Healthcare has gotten expensive because of malpractice, malpractice insurance, and litigation.  Obama doesn't want to fix any of that, because that's not good for his lawyer buddies or his friends at the insurance companies.  Instead, he wants to keep healthcare expensive as hell, keep the useless insurance companies as an unnecessary middle-man, and force taxpayers to pay for it all.</p><p>Just look at all the crap he's spent money on in his short term: bailing out rich insurance and financial companies, "cash for clunkers" and bailouts for big auto companies.  What has he done for average Americans?  Nothing.  He could have gotten behind the "4/40 Freedom Loan" initiative to help homeowners stay in their houses and reduce the rate of foreclosures, but he (and the rest of the corrupt Dems) didn't want to annoy their rich buddies at the financial companies that they had just given billions of dollars to for nothing, so they ignored it.</p><p>The Dems and the Reps are just tools for the rich elites; they just cater to different groups of rich elites, and the Dems pander to poor people and union workers to vote for them, while the Reps pander to religious nuts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Dems and the Reps are both equally corrupt , and amazingly so.Single-payer health care sounds like a good idea , but what Obama is trying to pass is n't the answer .
He wants to socialize the costs of everyone 's health care across the entire taxpayer base , but he does n't want to do anything to actually fix the reason that healthcare costs SO much .
Healthcare has gotten expensive because of malpractice , malpractice insurance , and litigation .
Obama does n't want to fix any of that , because that 's not good for his lawyer buddies or his friends at the insurance companies .
Instead , he wants to keep healthcare expensive as hell , keep the useless insurance companies as an unnecessary middle-man , and force taxpayers to pay for it all.Just look at all the crap he 's spent money on in his short term : bailing out rich insurance and financial companies , " cash for clunkers " and bailouts for big auto companies .
What has he done for average Americans ?
Nothing. He could have gotten behind the " 4/40 Freedom Loan " initiative to help homeowners stay in their houses and reduce the rate of foreclosures , but he ( and the rest of the corrupt Dems ) did n't want to annoy their rich buddies at the financial companies that they had just given billions of dollars to for nothing , so they ignored it.The Dems and the Reps are just tools for the rich elites ; they just cater to different groups of rich elites , and the Dems pander to poor people and union workers to vote for them , while the Reps pander to religious nuts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Dems and the Reps are both equally corrupt, and amazingly so.Single-payer health care sounds like a good idea, but what Obama is trying to pass isn't the answer.
He wants to socialize the costs of everyone's health care across the entire taxpayer base, but he doesn't want to do anything to actually fix the reason that healthcare costs SO much.
Healthcare has gotten expensive because of malpractice, malpractice insurance, and litigation.
Obama doesn't want to fix any of that, because that's not good for his lawyer buddies or his friends at the insurance companies.
Instead, he wants to keep healthcare expensive as hell, keep the useless insurance companies as an unnecessary middle-man, and force taxpayers to pay for it all.Just look at all the crap he's spent money on in his short term: bailing out rich insurance and financial companies, "cash for clunkers" and bailouts for big auto companies.
What has he done for average Americans?
Nothing.  He could have gotten behind the "4/40 Freedom Loan" initiative to help homeowners stay in their houses and reduce the rate of foreclosures, but he (and the rest of the corrupt Dems) didn't want to annoy their rich buddies at the financial companies that they had just given billions of dollars to for nothing, so they ignored it.The Dems and the Reps are just tools for the rich elites; they just cater to different groups of rich elites, and the Dems pander to poor people and union workers to vote for them, while the Reps pander to religious nuts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998840</id>
	<title>Blew Your Wad Too Early</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257412080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Too bad we spend a trillion dollars invading the wrong country based on obvious lies and fabrications. I think we would have been better off spending that money on cool space toys or at least getting Afghanistan right the first time.</p><p>We will be paying for the George W Bush's disastrous presidency for a very long time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad we spend a trillion dollars invading the wrong country based on obvious lies and fabrications .
I think we would have been better off spending that money on cool space toys or at least getting Afghanistan right the first time.We will be paying for the George W Bush 's disastrous presidency for a very long time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too bad we spend a trillion dollars invading the wrong country based on obvious lies and fabrications.
I think we would have been better off spending that money on cool space toys or at least getting Afghanistan right the first time.We will be paying for the George W Bush's disastrous presidency for a very long time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998918</id>
	<title>5 years?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257412380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It will take 5 more years to get another one ready for testing?  Clearly someone else (yea, I know, the nazi) was running things back in the old days when they went from speech to stepping on the moon in about 8 years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It will take 5 more years to get another one ready for testing ?
Clearly someone else ( yea , I know , the nazi ) was running things back in the old days when they went from speech to stepping on the moon in about 8 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It will take 5 more years to get another one ready for testing?
