<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_15_1939218</id>
	<title>Genentech Puts Words In the Mouths of Congress Members</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1258278720000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>theodp writes <i>"In the official record of the historic House debate on overhauling health care, the speeches of many lawmakers echo with remarkable similarities. Often, that was no accident. Statements by more than a dozen lawmakers were <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/us/politics/15health.html">ghostwritten by Washington lobbyists working for Genentech</a>. E-mail obtained by the NY Times shows that lobbyists drafted one statement for Democrats and another for Republicans. <a href="http://www.gene.com/">Genentech</a>, a subsidiary of Swiss drug giant Roche, estimates that 42 House members picked up some of its talking points &mdash; 22 Republicans and 20 Democrats, an unusual bipartisan coup for lobbyists. ... The statements were not intended to change the bill, which was not open for much amendment during the debate. They were meant to show bipartisan support for certain provisions, even though the vote on passage generally followed party lines. ... Asked about the Congressional statements, a lobbyist close to Genentech said: 'This happens all the time. There was nothing nefarious about it.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>theodp writes " In the official record of the historic House debate on overhauling health care , the speeches of many lawmakers echo with remarkable similarities .
Often , that was no accident .
Statements by more than a dozen lawmakers were ghostwritten by Washington lobbyists working for Genentech .
E-mail obtained by the NY Times shows that lobbyists drafted one statement for Democrats and another for Republicans .
Genentech , a subsidiary of Swiss drug giant Roche , estimates that 42 House members picked up some of its talking points    22 Republicans and 20 Democrats , an unusual bipartisan coup for lobbyists .
... The statements were not intended to change the bill , which was not open for much amendment during the debate .
They were meant to show bipartisan support for certain provisions , even though the vote on passage generally followed party lines .
... Asked about the Congressional statements , a lobbyist close to Genentech said : 'This happens all the time .
There was nothing nefarious about it .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>theodp writes "In the official record of the historic House debate on overhauling health care, the speeches of many lawmakers echo with remarkable similarities.
Often, that was no accident.
Statements by more than a dozen lawmakers were ghostwritten by Washington lobbyists working for Genentech.
E-mail obtained by the NY Times shows that lobbyists drafted one statement for Democrats and another for Republicans.
Genentech, a subsidiary of Swiss drug giant Roche, estimates that 42 House members picked up some of its talking points — 22 Republicans and 20 Democrats, an unusual bipartisan coup for lobbyists.
... The statements were not intended to change the bill, which was not open for much amendment during the debate.
They were meant to show bipartisan support for certain provisions, even though the vote on passage generally followed party lines.
... Asked about the Congressional statements, a lobbyist close to Genentech said: 'This happens all the time.
There was nothing nefarious about it.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109250</id>
	<title>NYT Paylwall link?</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1258282320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did we all not already have enough links to that screen?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did we all not already have enough links to that screen ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did we all not already have enough links to that screen?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109868</id>
	<title>Re:Hahahahahaha!</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1258286820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So how do I buy into this one of these largest of corporations?</p></div><p>
Perhaps the government will have the treasury print the money for you... oh.. wait.. they are too busy printing money for the largest corporations.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So how do I buy into this one of these largest of corporations ?
Perhaps the government will have the treasury print the money for you... oh.. wait.. they are too busy printing money for the largest corporations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So how do I buy into this one of these largest of corporations?
Perhaps the government will have the treasury print the money for you... oh.. wait.. they are too busy printing money for the largest corporations.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30111136</id>
	<title>Re:Yes We Can</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1258298160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm confused. Which "good ole days" were you talking about? The ones in 1980, 1992, 2000, or 2008?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm confused .
Which " good ole days " were you talking about ?
The ones in 1980 , 1992 , 2000 , or 2008 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm confused.
Which "good ole days" were you talking about?
The ones in 1980, 1992, 2000, or 2008?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30110394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30112180</id>
	<title>Re:We need another party</title>
	<author>Billly Gates</author>
	<datestamp>1258308960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An independent got 20\% of the independent vote in New Jersey. This shows we are not alone on this.</p><p>Too bad the reform party of Perot and Ventura was hijacked and destroyed by Pat Buchannon. Republicans and democrats are at all time lows. Sure the republicans are probably going to win the next elections as many conservatives are upset at Obama and most democrats who voted for him are disillusioned and will stay home. So basically we will have both houses trying to relive Bush and vote no on anything that helps people out with the exception of corporate interests.</p><p>Yes the US has one of the most corrupt governments in the world and there are better democracies. The problem is in these countries its easier to form another party. In the US we just tip the vote to our opponent who most disagrees with our views if we do not select the D or R.</p><p>We need a new leader and one who will create followers who will scare the daylights out of both parties.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An independent got 20 \ % of the independent vote in New Jersey .
This shows we are not alone on this.Too bad the reform party of Perot and Ventura was hijacked and destroyed by Pat Buchannon .
Republicans and democrats are at all time lows .
Sure the republicans are probably going to win the next elections as many conservatives are upset at Obama and most democrats who voted for him are disillusioned and will stay home .
So basically we will have both houses trying to relive Bush and vote no on anything that helps people out with the exception of corporate interests.Yes the US has one of the most corrupt governments in the world and there are better democracies .
The problem is in these countries its easier to form another party .
In the US we just tip the vote to our opponent who most disagrees with our views if we do not select the D or R.We need a new leader and one who will create followers who will scare the daylights out of both parties .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An independent got 20\% of the independent vote in New Jersey.
This shows we are not alone on this.Too bad the reform party of Perot and Ventura was hijacked and destroyed by Pat Buchannon.
Republicans and democrats are at all time lows.
Sure the republicans are probably going to win the next elections as many conservatives are upset at Obama and most democrats who voted for him are disillusioned and will stay home.
So basically we will have both houses trying to relive Bush and vote no on anything that helps people out with the exception of corporate interests.Yes the US has one of the most corrupt governments in the world and there are better democracies.
The problem is in these countries its easier to form another party.
In the US we just tip the vote to our opponent who most disagrees with our views if we do not select the D or R.We need a new leader and one who will create followers who will scare the daylights out of both parties.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30112438</id>
	<title>Re:Puppets!</title>
	<author>DNS-and-BIND</author>
	<datestamp>1258312380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is it me or does there seem to be a concerted attack on the very idea of democracy these days?  As if there is some assumption that only bright educated people can govern?  And that only the Council of Alphas is fit to rule?  It's bright educated people who come up with things like National Socialism and Marxism that cause the deaths of millions.  But hey, as long as it's the dumb uneducated people who are getting killed, who cares really?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it me or does there seem to be a concerted attack on the very idea of democracy these days ?
As if there is some assumption that only bright educated people can govern ?
And that only the Council of Alphas is fit to rule ?
It 's bright educated people who come up with things like National Socialism and Marxism that cause the deaths of millions .
But hey , as long as it 's the dumb uneducated people who are getting killed , who cares really ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it me or does there seem to be a concerted attack on the very idea of democracy these days?
As if there is some assumption that only bright educated people can govern?
And that only the Council of Alphas is fit to rule?
It's bright educated people who come up with things like National Socialism and Marxism that cause the deaths of millions.
But hey, as long as it's the dumb uneducated people who are getting killed, who cares really?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30117036</id>
	<title>Re:Puppets!</title>
	<author>kalirion</author>
	<datestamp>1258394460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, writing speeches is tough work.  And the Congressmen's official speech writers have families they want to come home to.  Can you blame them for plagiarizing a few points from genentech.com/speechsamples4u?  I just hope Genentech doesn't start enforcing their copyrights!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , writing speeches is tough work .
And the Congressmen 's official speech writers have families they want to come home to .
Can you blame them for plagiarizing a few points from genentech.com/speechsamples4u ?
I just hope Genentech does n't start enforcing their copyrights !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, writing speeches is tough work.
And the Congressmen's official speech writers have families they want to come home to.
Can you blame them for plagiarizing a few points from genentech.com/speechsamples4u?
I just hope Genentech doesn't start enforcing their copyrights!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109644</id>
	<title>Re:Puppets!</title>
	<author>F34nor</author>
	<datestamp>1258285140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>kakistocracy - ( )<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Rulership by the worst leader</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>kakistocracy - ( )             Rulership by the worst leader</tokentext>
<sentencetext>kakistocracy - ( )
            Rulership by the worst leader</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30111092</id>
	<title>Re:Yay lobbyist-speak</title>
	<author>lawpoop</author>
	<datestamp>1258297500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You wouldn't believe how many educated people I talked to were certain that president Bush would call martial law and cancel the election before Obama could be voted in (thus becoming emperor). You may have been one of them.</p></div><p>I guess you can call me "one of them". Although, I never thought it was a certainty, just a possibility. <br> <br>During the congressional debates on the bank bailout bill,
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaG9d\_4zij8" title="youtube.com">Representative Brad Sherman related that members of congress were told that martial law would be declared if the bailout bill was not passed.</a> [youtube.com] The damage-control story after Rep. Sherman's revelation was that "martial law" was a metaphorical phrase amongst congresspeople meaning that the House leadership would ram through legislation in spite of the concerns of the larger body. Problem is, the phrase has never been used to mean that. <br> <br>Or at least, I have never encountered a historically documented use of that phrase. Maybe you know of one? <br> <br>After Bush got out of office, we find out that the Bush administration <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/24/cheney-bush-officials-con\_n\_244753.html" title="huffingtonpost.com">wanted to use the military to arrest terror suspects inside of the United States.</a> [huffingtonpost.com]So yeah, it seemed like a real possibility, and after the fact, we find out that they were up to shenanigans like this. I don't think the people who suspected this were so paranoid.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem is a good portion of the US has trouble figuring out how to distinguish good information from bad information.</p></div><p> I suppose you have a universally valid method for doing so?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You would n't believe how many educated people I talked to were certain that president Bush would call martial law and cancel the election before Obama could be voted in ( thus becoming emperor ) .
You may have been one of them.I guess you can call me " one of them " .
Although , I never thought it was a certainty , just a possibility .
During the congressional debates on the bank bailout bill , Representative Brad Sherman related that members of congress were told that martial law would be declared if the bailout bill was not passed .
[ youtube.com ] The damage-control story after Rep. Sherman 's revelation was that " martial law " was a metaphorical phrase amongst congresspeople meaning that the House leadership would ram through legislation in spite of the concerns of the larger body .
Problem is , the phrase has never been used to mean that .
Or at least , I have never encountered a historically documented use of that phrase .
Maybe you know of one ?
After Bush got out of office , we find out that the Bush administration wanted to use the military to arrest terror suspects inside of the United States .
[ huffingtonpost.com ] So yeah , it seemed like a real possibility , and after the fact , we find out that they were up to shenanigans like this .
I do n't think the people who suspected this were so paranoid.The problem is a good portion of the US has trouble figuring out how to distinguish good information from bad information .
I suppose you have a universally valid method for doing so ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You wouldn't believe how many educated people I talked to were certain that president Bush would call martial law and cancel the election before Obama could be voted in (thus becoming emperor).
You may have been one of them.I guess you can call me "one of them".
Although, I never thought it was a certainty, just a possibility.
During the congressional debates on the bank bailout bill,
Representative Brad Sherman related that members of congress were told that martial law would be declared if the bailout bill was not passed.
[youtube.com] The damage-control story after Rep. Sherman's revelation was that "martial law" was a metaphorical phrase amongst congresspeople meaning that the House leadership would ram through legislation in spite of the concerns of the larger body.
Problem is, the phrase has never been used to mean that.
Or at least, I have never encountered a historically documented use of that phrase.
Maybe you know of one?
After Bush got out of office, we find out that the Bush administration wanted to use the military to arrest terror suspects inside of the United States.
[huffingtonpost.com]So yeah, it seemed like a real possibility, and after the fact, we find out that they were up to shenanigans like this.
I don't think the people who suspected this were so paranoid.The problem is a good portion of the US has trouble figuring out how to distinguish good information from bad information.
I suppose you have a universally valid method for doing so?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109316</id>
	<title>"nothing nefarious about it"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258282920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Insofar as there is nothing nefarious about lobbying period.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Insofar as there is nothing nefarious about lobbying period .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Insofar as there is nothing nefarious about lobbying period.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30114282</id>
	<title>my two cents</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1258380180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have absolutely no problem with lobbying on ONE condition:</p><p>They are honest about it and Fully Disclose every penny they spend, and who they spend it on.</p><p>Then the public can be properly upset and mad huffy about it, and the companies pushing the dough will suddenly find that their image with the public, also their customer base, depends on how their lobbyists behave when doing business with politicians.</p><p>Sunshine does a lot of good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have absolutely no problem with lobbying on ONE condition : They are honest about it and Fully Disclose every penny they spend , and who they spend it on.Then the public can be properly upset and mad huffy about it , and the companies pushing the dough will suddenly find that their image with the public , also their customer base , depends on how their lobbyists behave when doing business with politicians.Sunshine does a lot of good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have absolutely no problem with lobbying on ONE condition:They are honest about it and Fully Disclose every penny they spend, and who they spend it on.Then the public can be properly upset and mad huffy about it, and the companies pushing the dough will suddenly find that their image with the public, also their customer base, depends on how their lobbyists behave when doing business with politicians.Sunshine does a lot of good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30118066</id>
	<title>What do you expect?</title>
	<author>rogerz</author>
	<datestamp>1258397760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you want to get the money out of government, get the government out of the economy - and that includes the "health care" economy.  Note that the positions in these statements are completely agnostic as regards the socialization of health care financing in this country.   The companies involved are simply engaging in what they see as business-preserving rent-seeking and attempted regulatory capture.    They are playing the game whose rules were set up by congress.</p><p>No one that supports single payer can have anything principled to say against this - save for "we shouldn't have any private companies/individuals involved in health care at all." Since that's the way we're heading, they will soon have their wish.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to get the money out of government , get the government out of the economy - and that includes the " health care " economy .
Note that the positions in these statements are completely agnostic as regards the socialization of health care financing in this country .
The companies involved are simply engaging in what they see as business-preserving rent-seeking and attempted regulatory capture .
They are playing the game whose rules were set up by congress.No one that supports single payer can have anything principled to say against this - save for " we should n't have any private companies/individuals involved in health care at all .
" Since that 's the way we 're heading , they will soon have their wish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to get the money out of government, get the government out of the economy - and that includes the "health care" economy.
Note that the positions in these statements are completely agnostic as regards the socialization of health care financing in this country.
The companies involved are simply engaging in what they see as business-preserving rent-seeking and attempted regulatory capture.
They are playing the game whose rules were set up by congress.No one that supports single payer can have anything principled to say against this - save for "we shouldn't have any private companies/individuals involved in health care at all.
" Since that's the way we're heading, they will soon have their wish.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30115108</id>
	<title>Re:Yay lobbyist-speak</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258386120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lottery tickets are a bad example.  Most people I know who buy lottery tickets don't do so with the expectation of a return on investment.  They do so because between the time they buy the ticket and the time the winning numbers are revealed, they get a nice slice of hope to lift them up.  It makes them feel better and that's a pretty good deal for $1.</p><p>Much like gambling at a casino is not about winning money to most folks I know.  It's about entertainment.  I know that when I walk into a casino, the money I set aside to gamble with is considered spent on entertainment.  If I win, cool, if I don't, oh well.  I consider gambling money well spent by how good I feel during the time while playing and how long it lasts; not by whether or not I win, let alone how much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lottery tickets are a bad example .
Most people I know who buy lottery tickets do n't do so with the expectation of a return on investment .
They do so because between the time they buy the ticket and the time the winning numbers are revealed , they get a nice slice of hope to lift them up .
It makes them feel better and that 's a pretty good deal for $ 1.Much like gambling at a casino is not about winning money to most folks I know .
It 's about entertainment .
I know that when I walk into a casino , the money I set aside to gamble with is considered spent on entertainment .
If I win , cool , if I do n't , oh well .
I consider gambling money well spent by how good I feel during the time while playing and how long it lasts ; not by whether or not I win , let alone how much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lottery tickets are a bad example.
Most people I know who buy lottery tickets don't do so with the expectation of a return on investment.
They do so because between the time they buy the ticket and the time the winning numbers are revealed, they get a nice slice of hope to lift them up.
It makes them feel better and that's a pretty good deal for $1.Much like gambling at a casino is not about winning money to most folks I know.
It's about entertainment.
I know that when I walk into a casino, the money I set aside to gamble with is considered spent on entertainment.
If I win, cool, if I don't, oh well.
I consider gambling money well spent by how good I feel during the time while playing and how long it lasts; not by whether or not I win, let alone how much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109438</id>
	<title>Yuh huh...</title>
	<author>Colin Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1258283820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which is of course why you want more, bigger government who do everything for you. Because then there will be fewer puppets and more nice fuzzy people who have nothing but your best interests at heart.</p><p>I swear, I'm either going to have to buy a farm somewhere and retire, far away from people, or buy a rifle and start taking random pot shots. Which is cheaper?</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is of course why you want more , bigger government who do everything for you .
Because then there will be fewer puppets and more nice fuzzy people who have nothing but your best interests at heart.I swear , I 'm either going to have to buy a farm somewhere and retire , far away from people , or buy a rifle and start taking random pot shots .
Which is cheaper ?
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is of course why you want more, bigger government who do everything for you.
Because then there will be fewer puppets and more nice fuzzy people who have nothing but your best interests at heart.I swear, I'm either going to have to buy a farm somewhere and retire, far away from people, or buy a rifle and start taking random pot shots.
Which is cheaper?
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109736</id>
	<title>half right</title>
	<author>godless dave</author>
	<datestamp>1258285920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>This happens all the time. There was nothing nefarious about it.</i>
<br>
He's half right. This corruption is so entrenched most of them don't even notice it any more.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This happens all the time .
There was nothing nefarious about it .
He 's half right .
This corruption is so entrenched most of them do n't even notice it any more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This happens all the time.
There was nothing nefarious about it.
He's half right.
This corruption is so entrenched most of them don't even notice it any more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30110712</id>
	<title>Re:Puppets!</title>
	<author>roguetrick</author>
	<datestamp>1258293480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>who are apparently so busy "raising funds"</p></div><p>The sad part is, that actually is a good deal of what they do.  Whenever they get a break out of session, they truck back to the home state to try and get donations for the next election.  Its a fundamentally broken part of our system, and why we need some real campaign finance reform.  The only way to get elected is to get those funds, anyone who doesn't get them gets replaced by someone who can by the voters.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>who are apparently so busy " raising funds " The sad part is , that actually is a good deal of what they do .
Whenever they get a break out of session , they truck back to the home state to try and get donations for the next election .
Its a fundamentally broken part of our system , and why we need some real campaign finance reform .
The only way to get elected is to get those funds , anyone who does n't get them gets replaced by someone who can by the voters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>who are apparently so busy "raising funds"The sad part is, that actually is a good deal of what they do.
Whenever they get a break out of session, they truck back to the home state to try and get donations for the next election.
Its a fundamentally broken part of our system, and why we need some real campaign finance reform.
The only way to get elected is to get those funds, anyone who doesn't get them gets replaced by someone who can by the voters.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30111354</id>
	<title>Man it is really nice,</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1258299960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...to browse with my new Greasemonkey script, that replaces the Republicans and Democrats with $puppet1 and $puppet2.</p><p>Puts things into perspective... Let's see what other words I can repair and free from newspeak.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...to browse with my new Greasemonkey script , that replaces the Republicans and Democrats with $ puppet1 and $ puppet2.Puts things into perspective... Let 's see what other words I can repair and free from newspeak .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...to browse with my new Greasemonkey script, that replaces the Republicans and Democrats with $puppet1 and $puppet2.Puts things into perspective... Let's see what other words I can repair and free from newspeak.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30111476</id>
	<title>Re:Yay lobbyist-speak</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1258300920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uuum, that is the <strong>theory</strong>. But just as much as "working communism" it's a pipe dream of the "love &amp; peace" type of people.</p><p>In reality,<br>nature still works with natural selection,<br>the reason every single one of us exists is still that the genes and ideas of our parents <em>won</em> against those of others or expanded into unused resources / free spaces,<br>we still each and everyone play the game of natural selection. Although nowadays we are advanced enough to use the indirect effects like teamwork.<br>Leaders still are just humans...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and so they still have the "conflict" of their own interests against those that voted for them.</p><p>Because in the end, they are only true to themselves. To us they are only true (and thereby perhaps beneficial), as long as they risk losing their own resources otherwise. And of course one part of the strategy to keep those resources, is to lower the risk of us taking them away.</p><p>It's actually just human nature. That's why it never gets "better". (Depends on who you ask, right? ^^)</p><p>And that is why we would need competency-modulated direct democracy. In which those with the most competence would have the most power.<br>But as competence is relative, that part of their power that is modulated trough our competency rating, would only be power that governs ourselves. So that we couldn't trick the system by mass-tweaking it in our favor. (Yes I know that this is hard to make sense of on the first reading(s). But trust me: If you give it thought, it will make sense. And only if it then upon even further thought stops making sense, can you tell me it's not thought to the end. [Which it really never is ^^ But of course I welcome all useful critique.])</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uuum , that is the theory .
But just as much as " working communism " it 's a pipe dream of the " love &amp; peace " type of people.In reality,nature still works with natural selection,the reason every single one of us exists is still that the genes and ideas of our parents won against those of others or expanded into unused resources / free spaces,we still each and everyone play the game of natural selection .
Although nowadays we are advanced enough to use the indirect effects like teamwork.Leaders still are just humans... ...and so they still have the " conflict " of their own interests against those that voted for them.Because in the end , they are only true to themselves .
To us they are only true ( and thereby perhaps beneficial ) , as long as they risk losing their own resources otherwise .
And of course one part of the strategy to keep those resources , is to lower the risk of us taking them away.It 's actually just human nature .
That 's why it never gets " better " .
( Depends on who you ask , right ?
^ ^ ) And that is why we would need competency-modulated direct democracy .
In which those with the most competence would have the most power.But as competence is relative , that part of their power that is modulated trough our competency rating , would only be power that governs ourselves .
So that we could n't trick the system by mass-tweaking it in our favor .
( Yes I know that this is hard to make sense of on the first reading ( s ) .
But trust me : If you give it thought , it will make sense .
And only if it then upon even further thought stops making sense , can you tell me it 's not thought to the end .