Clearly someone else (yea, I know, the nazi) was running things back in the old days when they went from speech to stepping on the moon in about 8 years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30002206</id>
	<title>Re:Internal Interest</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257430980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you are just running a jobs program its actually better to do as little as possible.  Hardware and launches cost money reducing funds available for salaries.  As long as Congress and the President let's them get away with it, and keeps sending them a few billion each year, it would be ideal to schedule the next launch in the 2040 time frame, which is practically what they are already doing.</p><p>If you've watched NASA over the years, especially when they are doing new launch vehicles they ALWAYS produce awesome computer animations of what it would look like if they actually built it, and then they never do.  I'm assuming Congress, being not very bright, are fooled by the animation and think they are getting actual space vehicles and launches for the billions.</p><p>They also run an awesome 24/7 TV channel to show all the awesome computer animations they do.  I think they should start running reality TV shows and an American idol spinoff on it, sell commercials and they could fund their hardware, if they actually wanted to build spacecraft anymore which I don't think they really do.</p><p>The other dynamic going on here is I think NASA would actually like to continue the status quo and just spend all the money on a few shuttle launches a year, watch the ISS spin around the earth and do research no one understands or values.  This is really the safest and easiest job program.  Developing and testing new launch vehicles is really hard.  They have the 100 meter high pile of paper necessary to do a shuttle launch nailed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are just running a jobs program its actually better to do as little as possible .
Hardware and launches cost money reducing funds available for salaries .
As long as Congress and the President let 's them get away with it , and keeps sending them a few billion each year , it would be ideal to schedule the next launch in the 2040 time frame , which is practically what they are already doing.If you 've watched NASA over the years , especially when they are doing new launch vehicles they ALWAYS produce awesome computer animations of what it would look like if they actually built it , and then they never do .
I 'm assuming Congress , being not very bright , are fooled by the animation and think they are getting actual space vehicles and launches for the billions.They also run an awesome 24/7 TV channel to show all the awesome computer animations they do .
I think they should start running reality TV shows and an American idol spinoff on it , sell commercials and they could fund their hardware , if they actually wanted to build spacecraft anymore which I do n't think they really do.The other dynamic going on here is I think NASA would actually like to continue the status quo and just spend all the money on a few shuttle launches a year , watch the ISS spin around the earth and do research no one understands or values .
This is really the safest and easiest job program .
Developing and testing new launch vehicles is really hard .
They have the 100 meter high pile of paper necessary to do a shuttle launch nailed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are just running a jobs program its actually better to do as little as possible.
Hardware and launches cost money reducing funds available for salaries.
As long as Congress and the President let's them get away with it, and keeps sending them a few billion each year, it would be ideal to schedule the next launch in the 2040 time frame, which is practically what they are already doing.If you've watched NASA over the years, especially when they are doing new launch vehicles they ALWAYS produce awesome computer animations of what it would look like if they actually built it, and then they never do.
I'm assuming Congress, being not very bright, are fooled by the animation and think they are getting actual space vehicles and launches for the billions.They also run an awesome 24/7 TV channel to show all the awesome computer animations they do.
I think they should start running reality TV shows and an American idol spinoff on it, sell commercials and they could fund their hardware, if they actually wanted to build spacecraft anymore which I don't think they really do.The other dynamic going on here is I think NASA would actually like to continue the status quo and just spend all the money on a few shuttle launches a year, watch the ISS spin around the earth and do research no one understands or values.
This is really the safest and easiest job program.
Developing and testing new launch vehicles is really hard.
They have the 100 meter high pile of paper necessary to do a shuttle launch nailed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30001192</id>
	<title>Re:More proof...</title>
	<author>Grishnakh</author>
	<datestamp>1257422340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um, no.  A true liberal wouldn't "waste" money on anything that could promote the economy (by creating new technologies and new businesses), and would instead want to spend that money on social programs to help "disadvantaged" people who would then use that money to buy booze, drugs, or have more kids to get more benefits, who would all then need free lunches at schools.</p><p>What Obama is, I'm not exactly sure.  I think he's more of a statist/leftist who wants to create a giant government to build more power for himself and his cronies and corporate benefactors, and appease the voting masses with some hand-outs which don't cost much.  After all, look at his actions: he's spent giant fortunes bailing out failing companies run by rich people, which has done nothing but further enrich these people and not help regular Americans at all.  He's continued useless wars which only serve the military-industrial complex, and get regular Americans killed.  And he's been working hard to pass a healthcare "reform" which wouldn't reform healthcare at all, but would only spread out the giant costs of litigation and malpractice to all taxpayers, instead of actually reforming the system to reduce these costs (which are why healthcare costs so much these days).  Basically, he doesn't want to do anything to hurt his corporate bosses in the insurance and legal industries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um , no .