[ Which it really never is ^ ^ But of course I welcome all useful critique .
] )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uuum, that is the theory.
But just as much as "working communism" it's a pipe dream of the "love &amp; peace" type of people.In reality,nature still works with natural selection,the reason every single one of us exists is still that the genes and ideas of our parents won against those of others or expanded into unused resources / free spaces,we still each and everyone play the game of natural selection.
Although nowadays we are advanced enough to use the indirect effects like teamwork.Leaders still are just humans... ...and so they still have the "conflict" of their own interests against those that voted for them.Because in the end, they are only true to themselves.
To us they are only true (and thereby perhaps beneficial), as long as they risk losing their own resources otherwise.
And of course one part of the strategy to keep those resources, is to lower the risk of us taking them away.It's actually just human nature.
That's why it never gets "better".
(Depends on who you ask, right?
^^)And that is why we would need competency-modulated direct democracy.
In which those with the most competence would have the most power.But as competence is relative, that part of their power that is modulated trough our competency rating, would only be power that governs ourselves.
So that we couldn't trick the system by mass-tweaking it in our favor.
(Yes I know that this is hard to make sense of on the first reading(s).
But trust me: If you give it thought, it will make sense.
And only if it then upon even further thought stops making sense, can you tell me it's not thought to the end.
[Which it really never is ^^ But of course I welcome all useful critique.
])</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30119472</id>
	<title>I will kick the first american in the face</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1258402020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>when he comes and talks about how 'good' is the american system and it is the 'best' country to live in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>when he comes and talks about how 'good ' is the american system and it is the 'best ' country to live in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>when he comes and talks about how 'good' is the american system and it is the 'best' country to live in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30110122</id>
	<title>Re:a != b ....as in:</title>
	<author>WheelDweller</author>
	<datestamp>1258288680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Murders happen all the time. They've even been outlawed: still happen: nefarious.</p><p>Baby ducks are born all the time: no laws about it: still happens: non-nefarious.</p><p>What's fun, though, is how, in the midst of "a Republican-caused hurricane Katrina" that a Democrat pulling National Guardsmen to help him save his $90,000 in cash DOES NOT happen all the time [sometimes it's worse!] and that's nefarious.</p><p>So nefarious, after all these years, and not getting re-elected, he finally goes to jail!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Murders happen all the time .
They 've even been outlawed : still happen : nefarious.Baby ducks are born all the time : no laws about it : still happens : non-nefarious.What 's fun , though , is how , in the midst of " a Republican-caused hurricane Katrina " that a Democrat pulling National Guardsmen to help him save his $ 90,000 in cash DOES NOT happen all the time [ sometimes it 's worse !
] and that 's nefarious.So nefarious , after all these years , and not getting re-elected , he finally goes to jail !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Murders happen all the time.
They've even been outlawed: still happen: nefarious.Baby ducks are born all the time: no laws about it: still happens: non-nefarious.What's fun, though, is how, in the midst of "a Republican-caused hurricane Katrina" that a Democrat pulling National Guardsmen to help him save his $90,000 in cash DOES NOT happen all the time [sometimes it's worse!
] and that's nefarious.So nefarious, after all these years, and not getting re-elected, he finally goes to jail!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109806</id>
	<title>You got that right!</title>
	<author>NoYob</author>
	<datestamp>1258286400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In an interview, Representative Bill Pascrell Jr., Democrat of New Jersey, said: &ldquo;I regret that the language was the same. I did not know it was.&rdquo; He said he got his statement from his staff and &ldquo;did not know where they got the information from.&rdquo;</p></div><p>So, this guy gets paid at least <a href="http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/congresspay.htm" title="about.com" rel="nofollow">$174,000 per year</a> [about.com] plus all those awesome perks and retirement plans that none of us peons could ever get, and he can't do his own homework?! </p><p>What does this guy do all day?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In an interview , Representative Bill Pascrell Jr. , Democrat of New Jersey , said :    I regret that the language was the same .
I did not know it was.    He said he got his statement from his staff and    did not know where they got the information from.    So , this guy gets paid at least $ 174,000 per year [ about.com ] plus all those awesome perks and retirement plans that none of us peons could ever get , and he ca n't do his own homework ? !
What does this guy do all day ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In an interview, Representative Bill Pascrell Jr., Democrat of New Jersey, said: “I regret that the language was the same.
I did not know it was.” He said he got his statement from his staff and “did not know where they got the information from.”So, this guy gets paid at least $174,000 per year [about.com] plus all those awesome perks and retirement plans that none of us peons could ever get, and he can't do his own homework?!
What does this guy do all day?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30110108</id>
	<title>Re:We need another party</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1258288560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are some people, some of them in Congress even, that don't belong to the money party. The problem is that they are usually ignored and/or ridiculed. And by ridiculed, I mean getting questions about <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSRWRbuMqyc" title="youtube.com">UFOs</a> [youtube.com] rather than health care plans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are some people , some of them in Congress even , that do n't belong to the money party .
The problem is that they are usually ignored and/or ridiculed .
And by ridiculed , I mean getting questions about UFOs [ youtube.com ] rather than health care plans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are some people, some of them in Congress even, that don't belong to the money party.
The problem is that they are usually ignored and/or ridiculed.
And by ridiculed, I mean getting questions about UFOs [youtube.com] rather than health care plans.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30114446</id>
	<title>Re:It's time to be serious when your gov. is at ri</title>
	<author>Dharkfiber</author>
	<datestamp>1258381860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"a lobbyist close to Genentech said: 'This happens all the time. There was nothing nefarious about it.'""  | GoogleTranslator.bin -v KevinBacon &gt; stdout

"Nothing to see here, keep moving along people, nothing to see here..."</htmltext>
<tokenext>" a lobbyist close to Genentech said : 'This happens all the time .
There was nothing nefarious about it .
' " " | GoogleTranslator.bin -v KevinBacon &gt; stdout " Nothing to see here , keep moving along people , nothing to see here... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"a lobbyist close to Genentech said: 'This happens all the time.
There was nothing nefarious about it.
'""  | GoogleTranslator.bin -v KevinBacon &gt; stdout

"Nothing to see here, keep moving along people, nothing to see here..."</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30111090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109778</id>
	<title>Re:Yay lobbyist-speak</title>
	<author>Lloyd\_Bryant</author>
	<datestamp>1258286160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I used to get really upset about lobbyists, but I think the problem is really the general incompetence of our elected officials.</p></div><p>Actually they are very competent.  At getting elected/re-elected.  Which is the primary selection criteria in a democratic system.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to get really upset about lobbyists , but I think the problem is really the general incompetence of our elected officials.Actually they are very competent .
At getting elected/re-elected .
Which is the primary selection criteria in a democratic system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to get really upset about lobbyists, but I think the problem is really the general incompetence of our elected officials.Actually they are very competent.
At getting elected/re-elected.
Which is the primary selection criteria in a democratic system.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30112630</id>
	<title>Repo?</title>
	<author>Linktoreality</author>
	<datestamp>1258401660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"GeneCo lobbies a bill through congress- Organ repossessions are legalized!"

Of course, it probably won't come to that.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" GeneCo lobbies a bill through congress- Organ repossessions are legalized !
" Of course , it probably wo n't come to that .
...right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"GeneCo lobbies a bill through congress- Organ repossessions are legalized!
"

Of course, it probably won't come to that.
...right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30111090</id>
	<title>It's time to be serious when your gov. is at risk.</title>
	<author>Futurepower(R)</author>
	<datestamp>1258297440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It scares me how much joking there is when there is corruption in government. Plenty of evidence shows that there is pressure to elect senators and representatives who are not skilled at thinking for themselves, and this Slashdot story provides more of that evidence.

<br> <br>Here is what is apparently a worse example: Articles in The Atlantic magazine, CBS News, the New York Times, and other publications suggest that you should <a href="http://futurepower.net/flu/Flu\_Be\_skeptical\_about\_flu\_reports.html" title="futurepower.net">be skeptical about flu reports.</a> [futurepower.net] There appears to be manipulation of government warnings to increase profit for vaccine makers.

<br> <br>If you love your country, you will think seriously about your country's problems.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It scares me how much joking there is when there is corruption in government .
Plenty of evidence shows that there is pressure to elect senators and representatives who are not skilled at thinking for themselves , and this Slashdot story provides more of that evidence .
Here is what is apparently a worse example : Articles in The Atlantic magazine , CBS News , the New York Times , and other publications suggest that you should be skeptical about flu reports .
[ futurepower.net ] There appears to be manipulation of government warnings to increase profit for vaccine makers .
If you love your country , you will think seriously about your country 's problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It scares me how much joking there is when there is corruption in government.
Plenty of evidence shows that there is pressure to elect senators and representatives who are not skilled at thinking for themselves, and this Slashdot story provides more of that evidence.
Here is what is apparently a worse example: Articles in The Atlantic magazine, CBS News, the New York Times, and other publications suggest that you should be skeptical about flu reports.
[futurepower.net] There appears to be manipulation of government warnings to increase profit for vaccine makers.
If you love your country, you will think seriously about your country's problems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109832</id>
	<title>Nixon</title>
	<author>omb</author>
	<datestamp>1258286640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Read the story about how you got rid of Nixon.<br><br>Basically the ethicality of the Judges of SC and the Joint Chiefs, politicised as thing have become you must think Bush thought of it, but was told the Military would not obey. This is the real fourth arm of government, not the press, and works in other places eg the UK, USSR and France, but not everywhere eg Germany in World War II.<br><br>The real question is how long this will last. You do need the "Right to bear Arms".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Read the story about how you got rid of Nixon.Basically the ethicality of the Judges of SC and the Joint Chiefs , politicised as thing have become you must think Bush thought of it , but was told the Military would not obey .
This is the real fourth arm of government , not the press , and works in other places eg the UK , USSR and France , but not everywhere eg Germany in World War II.The real question is how long this will last .
You do need the " Right to bear Arms " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read the story about how you got rid of Nixon.Basically the ethicality of the Judges of SC and the Joint Chiefs, politicised as thing have become you must think Bush thought of it, but was told the Military would not obey.
This is the real fourth arm of government, not the press, and works in other places eg the UK, USSR and France, but not everywhere eg Germany in World War II.The real question is how long this will last.
You do need the "Right to bear Arms".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109328</id>
	<title>Hahahahahaha!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258282980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny stuff. Makes me laugh when I think about all those Americans who are so blind to the single-party system they unknowingly live under, and worse, actively participate in.</p><p>You Americans have one set of rulers: the majority shareholders of the largest corporations in the country. They call the shots. The government is there for show. For shits and giggles, if you will.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny stuff .
Makes me laugh when I think about all those Americans who are so blind to the single-party system they unknowingly live under , and worse , actively participate in.You Americans have one set of rulers : the majority shareholders of the largest corporations in the country .
They call the shots .
The government is there for show .
For shits and giggles , if you will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny stuff.
Makes me laugh when I think about all those Americans who are so blind to the single-party system they unknowingly live under, and worse, actively participate in.You Americans have one set of rulers: the majority shareholders of the largest corporations in the country.
They call the shots.
The government is there for show.
For shits and giggles, if you will.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30111044</id>
	<title>Re:"Nothing nefarious"??</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1258296840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There's "nothing nefarious about it"?? Since when do Swiss-owned corporations write statements for American congresscritters?</p></div><p>Well, American corporations have been writing speeches for MPs in European countries like Poland and Czech Republic lately, not to mention a few backed coups in less fortunate third-world countries<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... that kind of globalization bites both ways, though. Money doesn't have loyalty.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's " nothing nefarious about it " ? ?
Since when do Swiss-owned corporations write statements for American congresscritters ? Well , American corporations have been writing speeches for MPs in European countries like Poland and Czech Republic lately , not to mention a few backed coups in less fortunate third-world countries ... that kind of globalization bites both ways , though .
Money does n't have loyalty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's "nothing nefarious about it"??
Since when do Swiss-owned corporations write statements for American congresscritters?Well, American corporations have been writing speeches for MPs in European countries like Poland and Czech Republic lately, not to mention a few backed coups in less fortunate third-world countries ... that kind of globalization bites both ways, though.
Money doesn't have loyalty.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30110110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30116366</id>
	<title>Re:Puppets!</title>
	<author>JoshuaZ</author>
	<datestamp>1258391640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You misread this. If the problem is that the uneducated make poor decisions the solution isn't to take away their right to vote but to get them educated. History makes it quite clear that although democracy has serious problems other forms of government work even less well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You misread this .
If the problem is that the uneducated make poor decisions the solution is n't to take away their right to vote but to get them educated .
History makes it quite clear that although democracy has serious problems other forms of government work even less well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You misread this.
If the problem is that the uneducated make poor decisions the solution isn't to take away their right to vote but to get them educated.
History makes it quite clear that although democracy has serious problems other forms of government work even less well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30112438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109780</id>
	<title>Re:Puppets!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258286220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The people to be mad at here are our congressmen... who are apparently so busy "raising funds" and standing in front of things that they don't take the time to actually F'ing LEARN about the topics they legislate on. And apparently, NOR DOES THEIR STAFF anymore. THOSE are the people to be mad as hell at.</p></div><p>While both non-partisan think tanks and companies like Genentech produce opinion/policy papers, the difference is that Genetech will spend money on lobbyists to get their opinions into Congressional hands.<br>Lobbyists will shill whatever position they are paid for, and the free market figured out the cost:benefit ratio for influencing legislation invariably brings them out ahead.</p><p>Lobbying reform is more than just a buzzword. It strives to remove corrupting influences from the legislative process.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The people to be mad at here are our congressmen... who are apparently so busy " raising funds " and standing in front of things that they do n't take the time to actually F'ing LEARN about the topics they legislate on .
And apparently , NOR DOES THEIR STAFF anymore .
THOSE are the people to be mad as hell at.While both non-partisan think tanks and companies like Genentech produce opinion/policy papers , the difference is that Genetech will spend money on lobbyists to get their opinions into Congressional hands.Lobbyists will shill whatever position they are paid for , and the free market figured out the cost : benefit ratio for influencing legislation invariably brings them out ahead.Lobbying reform is more than just a buzzword .
It strives to remove corrupting influences from the legislative process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The people to be mad at here are our congressmen... who are apparently so busy "raising funds" and standing in front of things that they don't take the time to actually F'ing LEARN about the topics they legislate on.
And apparently, NOR DOES THEIR STAFF anymore.
THOSE are the people to be mad as hell at.While both non-partisan think tanks and companies like Genentech produce opinion/policy papers, the difference is that Genetech will spend money on lobbyists to get their opinions into Congressional hands.Lobbyists will shill whatever position they are paid for, and the free market figured out the cost:benefit ratio for influencing legislation invariably brings them out ahead.Lobbying reform is more than just a buzzword.
It strives to remove corrupting influences from the legislative process.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30114032</id>
	<title>Re:Yay lobbyist-speak</title>
	<author>Aceticon</author>
	<datestamp>1258377420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After the end of the Time of Ideologies (when at least once in a while there was a chance that a bright-eyed individual who wanted to improve the world was elected to public office - even if many could be seen as misguided, their hearth was in the right place), most of the so called Modern Democracies have become systems where Politicians are a separate "class" of people, politics is a "family business" and people are elected based on how good/truthful/wise they <b>look</b> on television and how well they tell people what they want to hear (in other words, they're Salesmen).</p><p>In my opinion, a system where one votes for people one has never met personally does not work - we just end up electing cheaters, posers and liars, since those are best at "looking the part". I'm a firm believer that Democracy has to come from the bottom to the top, starting with small numbers of people (around 1000) electing representatives which then elect the next layer and so one until the top. The TV Show style voting we have now is only good for selecting singers/performers/reality-tv-finalists, not the men and women that will represent one's interests and manage one's country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After the end of the Time of Ideologies ( when at least once in a while there was a chance that a bright-eyed individual who wanted to improve the world was elected to public office - even if many could be seen as misguided , their hearth was in the right place ) , most of the so called Modern Democracies have become systems where Politicians are a separate " class " of people , politics is a " family business " and people are elected based on how good/truthful/wise they look on television and how well they tell people what they want to hear ( in other words , they 're Salesmen ) .In my opinion , a system where one votes for people one has never met personally does not work - we just end up electing cheaters , posers and liars , since those are best at " looking the part " .
I 'm a firm believer that Democracy has to come from the bottom to the top , starting with small numbers of people ( around 1000 ) electing representatives which then elect the next layer and so one until the top .
The TV Show style voting we have now is only good for selecting singers/performers/reality-tv-finalists , not the men and women that will represent one 's interests and manage one 's country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After the end of the Time of Ideologies (when at least once in a while there was a chance that a bright-eyed individual who wanted to improve the world was elected to public office - even if many could be seen as misguided, their hearth was in the right place), most of the so called Modern Democracies have become systems where Politicians are a separate "class" of people, politics is a "family business" and people are elected based on how good/truthful/wise they look on television and how well they tell people what they want to hear (in other words, they're Salesmen).In my opinion, a system where one votes for people one has never met personally does not work - we just end up electing cheaters, posers and liars, since those are best at "looking the part".
I'm a firm believer that Democracy has to come from the bottom to the top, starting with small numbers of people (around 1000) electing representatives which then elect the next layer and so one until the top.
The TV Show style voting we have now is only good for selecting singers/performers/reality-tv-finalists, not the men and women that will represent one's interests and manage one's country.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109444</id>
	<title>That explains yodeling from Reps. Hoyer and Cantor</title>
	<author>leftie</author>
	<datestamp>1258283820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wondered what was up with all the damn yodeling on the House Floor lately.</p><p>Also explains the "Austria's Olympic Ski Team sucks" comment on the record from Rep. Michelle Bachman</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wondered what was up with all the damn yodeling on the House Floor lately.Also explains the " Austria 's Olympic Ski Team sucks " comment on the record from Rep. Michelle Bachman</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wondered what was up with all the damn yodeling on the House Floor lately.Also explains the "Austria's Olympic Ski Team sucks" comment on the record from Rep. Michelle Bachman</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109734</id>
	<title>Re:Puppets!</title>
	<author>JoshuaZ</author>
	<datestamp>1258285860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It shouldn't be surprising that people who aren't educated and aren't very bright aren't very good at electing people who are bright or educated. Democracy ensures that the public gets a government no better than they deserve.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It should n't be surprising that people who are n't educated and are n't very bright are n't very good at electing people who are bright or educated .
Democracy ensures that the public gets a government no better than they deserve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It shouldn't be surprising that people who aren't educated and aren't very bright aren't very good at electing people who are bright or educated.
Democracy ensures that the public gets a government no better than they deserve.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30112364</id>
	<title>Who should they listen to?</title>
	<author>snowwrestler</author>
	<datestamp>1258311240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who better to inform the elected officials about the impact of the health care bill than the people who are going to be affected by it? Can you show conclusively that what Genentech told them was false? And what of the lobbyists presenting a different, or opposing, point of view? Are they wrong too?</p><p>Imagine the subject is not health care, but computer programming. How would you expect elected officials to become educated about computer programming if they never talked to software companies or computer companies or anyone who worked for them?</p><p>Everyone hates lobbyists until it's their lobbyists...but of course then they are activists or representatives or organizers or issue experts or [insert more innocuous name here]. I guarantee that for any touchy political subject, your idea of objective education of an elected official would strike someone else as inappropriate lobbying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who better to inform the elected officials about the impact of the health care bill than the people who are going to be affected by it ?
Can you show conclusively that what Genentech told them was false ?
And what of the lobbyists presenting a different , or opposing , point of view ?
Are they wrong too ? Imagine the subject is not health care , but computer programming .
How would you expect elected officials to become educated about computer programming if they never talked to software companies or computer companies or anyone who worked for them ? Everyone hates lobbyists until it 's their lobbyists...but of course then they are activists or representatives or organizers or issue experts or [ insert more innocuous name here ] .
I guarantee that for any touchy political subject , your idea of objective education of an elected official would strike someone else as inappropriate lobbying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who better to inform the elected officials about the impact of the health care bill than the people who are going to be affected by it?
Can you show conclusively that what Genentech told them was false?
And what of the lobbyists presenting a different, or opposing, point of view?
Are they wrong too?Imagine the subject is not health care, but computer programming.
How would you expect elected officials to become educated about computer programming if they never talked to software companies or computer companies or anyone who worked for them?Everyone hates lobbyists until it's their lobbyists...but of course then they are activists or representatives or organizers or issue experts or [insert more innocuous name here].
I guarantee that for any touchy political subject, your idea of objective education of an elected official would strike someone else as inappropriate lobbying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30126172</id>
	<title>Re:Yay lobbyist-speak</title>
	<author>mahadiga</author>
	<datestamp>1258397280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"It is a very sad thing that nowadays there is so <i>little useless</i> information." --Oscar Wilde</htmltext>
<tokenext>" It is a very sad thing that nowadays there is so little useless information .
" --Oscar Wilde</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It is a very sad thing that nowadays there is so little useless information.
" --Oscar Wilde</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109548</id>
	<title>It's the other way around...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258284420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shouldn't this headline actually read, "42 House members plagiarize report by Genetech". Isn't the reality that these politicians had no opinions, or at least lacked the will to find and articulate one, and instead opted to copy someone else. Not that it makes the whole situation any less shameful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't this headline actually read , " 42 House members plagiarize report by Genetech " .
Is n't the reality that these politicians had no opinions , or at least lacked the will to find and articulate one , and instead opted to copy someone else .
Not that it makes the whole situation any less shameful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't this headline actually read, "42 House members plagiarize report by Genetech".
Isn't the reality that these politicians had no opinions, or at least lacked the will to find and articulate one, and instead opted to copy someone else.
Not that it makes the whole situation any less shameful.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30113362</id>
	<title>"nothing nefarious about it"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258368360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All lobbyism is, by its nature, nefarious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All lobbyism is , by its nature , nefarious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All lobbyism is, by its nature, nefarious.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109664</id>
	<title>Re:Hahahahahaha!</title>
	<author>nomadic</author>
	<datestamp>1258285320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>So how do I buy into this one of these largest of corporations?</i>
<br>
<br>
If you're in a pension plan you're already in.  I know it's fashionable here to envision this shadowy cabal of rich people calling the shots, but the most powerful shareholders in a lot of very large companies are pension funds, held by the little guy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So how do I buy into this one of these largest of corporations ?