A true liberal would n't " waste " money on anything that could promote the economy ( by creating new technologies and new businesses ) , and would instead want to spend that money on social programs to help " disadvantaged " people who would then use that money to buy booze , drugs , or have more kids to get more benefits , who would all then need free lunches at schools.What Obama is , I 'm not exactly sure .
I think he 's more of a statist/leftist who wants to create a giant government to build more power for himself and his cronies and corporate benefactors , and appease the voting masses with some hand-outs which do n't cost much .
After all , look at his actions : he 's spent giant fortunes bailing out failing companies run by rich people , which has done nothing but further enrich these people and not help regular Americans at all .
He 's continued useless wars which only serve the military-industrial complex , and get regular Americans killed .
And he 's been working hard to pass a healthcare " reform " which would n't reform healthcare at all , but would only spread out the giant costs of litigation and malpractice to all taxpayers , instead of actually reforming the system to reduce these costs ( which are why healthcare costs so much these days ) .
Basically , he does n't want to do anything to hurt his corporate bosses in the insurance and legal industries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um, no.
A true liberal wouldn't "waste" money on anything that could promote the economy (by creating new technologies and new businesses), and would instead want to spend that money on social programs to help "disadvantaged" people who would then use that money to buy booze, drugs, or have more kids to get more benefits, who would all then need free lunches at schools.What Obama is, I'm not exactly sure.
I think he's more of a statist/leftist who wants to create a giant government to build more power for himself and his cronies and corporate benefactors, and appease the voting masses with some hand-outs which don't cost much.
After all, look at his actions: he's spent giant fortunes bailing out failing companies run by rich people, which has done nothing but further enrich these people and not help regular Americans at all.
He's continued useless wars which only serve the military-industrial complex, and get regular Americans killed.
And he's been working hard to pass a healthcare "reform" which wouldn't reform healthcare at all, but would only spread out the giant costs of litigation and malpractice to all taxpayers, instead of actually reforming the system to reduce these costs (which are why healthcare costs so much these days).
Basically, he doesn't want to do anything to hurt his corporate bosses in the insurance and legal industries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30004168</id>
	<title>Re:Blew Your Wad Too Early</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1257506640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>getting Afghanistan right the first time</p></div><p>Yeah, because a country with a completely different philosophy of its community, were everybody in the last 1000 years literally failed, will be possible to "get right" (for your view of "right", which is not the Afghans' view of "right" anyway).</p><p>My father is Afghan. And I can tell you: It's not worth it! Please just leave the country alone, everybody. The only ones who could help, would be those with similar philosophies. (In Afghanistan it's all a big hierarchy of respect. Nobody is going to vote against the one above him [e.g. the clan leader]. Not because of fear of what could happen. But because it's the basic philosophy. So "democracy" can't work by <em>definition</em>. And it's also not needed.)</p><p>So what you may see as "getting it right", can be "imposing unnatural values on the people" for them. And nobody of you is wrong, in his view on reality. Also, nobody's view is somehow worse. Unless you happen to be arrogant and egocentric. Which I don't think you are.)</p><p>Of course, as Afghanistan was just a strategic battleground for other regimes since forever... (The cold war was not cold at all. It was in fact very hot. But it was an indirect "war by proxy". Sometimes the US took a dummy nation to fight for them. Sometimes the Soviet Union did. But always, Afghans or people of the other dummy nations died.)</p><p>So everybody get over yourselves, and leave the once green and beautiful country, that now is a mountain of rubble, alone. Thank you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>getting Afghanistan right the first timeYeah , because a country with a completely different philosophy of its community , were everybody in the last 1000 years literally failed , will be possible to " get right " ( for your view of " right " , which is not the Afghans ' view of " right " anyway ) .My father is Afghan .
And I can tell you : It 's not worth it !
Please just leave the country alone , everybody .
The only ones who could help , would be those with similar philosophies .
( In Afghanistan it 's all a big hierarchy of respect .
Nobody is going to vote against the one above him [ e.g .
the clan leader ] .
Not because of fear of what could happen .
But because it 's the basic philosophy .
So " democracy " ca n't work by definition .
And it 's also not needed .
) So what you may see as " getting it right " , can be " imposing unnatural values on the people " for them .
And nobody of you is wrong , in his view on reality .
Also , nobody 's view is somehow worse .
Unless you happen to be arrogant and egocentric .
Which I do n't think you are .
) Of course , as Afghanistan was just a strategic battleground for other regimes since forever... ( The cold war was not cold at all .
It was in fact very hot .
But it was an indirect " war by proxy " .
Sometimes the US took a dummy nation to fight for them .
Sometimes the Soviet Union did .
But always , Afghans or people of the other dummy nations died .
) So everybody get over yourselves , and leave the once green and beautiful country , that now is a mountain of rubble , alone .