If you 're in a pension plan you 're already in .
I know it 's fashionable here to envision this shadowy cabal of rich people calling the shots , but the most powerful shareholders in a lot of very large companies are pension funds , held by the little guy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So how do I buy into this one of these largest of corporations?
If you're in a pension plan you're already in.
I know it's fashionable here to envision this shadowy cabal of rich people calling the shots, but the most powerful shareholders in a lot of very large companies are pension funds, held by the little guy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109382</id>
	<title>Re:Yay lobbyist-speak</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258283280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is distinguished from the similarly-named but different "Republican democracy", where anything the Republicans want is good and anyone who disagrees is a fascist-socialist-nazi-communist-traitor. In capital-R Republican democracy, informed representatives are not required, as Jeebus himself tells the party leaders what to vote for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is distinguished from the similarly-named but different " Republican democracy " , where anything the Republicans want is good and anyone who disagrees is a fascist-socialist-nazi-communist-traitor .
In capital-R Republican democracy , informed representatives are not required , as Jeebus himself tells the party leaders what to vote for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is distinguished from the similarly-named but different "Republican democracy", where anything the Republicans want is good and anyone who disagrees is a fascist-socialist-nazi-communist-traitor.
In capital-R Republican democracy, informed representatives are not required, as Jeebus himself tells the party leaders what to vote for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30110172</id>
	<title>Re:Puppets!</title>
	<author>PopeRatzo</author>
	<datestamp>1258289220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Genentech wasn't doing *anything* wrong</p></div></blockquote><p>Of course not.  They were simply trying to increase productivity.  After all, why should congressional staffers have to write speeches for their congressmen if Genentech lobbyists are already going to have written them?  This way, instead of 435 speechwriters for members of the House of Representatives having to write speeches, you have <i>one</i> Genentech lobbyist write two speeches (one for each party).  Look at the savings in manpower!  I mean, we all know that in this difficult economy, we have to do more with less, right?</p><p>The next step is to lay off all the congresspeople and just have corporate lobbyists write the laws directly.  Since they're already footing the bill for all the congressmen to get elected, it would save even more money and manpower. Plus, it would eliminate the need to put on these meaningless elections.</p><p>Genentech wasn't doing anything "wrong".  The "wrong" part comes when we allow a single corporate dollar in politics.  Our wise leaders, encouraged by lobbyists, have decided to ignore both the wording and the original intent of the framers, and have decided that a corporation has the same rights as an individual, yet they have none of the civic responsibility. Plus, (and this one's the kicker) they've decided that Money = Speech. What a racket!.  The Supreme Court is deciding right now whether or not to remove absolutely all restrictions on corporate money in the political system.  I guess the best we can hope for is that Antonin Scalia chokes on an uncooked tortellini before the final vote comes down.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Genentech was n't doing * anything * wrongOf course not .
They were simply trying to increase productivity .
After all , why should congressional staffers have to write speeches for their congressmen if Genentech lobbyists are already going to have written them ?
This way , instead of 435 speechwriters for members of the House of Representatives having to write speeches , you have one Genentech lobbyist write two speeches ( one for each party ) .
Look at the savings in manpower !
I mean , we all know that in this difficult economy , we have to do more with less , right ? The next step is to lay off all the congresspeople and just have corporate lobbyists write the laws directly .
Since they 're already footing the bill for all the congressmen to get elected , it would save even more money and manpower .
Plus , it would eliminate the need to put on these meaningless elections.Genentech was n't doing anything " wrong " .
The " wrong " part comes when we allow a single corporate dollar in politics .
Our wise leaders , encouraged by lobbyists , have decided to ignore both the wording and the original intent of the framers , and have decided that a corporation has the same rights as an individual , yet they have none of the civic responsibility .
Plus , ( and this one 's the kicker ) they 've decided that Money = Speech .
What a racket ! .
The Supreme Court is deciding right now whether or not to remove absolutely all restrictions on corporate money in the political system .
I guess the best we can hope for is that Antonin Scalia chokes on an uncooked tortellini before the final vote comes down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Genentech wasn't doing *anything* wrongOf course not.
They were simply trying to increase productivity.
After all, why should congressional staffers have to write speeches for their congressmen if Genentech lobbyists are already going to have written them?
This way, instead of 435 speechwriters for members of the House of Representatives having to write speeches, you have one Genentech lobbyist write two speeches (one for each party).
Look at the savings in manpower!
I mean, we all know that in this difficult economy, we have to do more with less, right?The next step is to lay off all the congresspeople and just have corporate lobbyists write the laws directly.
Since they're already footing the bill for all the congressmen to get elected, it would save even more money and manpower.
Plus, it would eliminate the need to put on these meaningless elections.Genentech wasn't doing anything "wrong".
The "wrong" part comes when we allow a single corporate dollar in politics.
Our wise leaders, encouraged by lobbyists, have decided to ignore both the wording and the original intent of the framers, and have decided that a corporation has the same rights as an individual, yet they have none of the civic responsibility.
Plus, (and this one's the kicker) they've decided that Money = Speech.
What a racket!.
The Supreme Court is deciding right now whether or not to remove absolutely all restrictions on corporate money in the political system.
I guess the best we can hope for is that Antonin Scalia chokes on an uncooked tortellini before the final vote comes down.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30110402</id>
	<title>Re:Yay lobbyist-speak</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1258290660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The entire point of republican democracy, as opposed to direct democracy, is that making representation a full-time job allows our representatives to put the time and effort into being informed about the issues. It scares and angers me that they try to accomplish that by listening to lobbyists.</i> </p><p>Why?</p><p>If you belong to a professional or trade association of any sort, you are paying for your own lobbyists.</p><p> The same for any charity or affinity group you support. The hospice. Your alumni association. The EFF. The NRA.</p><p>There is stength in numbers.</p><p>The lobby can collect information. It can underwrite research.</p><p>It can recruit speakers whose credentials are impeccable and who are able and effective advocates in any public forum.</p><p>It can help build the alliances - the coalitions - that a politician needs to forge to get his legislation passed.</p><p>The geek in New Hampshire can't do much more about the Congress than post his rants to a blog.</p><p> The lobbyist can deliver votes in Florida, New York and California.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The entire point of republican democracy , as opposed to direct democracy , is that making representation a full-time job allows our representatives to put the time and effort into being informed about the issues .
It scares and angers me that they try to accomplish that by listening to lobbyists .
Why ? If you belong to a professional or trade association of any sort , you are paying for your own lobbyists .
The same for any charity or affinity group you support .
The hospice .
Your alumni association .
The EFF .
The NRA.There is stength in numbers.The lobby can collect information .
It can underwrite research.It can recruit speakers whose credentials are impeccable and who are able and effective advocates in any public forum.It can help build the alliances - the coalitions - that a politician needs to forge to get his legislation passed.The geek in New Hampshire ca n't do much more about the Congress than post his rants to a blog .
The lobbyist can deliver votes in Florida , New York and California .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The entire point of republican democracy, as opposed to direct democracy, is that making representation a full-time job allows our representatives to put the time and effort into being informed about the issues.
It scares and angers me that they try to accomplish that by listening to lobbyists.
Why?If you belong to a professional or trade association of any sort, you are paying for your own lobbyists.
The same for any charity or affinity group you support.
The hospice.
Your alumni association.
The EFF.
The NRA.There is stength in numbers.The lobby can collect information.
It can underwrite research.It can recruit speakers whose credentials are impeccable and who are able and effective advocates in any public forum.It can help build the alliances - the coalitions - that a politician needs to forge to get his legislation passed.The geek in New Hampshire can't do much more about the Congress than post his rants to a blog.
The lobbyist can deliver votes in Florida, New York and California.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109312</id>
	<title>Yay lobbyist-speak</title>
	<author>howlingfrog</author>
	<datestamp>1258282920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"This happens all the time" != "There was nothing nefarious about it."</p><p>The entire point of republican democracy, as opposed to direct democracy, is that making representation a full-time job allows our representatives to put the time and effort into being informed about the issues.  It scares and angers me that they try to accomplish that by listening to lobbyists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" This happens all the time " ! = " There was nothing nefarious about it .
" The entire point of republican democracy , as opposed to direct democracy , is that making representation a full-time job allows our representatives to put the time and effort into being informed about the issues .
It scares and angers me that they try to accomplish that by listening to lobbyists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"This happens all the time" != "There was nothing nefarious about it.
"The entire point of republican democracy, as opposed to direct democracy, is that making representation a full-time job allows our representatives to put the time and effort into being informed about the issues.
It scares and angers me that they try to accomplish that by listening to lobbyists.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109462</id>
	<title>Re:Hahahahahaha!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258283880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You Americans have one set of rulers: the majority shareholders of the largest corporations in the country. They call the shots. The government is there for show. For shits and giggles, if you will.</p></div><p>So how do I buy into this one of these largest of corporations?</p><p>Oh wait.  You are just an AC being stupid.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You Americans have one set of rulers : the majority shareholders of the largest corporations in the country .
They call the shots .
The government is there for show .
For shits and giggles , if you will.So how do I buy into this one of these largest of corporations ? Oh wait .
You are just an AC being stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You Americans have one set of rulers: the majority shareholders of the largest corporations in the country.
They call the shots.
The government is there for show.
For shits and giggles, if you will.So how do I buy into this one of these largest of corporations?Oh wait.
You are just an AC being stupid.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30111220</id>
	<title>Remember this one! Bookmark it!</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1258299000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For every time someone does not believe you that the parties are just puppets for the companies that really control the country.</p><p>(Like all those, who switch to ignorance mode, as soon as they feel the smell of conspiracy, even when it's actually true. [Which is the other extreme of those people that believe *everything*])</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For every time someone does not believe you that the parties are just puppets for the companies that really control the country .
( Like all those , who switch to ignorance mode , as soon as they feel the smell of conspiracy , even when it 's actually true .
[ Which is the other extreme of those people that believe * everything * ] )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For every time someone does not believe you that the parties are just puppets for the companies that really control the country.
(Like all those, who switch to ignorance mode, as soon as they feel the smell of conspiracy, even when it's actually true.
[Which is the other extreme of those people that believe *everything*])</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30115192</id>
	<title>Re:a != b</title>
	<author>sorak</author>
	<datestamp>1258386420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed. It may mean there's nothing creative about it. Maybe this guy should lose his Christmas bonus, because he didn't "think outside the box".</p><p>I suggest that, next time, he vote for the Senators. He should got to Halloween Express, buy some politically themed masks, and literally VOTE FOR the candidates. He can even put on an Obama mask and sign the bill after the vote. Now, <em>that's</em> thinking outside the box.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
It may mean there 's nothing creative about it .
Maybe this guy should lose his Christmas bonus , because he did n't " think outside the box " .I suggest that , next time , he vote for the Senators .
He should got to Halloween Express , buy some politically themed masks , and literally VOTE FOR the candidates .
He can even put on an Obama mask and sign the bill after the vote .
Now , that 's thinking outside the box .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
It may mean there's nothing creative about it.
Maybe this guy should lose his Christmas bonus, because he didn't "think outside the box".I suggest that, next time, he vote for the Senators.
He should got to Halloween Express, buy some politically themed masks, and literally VOTE FOR the candidates.
He can even put on an Obama mask and sign the bill after the vote.
Now, that's thinking outside the box.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30157450</id>
	<title>Re:Yes We Can</title>
	<author>MightyDrunken</author>
	<datestamp>1258649820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Remember the good ole days, when there was a charismatic candidate that promised a new Washington, one that represents the people and not littered with lobbyists.</p><p>I guess GW really messed the country up...</p></div><p>George Washington? Well I guess he did mess up a little then.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember the good ole days , when there was a charismatic candidate that promised a new Washington , one that represents the people and not littered with lobbyists.I guess GW really messed the country up...George Washington ?
Well I guess he did mess up a little then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember the good ole days, when there was a charismatic candidate that promised a new Washington, one that represents the people and not littered with lobbyists.I guess GW really messed the country up...George Washington?
Well I guess he did mess up a little then.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30110394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30111128</id>
	<title>Re:a != b</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1258298040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We need a nice concise way to express this concept. common!=!nefarious seems a bit ugly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We need a nice concise way to express this concept .
common ! = ! nefarious seems a bit ugly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need a nice concise way to express this concept.
common!=!nefarious seems a bit ugly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109456</id>
	<title>Business as usual?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258283880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>This happens all the time. There was nothing nefarious about it</i></p><p>Right on the first point, wrong on the second.</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This happens all the time .
There was nothing nefarious about itRight on the first point , wrong on the second.-jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This happens all the time.
There was nothing nefarious about itRight on the first point, wrong on the second.-jcr</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109610</id>
	<title>End the pretense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258284900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's time we end the pretense these people are doing anything independently, and let them wear jackets with sponsor patches ala Nascar.</p><p>I guess this is why congress and house members feel it's OK to vote for a 1900+ page bill they have not even read all of, nor allowed the public to read before a vote - why bother reading when your corporate sponsors have given you all the soundbytes you need?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's time we end the pretense these people are doing anything independently , and let them wear jackets with sponsor patches ala Nascar.I guess this is why congress and house members feel it 's OK to vote for a 1900 + page bill they have not even read all of , nor allowed the public to read before a vote - why bother reading when your corporate sponsors have given you all the soundbytes you need ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's time we end the pretense these people are doing anything independently, and let them wear jackets with sponsor patches ala Nascar.I guess this is why congress and house members feel it's OK to vote for a 1900+ page bill they have not even read all of, nor allowed the public to read before a vote - why bother reading when your corporate sponsors have given you all the soundbytes you need?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30111762</id>
	<title>Nothing Nefarious</title>
	<author>denmarkw00t</author>
	<datestamp>1258303740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And this is a problem. While the rest of us living out in the "real world" might see this kind of practice as nefarious indeed, the view on capitol hill is obviously skewed - a lot.  Sure, I'm basing the views of everyone in our political mecca on one lobbyist's, but at the same time - our congresspeople are taking notes, lines and political ideas from this guy. Another sign that things NEED TO CHANGE, and another sign that they probably won't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And this is a problem .
While the rest of us living out in the " real world " might see this kind of practice as nefarious indeed , the view on capitol hill is obviously skewed - a lot .
Sure , I 'm basing the views of everyone in our political mecca on one lobbyist 's , but at the same time - our congresspeople are taking notes , lines and political ideas from this guy .
Another sign that things NEED TO CHANGE , and another sign that they probably wo n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And this is a problem.
While the rest of us living out in the "real world" might see this kind of practice as nefarious indeed, the view on capitol hill is obviously skewed - a lot.
Sure, I'm basing the views of everyone in our political mecca on one lobbyist's, but at the same time - our congresspeople are taking notes, lines and political ideas from this guy.
Another sign that things NEED TO CHANGE, and another sign that they probably won't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30111532</id>
	<title>Re:Puppets!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258301340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>obama is very bright and educated... doesn't seem to help the corruption! the financial elites have purchased a bipartisan majority and it's time to take back what's ours!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>obama is very bright and educated... does n't seem to help the corruption !
the financial elites have purchased a bipartisan majority and it 's time to take back what 's ours !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>obama is very bright and educated... doesn't seem to help the corruption!
the financial elites have purchased a bipartisan majority and it's time to take back what's ours!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109746</id>
	<title>Hand in the back</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258285980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its like the politicians had a big giant hand (not so invisible) in the middle of their back, replacing their backbone.  Their left hand is suddenly controlled by a giant thumb, and their right hand is suddenly controlled by a giant little finger.  Their mouths move up and down, not quite in sync with the words coming from somewhere.  Inside, the politician is thinking:  <i>All I have to do is say these words and I will make more than 400 times the street prostitute down the block.  No sticky mess or anything.  Cool!  Those lobby people sure do pay a lot more than that official 'government' salary too.  I wonder how much they would pay me if I offered to bend over and touch my toes.... oh wait, I already did.</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its like the politicians had a big giant hand ( not so invisible ) in the middle of their back , replacing their backbone .
Their left hand is suddenly controlled by a giant thumb , and their right hand is suddenly controlled by a giant little finger .
Their mouths move up and down , not quite in sync with the words coming from somewhere .
Inside , the politician is thinking : All I have to do is say these words and I will make more than 400 times the street prostitute down the block .
No sticky mess or anything .
Cool ! Those lobby people sure do pay a lot more than that official 'government ' salary too .
I wonder how much they would pay me if I offered to bend over and touch my toes.... oh wait , I already did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its like the politicians had a big giant hand (not so invisible) in the middle of their back, replacing their backbone.
Their left hand is suddenly controlled by a giant thumb, and their right hand is suddenly controlled by a giant little finger.
Their mouths move up and down, not quite in sync with the words coming from somewhere.
Inside, the politician is thinking:  All I have to do is say these words and I will make more than 400 times the street prostitute down the block.
No sticky mess or anything.
Cool!  Those lobby people sure do pay a lot more than that official 'government' salary too.
I wonder how much they would pay me if I offered to bend over and touch my toes.... oh wait, I already did.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109390</id>
	<title>Re:Puppets!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258283340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aye... Genentech wasn't doing *anything* wrong simply by providing information and a point of view.  The people to be mad at here are our congressmen... who are apparently so busy "raising funds" and standing in front of things that they don't take the time to actually F'ing LEARN about the topics they legislate on.  And apparently, NOR DOES THEIR STAFF anymore.  THOSE are the people to be mad as hell at.</p><p>Its bad enough that the voters are often idiots... but the idiocracy keeps creeping deeper into the leadership as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Aye... Genentech was n't doing * anything * wrong simply by providing information and a point of view .
The people to be mad at here are our congressmen... who are apparently so busy " raising funds " and standing in front of things that they do n't take the time to actually F'ing LEARN about the topics they legislate on .
And apparently , NOR DOES THEIR STAFF anymore .
THOSE are the people to be mad as hell at.Its bad enough that the voters are often idiots... but the idiocracy keeps creeping deeper into the leadership as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aye... Genentech wasn't doing *anything* wrong simply by providing information and a point of view.
The people to be mad at here are our congressmen... who are apparently so busy "raising funds" and standing in front of things that they don't take the time to actually F'ing LEARN about the topics they legislate on.
And apparently, NOR DOES THEIR STAFF anymore.
THOSE are the people to be mad as hell at.Its bad enough that the voters are often idiots... but the idiocracy keeps creeping deeper into the leadership as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30110086</id>
	<title>Re:Why can ideologists and unions lobby?</title>
	<author>omb</author>
	<datestamp>1258288440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because the Corporations corrupt the Democratic process with hidden bribary, which is illegal but poorly enforced.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because the Corporations corrupt the Democratic process with hidden bribary , which is illegal but poorly enforced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because the Corporations corrupt the Democratic process with hidden bribary, which is illegal but poorly enforced.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30110380</id>
	<title>Re:Puppets!</title>
	<author>HangingChad</author>
	<datestamp>1258290540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm still trying to figure out where they stick their hand to make the mouth move.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm still trying to figure out where they stick their hand to make the mouth move .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm still trying to figure out where they stick their hand to make the mouth move.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30114994</id>
	<title>Re:Puppets!</title>
	<author>smidget2k4</author>
	<datestamp>1258385700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would read this book.  But spoiler alert about Scalia!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would read this book .
But spoiler alert about Scalia !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would read this book.
But spoiler alert about Scalia!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30110172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30110044</id>
	<title>Re:End the pretense</title>
	<author>Jay Clay</author>
	<datestamp>1258288080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I agree that lobbyists wield way too much power in government, the 1900 page complaint is more of a talking point than anything else.  The bill and the wording behind it has been available for months via drafts and discussion within committees.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I agree that lobbyists wield way too much power in government , the 1900 page complaint is more of a talking point than anything else .
The bill and the wording behind it has been available for months via drafts and discussion within committees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I agree that lobbyists wield way too much power in government, the 1900 page complaint is more of a talking point than anything else.
The bill and the wording behind it has been available for months via drafts and discussion within committees.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30111312</id>
	<title>Re:Puppets!</title>
	<author>crispytwo</author>
	<datestamp>1258299660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Democracy ensures that the public gets a government no better than they deserve.</p></div><p>You get what you pay for.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Democracy ensures that the public gets a government no better than they deserve.You get what you pay for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Democracy ensures that the public gets a government no better than they deserve.You get what you pay for.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109292</id>
	<title>a != b</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258282800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If something happens all the time, it does not mean there is nothing nefarious about it.  Quite the contrary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If something happens all the time , it does not mean there is nothing nefarious about it .
Quite the contrary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If something happens all the time, it does not mean there is nothing nefarious about it.
Quite the contrary.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30111040</id>
	<title>Re:End the pretense</title>
	<author>jcnnghm</author>
	<datestamp>1258296840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I guess this is why congress and house members feel it's OK to vote for a 1900+ page bill they have not even read all of, nor allowed the public to read before a vote - why bother reading when your corporate sponsors have given you all the soundbytes you need?</p></div><p>They sneak these bills through because they can't withstand public scrutiny.   Obama and Pelosi are both liars, not allowing people to view the bill before voting, and holding the vote on a Saturday night to skirt public and media scrutiny is exactly the opposite of their campaign promises.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess this is why congress and house members feel it 's OK to vote for a 1900 + page bill they have not even read all of , nor allowed the public to read before a vote - why bother reading when your corporate sponsors have given you all the soundbytes you need ? They sneak these bills through because they ca n't withstand public scrutiny .
Obama and Pelosi are both liars , not allowing people to view the bill before voting , and holding the vote on a Saturday night to skirt public and media scrutiny is exactly the opposite of their campaign promises .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess this is why congress and house members feel it's OK to vote for a 1900+ page bill they have not even read all of, nor allowed the public to read before a vote - why bother reading when your corporate sponsors have given you all the soundbytes you need?They sneak these bills through because they can't withstand public scrutiny.