Thank you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>getting Afghanistan right the first timeYeah, because a country with a completely different philosophy of its community, were everybody in the last 1000 years literally failed, will be possible to "get right" (for your view of "right", which is not the Afghans' view of "right" anyway).My father is Afghan.
And I can tell you: It's not worth it!
Please just leave the country alone, everybody.
The only ones who could help, would be those with similar philosophies.
(In Afghanistan it's all a big hierarchy of respect.
Nobody is going to vote against the one above him [e.g.
the clan leader].
Not because of fear of what could happen.
But because it's the basic philosophy.
So "democracy" can't work by definition.
And it's also not needed.
)So what you may see as "getting it right", can be "imposing unnatural values on the people" for them.
And nobody of you is wrong, in his view on reality.
Also, nobody's view is somehow worse.
Unless you happen to be arrogant and egocentric.
Which I don't think you are.
)Of course, as Afghanistan was just a strategic battleground for other regimes since forever... (The cold war was not cold at all.
It was in fact very hot.
But it was an indirect "war by proxy".
Sometimes the US took a dummy nation to fight for them.
Sometimes the Soviet Union did.
But always, Afghans or people of the other dummy nations died.
)So everybody get over yourselves, and leave the once green and beautiful country, that now is a mountain of rubble, alone.
Thank you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30000910</id>
	<title>Re:More proof...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257420960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its hard for a person to be really a visionary and convince the people that he *is* a visionary. People believe whatever they see and are told.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its hard for a person to be really a visionary and convince the people that he * is * a visionary .
People believe whatever they see and are told .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its hard for a person to be really a visionary and convince the people that he *is* a visionary.
People believe whatever they see and are told.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30000236</id>
	<title>Re:Space program != science</title>
	<author>WayGoneDoug</author>
	<datestamp>1257417780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are good, species preserving reasons to continue developing our launch capabilities. As I said in my blog: One of the things that has been obscured by all the hand wringing and arm waiving about global warming is the existence of a threat to our planet that is very real and could arise suddenly. That threat is from non-planetary bodies within the solar system: asteroids, comets and other celestial wanderers. While the world's politicians and tree-hugging blowhards rail about the damage climate change might cause, a symposium was held in San Francisco to address a problem that actually could end life on Earth. For the full story see <a href="http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/forget-global-warming-sky-really-could-fall" title="theresilientearth.com" rel="nofollow">http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/forget-global-warming-sky-really-could-fall</a> [theresilientearth.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are good , species preserving reasons to continue developing our launch capabilities .
As I said in my blog : One of the things that has been obscured by all the hand wringing and arm waiving about global warming is the existence of a threat to our planet that is very real and could arise suddenly .
That threat is from non-planetary bodies within the solar system : asteroids , comets and other celestial wanderers .
While the world 's politicians and tree-hugging blowhards rail about the damage climate change might cause , a symposium was held in San Francisco to address a problem that actually could end life on Earth .
For the full story see http : //theresilientearth.com/ ? q = content/forget-global-warming-sky-really-could-fall [ theresilientearth.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are good, species preserving reasons to continue developing our launch capabilities.
As I said in my blog: One of the things that has been obscured by all the hand wringing and arm waiving about global warming is the existence of a threat to our planet that is very real and could arise suddenly.
That threat is from non-planetary bodies within the solar system: asteroids, comets and other celestial wanderers.
While the world's politicians and tree-hugging blowhards rail about the damage climate change might cause, a symposium was held in San Francisco to address a problem that actually could end life on Earth.
For the full story see http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/forget-global-warming-sky-really-could-fall [theresilientearth.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999046</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1915224_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1915224_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30001404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1915224_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1915224_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30001222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1915224_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30000754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1915224_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30002058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1915224_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30000768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1915224_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1915224_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30000794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1915224_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1915224_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30001192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1915224_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1915224_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30001550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1915224_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1915224_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30000516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1915224_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30001840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1915224_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30001932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1915224_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30002206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1915224_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1915224_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30002584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1915224_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1915224_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30004168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1915224_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30005220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1915224_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1915224_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30004794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1915224_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30000596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1915224_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30000910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1915224_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30003812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1915224_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1915224_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30000392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1915224_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1915224_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1915224_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30004612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1915224_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30000236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1915224_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30001426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1915224_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_1915224.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999234
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_1915224.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30001550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30001404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30001222
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_1915224.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30000516
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_1915224.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999046
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30000596
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999844
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30002058
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30004612
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30000754
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30001932
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30000236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998952
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30001840
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30000910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999230
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30000768
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30001192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999000
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_1915224.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30000794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30002206
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_1915224.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30000392
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_1915224.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998918
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_1915224.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998760
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_1915224.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999370
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_1915224.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30002584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29998926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999054
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999538
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30003812
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999900
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999256
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.29999666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30005220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30004168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30004794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1915224.30001426
</commentlist>
</conversation>