Obama and Pelosi are both liars, not allowing people to view the bill before voting, and holding the vote on a Saturday night to skirt public and media scrutiny is exactly the opposite of their campaign promises.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30110010</id>
	<title>effective lobbying != improper lobbying</title>
	<author>tloh</author>
	<datestamp>1258287840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder, is the outrage due to the fact that Genentech's lobbying efforts were successful or that it was somehow "wrong"?</p><p>According to the article, some of the points being talked about:</p><p>"the U.S. biotechnology industry<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... is a homegrown success story that has been an engine of job creation in this country."</p><p>"the company&rsquo;s arguments about the need to keep research jobs in the United States."</p><p>"the bill&rsquo;s potential to create jobs in health care, health information technology and clinical research on new drugs. "</p><p>"a provision that would give the Food and Drug Administration the authority to approve generic versions of expensive biotechnology drugs, along the lines favored by brand-name companies like Genentech."</p><p>Are these ideas inherently partisan in any way at all?  Perhaps the reason so many congressional members swayed to the effort was that the points being disseminated were honest, compelling, and served the interests of the American people they work for.  Come on guys, we're all information junkies here at slashdot and it should be a no brainer that ideas sometimes spread and catch on not because they are well publicized, but because they happen to be good ideas.  If you want to complain about the lack of originality in your government officials to express good ideas, fine.  But don't make it about the inherent tendency for ideas to spread and take hold based on multiple factors - including merit.  If the lobbying efforts had engaged in excessive spin or deception, let the well informed among us call them on it.  Otherwise, please judge it for what it's worth.  The truth shall set you free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder , is the outrage due to the fact that Genentech 's lobbying efforts were successful or that it was somehow " wrong " ? According to the article , some of the points being talked about : " the U.S. biotechnology industry .... is a homegrown success story that has been an engine of job creation in this country .
" " the company    s arguments about the need to keep research jobs in the United States .
" " the bill    s potential to create jobs in health care , health information technology and clinical research on new drugs .
" " a provision that would give the Food and Drug Administration the authority to approve generic versions of expensive biotechnology drugs , along the lines favored by brand-name companies like Genentech .
" Are these ideas inherently partisan in any way at all ?
Perhaps the reason so many congressional members swayed to the effort was that the points being disseminated were honest , compelling , and served the interests of the American people they work for .
Come on guys , we 're all information junkies here at slashdot and it should be a no brainer that ideas sometimes spread and catch on not because they are well publicized , but because they happen to be good ideas .
If you want to complain about the lack of originality in your government officials to express good ideas , fine .
But do n't make it about the inherent tendency for ideas to spread and take hold based on multiple factors - including merit .
If the lobbying efforts had engaged in excessive spin or deception , let the well informed among us call them on it .
Otherwise , please judge it for what it 's worth .
The truth shall set you free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder, is the outrage due to the fact that Genentech's lobbying efforts were successful or that it was somehow "wrong"?According to the article, some of the points being talked about:"the U.S. biotechnology industry .... is a homegrown success story that has been an engine of job creation in this country.
""the company’s arguments about the need to keep research jobs in the United States.
""the bill’s potential to create jobs in health care, health information technology and clinical research on new drugs.
""a provision that would give the Food and Drug Administration the authority to approve generic versions of expensive biotechnology drugs, along the lines favored by brand-name companies like Genentech.
"Are these ideas inherently partisan in any way at all?
Perhaps the reason so many congressional members swayed to the effort was that the points being disseminated were honest, compelling, and served the interests of the American people they work for.
Come on guys, we're all information junkies here at slashdot and it should be a no brainer that ideas sometimes spread and catch on not because they are well publicized, but because they happen to be good ideas.
If you want to complain about the lack of originality in your government officials to express good ideas, fine.
But don't make it about the inherent tendency for ideas to spread and take hold based on multiple factors - including merit.
If the lobbying efforts had engaged in excessive spin or deception, let the well informed among us call them on it.
Otherwise, please judge it for what it's worth.
The truth shall set you free.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109940</id>
	<title>Learn how your political opponents think</title>
	<author>MillionthMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1258287240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree with your general sentiments. But what are you going to say when people respond this way?
<br> <br>
<i>"A NEW TAX on lobbyists? Why are liberals in favor of new taxes on free speech all the time?"</i>
<br> <br>
Maybe you can label your lobbyist tax as a <i>fine</i> on <i>irresponsible free speech</i> which has more political currency.
<br> <br>First of all, <i>taxes</i> are levied on everyone (including us), but <i>fines</i> are levied on people breaking the law, and we <i>hate</i> people who <i>break the law</i> because they're <i>criminals</i>. The element of <i>criminality</i> makes all the difference in the world. It really drives us crazy. It was why we got so freaked about the WTC collapse, more than if the towers were brought down simultaneously by e.g. faulty construction and high winds, or accidental fires from careless smoking, or a weird "Manhattan" bug common to all flight software in use. That would have been a one-week story, like that bridge that collapsed in Minneapolis two years ago. Maybe. Asthma killed more Americans in 2001 than did the WTC attacks and those deaths are barely Googleable.
<br> <br>
Second of all we can plainly tell what free speech is <i>irresponsible</i>, and not deserving of "our granting it constitutional protections", as soon as we hear it. But this "money is not a form of speech" thing is going nowhere:
<br> <br>
<i>Look- it says right on the money "In God We Trust"!</i>
<br> <br>
I suggest going back to the drawing board before you get schooled in public by the likes of Sarah Palin.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with your general sentiments .
But what are you going to say when people respond this way ?
" A NEW TAX on lobbyists ?
Why are liberals in favor of new taxes on free speech all the time ?
" Maybe you can label your lobbyist tax as a fine on irresponsible free speech which has more political currency .
First of all , taxes are levied on everyone ( including us ) , but fines are levied on people breaking the law , and we hate people who break the law because they 're criminals .
The element of criminality makes all the difference in the world .
It really drives us crazy .
It was why we got so freaked about the WTC collapse , more than if the towers were brought down simultaneously by e.g .
faulty construction and high winds , or accidental fires from careless smoking , or a weird " Manhattan " bug common to all flight software in use .
That would have been a one-week story , like that bridge that collapsed in Minneapolis two years ago .
Maybe. Asthma killed more Americans in 2001 than did the WTC attacks and those deaths are barely Googleable .
Second of all we can plainly tell what free speech is irresponsible , and not deserving of " our granting it constitutional protections " , as soon as we hear it .
But this " money is not a form of speech " thing is going nowhere : Look- it says right on the money " In God We Trust " !
I suggest going back to the drawing board before you get schooled in public by the likes of Sarah Palin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with your general sentiments.
But what are you going to say when people respond this way?
"A NEW TAX on lobbyists?
Why are liberals in favor of new taxes on free speech all the time?
"
 
Maybe you can label your lobbyist tax as a fine on irresponsible free speech which has more political currency.
First of all, taxes are levied on everyone (including us), but fines are levied on people breaking the law, and we hate people who break the law because they're criminals.
The element of criminality makes all the difference in the world.
It really drives us crazy.
It was why we got so freaked about the WTC collapse, more than if the towers were brought down simultaneously by e.g.
faulty construction and high winds, or accidental fires from careless smoking, or a weird "Manhattan" bug common to all flight software in use.
That would have been a one-week story, like that bridge that collapsed in Minneapolis two years ago.
Maybe. Asthma killed more Americans in 2001 than did the WTC attacks and those deaths are barely Googleable.
Second of all we can plainly tell what free speech is irresponsible, and not deserving of "our granting it constitutional protections", as soon as we hear it.
But this "money is not a form of speech" thing is going nowhere:
 
Look- it says right on the money "In God We Trust"!
I suggest going back to the drawing board before you get schooled in public by the likes of Sarah Palin.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30114052</id>
	<title>Engine of job creation</title>
	<author>AttilaSz</author>
	<datestamp>1258377660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&ldquo;One of the reasons I have long supported the U.S. biotechnology industry is that it is a homegrown success story that has been an engine of job creation in this country.&rdquo;</p><p>So was the chemical industry in Germany in 1940s. Appealing to these arguments is a very weak justification, IMHO. The Big Pharma can certainly hire some better speech writers than this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>   One of the reasons I have long supported the U.S. biotechnology industry is that it is a homegrown success story that has been an engine of job creation in this country.    So was the chemical industry in Germany in 1940s .
Appealing to these arguments is a very weak justification , IMHO .
The Big Pharma can certainly hire some better speech writers than this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>“One of the reasons I have long supported the U.S. biotechnology industry is that it is a homegrown success story that has been an engine of job creation in this country.”So was the chemical industry in Germany in 1940s.
Appealing to these arguments is a very weak justification, IMHO.
The Big Pharma can certainly hire some better speech writers than this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109464</id>
	<title>I doubt this is unusual</title>
	<author>Cracked Pottery</author>
	<datestamp>1258283880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is unusual for it to be documented so quickly with respect to an issue that has the level of interest and emotional involvement as does health care reform. Instances of the financial benefactors of Congresscritters getting their sentiments reflected more or less verbatim in the Congressional Record are not novel.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is unusual for it to be documented so quickly with respect to an issue that has the level of interest and emotional involvement as does health care reform .
Instances of the financial benefactors of Congresscritters getting their sentiments reflected more or less verbatim in the Congressional Record are not novel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is unusual for it to be documented so quickly with respect to an issue that has the level of interest and emotional involvement as does health care reform.
Instances of the financial benefactors of Congresscritters getting their sentiments reflected more or less verbatim in the Congressional Record are not novel.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30118422</id>
	<title>Re:Puppets!</title>
	<author>S0liTaRy</author>
	<datestamp>1258398720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The argument is less "we hate democracy" as it is "we don't trust states any more, elected or not."
States are found in both communism and socialism.
Choosing to distrust republics and democracies does not mean that you are a communist or a socialist.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The argument is less " we hate democracy " as it is " we do n't trust states any more , elected or not .
" States are found in both communism and socialism .
Choosing to distrust republics and democracies does not mean that you are a communist or a socialist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The argument is less "we hate democracy" as it is "we don't trust states any more, elected or not.
"
States are found in both communism and socialism.
Choosing to distrust republics and democracies does not mean that you are a communist or a socialist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30112438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30120728</id>
	<title>Re:We need another party</title>
	<author>andresch</author>
	<datestamp>1258362960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are exactly right; the &lsquo;right&rsquo; uses smoke, the left uses mirrors.  We call it a two party system, but it's really a dual deception system. Democrats lie and say that what&rsquo;s best for the government is also what&rsquo;s best for the people.  Republicans lie and a claim they will do what&rsquo;s best for the people in spite of what&rsquo;s best for the government.  Between the two of them they trick almost everyone, but they are really just taking turns extracting as much money/power from they country as they can.

The reason they appear to fight is because they only want the power/money/life to be sucked out of the country during their turn to do the sucking.   They are not trying to destroy the country, just like a tapeworm doesn&rsquo;t want to kill its host, but there are so many of them now and we&rsquo;ve lost control of them, each sacrificing a chuck of our country for their political aspirations.

Unfortunately a new party may not be a solution.  As soon it becomes powerful enough to matter it becomes part of the problem.  Maybe a bunch of parties, so many that one doesn&rsquo;t get a majority, and bribing them all is to expensive?

There probably isn&rsquo;t an easy solution, but I believe part of it is having people on either side of the political debate realize they are both right about each other&rsquo;s party being no good, and instead of picking their &ldquo;lesser evil&rdquo; coming together to fight and take back what&rsquo;s theirs from their mutual enemy: the politicians.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are exactly right ; the    right    uses smoke , the left uses mirrors .
We call it a two party system , but it 's really a dual deception system .
Democrats lie and say that what    s best for the government is also what    s best for the people .
Republicans lie and a claim they will do what    s best for the people in spite of what    s best for the government .
Between the two of them they trick almost everyone , but they are really just taking turns extracting as much money/power from they country as they can .
The reason they appear to fight is because they only want the power/money/life to be sucked out of the country during their turn to do the sucking .
They are not trying to destroy the country , just like a tapeworm doesn    t want to kill its host , but there are so many of them now and we    ve lost control of them , each sacrificing a chuck of our country for their political aspirations .
Unfortunately a new party may not be a solution .
As soon it becomes powerful enough to matter it becomes part of the problem .
Maybe a bunch of parties , so many that one doesn    t get a majority , and bribing them all is to expensive ?
There probably isn    t an easy solution , but I believe part of it is having people on either side of the political debate realize they are both right about each other    s party being no good , and instead of picking their    lesser evil    coming together to fight and take back what    s theirs from their mutual enemy : the politicians .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are exactly right; the ‘right’ uses smoke, the left uses mirrors.
We call it a two party system, but it's really a dual deception system.
Democrats lie and say that what’s best for the government is also what’s best for the people.
Republicans lie and a claim they will do what’s best for the people in spite of what’s best for the government.
Between the two of them they trick almost everyone, but they are really just taking turns extracting as much money/power from they country as they can.
The reason they appear to fight is because they only want the power/money/life to be sucked out of the country during their turn to do the sucking.
They are not trying to destroy the country, just like a tapeworm doesn’t want to kill its host, but there are so many of them now and we’ve lost control of them, each sacrificing a chuck of our country for their political aspirations.
Unfortunately a new party may not be a solution.
As soon it becomes powerful enough to matter it becomes part of the problem.
Maybe a bunch of parties, so many that one doesn’t get a majority, and bribing them all is to expensive?
There probably isn’t an easy solution, but I believe part of it is having people on either side of the political debate realize they are both right about each other’s party being no good, and instead of picking their “lesser evil” coming together to fight and take back what’s theirs from their mutual enemy: the politicians.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30110394</id>
	<title>Yes We Can</title>
	<author>merky1</author>
	<datestamp>1258290600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember the good ole days, when there was a charismatic candidate that promised a new Washington, one that represents the people and not littered with lobbyists.</p><p>I guess GW really messed the country up...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember the good ole days , when there was a charismatic candidate that promised a new Washington , one that represents the people and not littered with lobbyists.I guess GW really messed the country up.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember the good ole days, when there was a charismatic candidate that promised a new Washington, one that represents the people and not littered with lobbyists.I guess GW really messed the country up...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30112496</id>
	<title>Re:Puppets!</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1258313280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Aye... Genentech wasn't doing *anything* wrong simply by providing information and a point of view.</i></p><p>Bullshit.</p><p>They were not simply providing a point of view. They were providing a point of view with the intent of the text being used as talking points in the context of a system in which they are known for giving money to the politicians whom they favor.</p><p>Suppose you go to a football game. There's a line to use the bathroom. You wait in line. A guy comes rushing through saying, "Please let me through, I'm going to throw up!" Everyone lets him through. He gets into the stall, urinates, and walks out. Did he do anything wrong? He was just acting in his own best interest.</p><p>This whole "We should not revile corporations when they act amorally" meme is a crock. Dicks are dicks, and they should be castigated. Had we a system to provide just punishment for such behavior, that would be good, and we should seek it. We should also subject such dissocial actors to public ridicule and shunning. It is how a healthy community defends itself against infection by harmful parasites.</p><p>Of course the politicians are equally to blame. And as with criminals who are the result of poor upbringing, we may understand and pity these diseased corporations. Also as with criminals, we should seek paths to rehabilitation and reconciliation with society. But we certainly should not accept or condone the behavior.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Aye... Genentech was n't doing * anything * wrong simply by providing information and a point of view.Bullshit.They were not simply providing a point of view .
They were providing a point of view with the intent of the text being used as talking points in the context of a system in which they are known for giving money to the politicians whom they favor.Suppose you go to a football game .
There 's a line to use the bathroom .
You wait in line .
A guy comes rushing through saying , " Please let me through , I 'm going to throw up !
" Everyone lets him through .
He gets into the stall , urinates , and walks out .
Did he do anything wrong ?
He was just acting in his own best interest.This whole " We should not revile corporations when they act amorally " meme is a crock .
Dicks are dicks , and they should be castigated .
Had we a system to provide just punishment for such behavior , that would be good , and we should seek it .
We should also subject such dissocial actors to public ridicule and shunning .
It is how a healthy community defends itself against infection by harmful parasites.Of course the politicians are equally to blame .
And as with criminals who are the result of poor upbringing , we may understand and pity these diseased corporations .
Also as with criminals , we should seek paths to rehabilitation and reconciliation with society .
But we certainly should not accept or condone the behavior .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aye... Genentech wasn't doing *anything* wrong simply by providing information and a point of view.Bullshit.They were not simply providing a point of view.
They were providing a point of view with the intent of the text being used as talking points in the context of a system in which they are known for giving money to the politicians whom they favor.Suppose you go to a football game.
There's a line to use the bathroom.
You wait in line.
A guy comes rushing through saying, "Please let me through, I'm going to throw up!
" Everyone lets him through.
He gets into the stall, urinates, and walks out.
Did he do anything wrong?
He was just acting in his own best interest.This whole "We should not revile corporations when they act amorally" meme is a crock.
Dicks are dicks, and they should be castigated.
Had we a system to provide just punishment for such behavior, that would be good, and we should seek it.
We should also subject such dissocial actors to public ridicule and shunning.
It is how a healthy community defends itself against infection by harmful parasites.Of course the politicians are equally to blame.
And as with criminals who are the result of poor upbringing, we may understand and pity these diseased corporations.
Also as with criminals, we should seek paths to rehabilitation and reconciliation with society.
But we certainly should not accept or condone the behavior.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30110140</id>
	<title>All politicians should serve two terms</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258288860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>..one in office.  The other in prison.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>..one in office .
The other in prison .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..one in office.
The other in prison.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109824</id>
	<title>no surprise, pols are bought/paid for by corrupt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258286580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>banks/companies/lobbyiest etc....From prez down to congress reps/senators, they are paid to enrich the rich while we, the poor, slowly die and/or unemployed.  I don't vote because I never believe liars like Bush, Obama, Pelosi etc...they are all liars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>banks/companies/lobbyiest etc....From prez down to congress reps/senators , they are paid to enrich the rich while we , the poor , slowly die and/or unemployed .
I do n't vote because I never believe liars like Bush , Obama , Pelosi etc...they are all liars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>banks/companies/lobbyiest etc....From prez down to congress reps/senators, they are paid to enrich the rich while we, the poor, slowly die and/or unemployed.
I don't vote because I never believe liars like Bush, Obama, Pelosi etc...they are all liars.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109720</id>
	<title>Re:Yay lobbyist-speak</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258285800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The solution is to educate the populace, and it is improving: pay attention to the memes that get spread around; by now everyone on the internet knows that "correlation != causation" and many have a more nuanced understanding of that idea. Five years ago, that thought wasn't so widespread. Same with the "[Citation Needed]" trend: as annoying as it was, it spread the idea that citations are a good thing.</p><p>If this trend continues, the problem will be self-correcting. Representatives will understand that lobbyists are biased and will go look for other sources of information.</p></div> </blockquote><p>
Your conclusion presumes that they <em>care</em>. (or that they ever did...)
</p><p>
Their attitude may well be one of "I've been elected.  Citations are no longer needed, because what I say <em>is</em> the citation, at least to the idiots that voted for me.  Call the lobbyist for the firm that I really represent and let 'em know I'm open for business."
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The solution is to educate the populace , and it is improving : pay attention to the memes that get spread around ; by now everyone on the internet knows that " correlation ! = causation " and many have a more nuanced understanding of that idea .
Five years ago , that thought was n't so widespread .
Same with the " [ Citation Needed ] " trend : as annoying as it was , it spread the idea that citations are a good thing.If this trend continues , the problem will be self-correcting .
Representatives will understand that lobbyists are biased and will go look for other sources of information .
Your conclusion presumes that they care .
( or that they ever did... ) Their attitude may well be one of " I 've been elected .
Citations are no longer needed , because what I say is the citation , at least to the idiots that voted for me .
Call the lobbyist for the firm that I really represent and let 'em know I 'm open for business .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The solution is to educate the populace, and it is improving: pay attention to the memes that get spread around; by now everyone on the internet knows that "correlation != causation" and many have a more nuanced understanding of that idea.
Five years ago, that thought wasn't so widespread.
Same with the "[Citation Needed]" trend: as annoying as it was, it spread the idea that citations are a good thing.If this trend continues, the problem will be self-correcting.
Representatives will understand that lobbyists are biased and will go look for other sources of information.
Your conclusion presumes that they care.
(or that they ever did...)

Their attitude may well be one of "I've been elected.
Citations are no longer needed, because what I say is the citation, at least to the idiots that voted for me.
Call the lobbyist for the firm that I really represent and let 'em know I'm open for business.
"

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30121988</id>
	<title>Re:"Nothing nefarious"??</title>
	<author>Areyoukiddingme</author>
	<datestamp>1258367760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait wait wait.  Hold on.  Not only are we abandoning the Slashdot meme that there are no women on the Internet, we're also abandoning the meme that all Slashdot readers are morbidly obese?  This is outrageous!  Genentech shenanigans are as nothing compared to this!  Our very <i>identity</i> is at risk!!!!111oneoneeleveneleven
</p><p>
Ok, I'll go back to my basement now.  We're keeping that one, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait wait wait .
Hold on .
Not only are we abandoning the Slashdot meme that there are no women on the Internet , we 're also abandoning the meme that all Slashdot readers are morbidly obese ?
This is outrageous !
Genentech shenanigans are as nothing compared to this !
Our very identity is at risk ! ! !
! 111oneoneeleveneleven Ok , I 'll go back to my basement now .
We 're keeping that one , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait wait wait.
Hold on.
Not only are we abandoning the Slashdot meme that there are no women on the Internet, we're also abandoning the meme that all Slashdot readers are morbidly obese?
This is outrageous!
Genentech shenanigans are as nothing compared to this!
Our very identity is at risk!!!
!111oneoneeleveneleven

Ok, I'll go back to my basement now.
We're keeping that one, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30110110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109928</id>
	<title>Re:Yuh huh...</title>
	<author>Ethanol-fueled</author>
	<datestamp>1258287180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do the rifle and the potshots, and please go for the big time and do it inside the capitol building. So many good shooters go to waste gunning down lame stuff like universities and shopping malls and army bases.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do the rifle and the potshots , and please go for the big time and do it inside the capitol building .
So many good shooters go to waste gunning down lame stuff like universities and shopping malls and army bases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do the rifle and the potshots, and please go for the big time and do it inside the capitol building.
So many good shooters go to waste gunning down lame stuff like universities and shopping malls and army bases.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30122104</id>
	<title>Re:Puppets!</title>
	<author>Z1NG</author>
	<datestamp>1258368120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As if there is some assumption that only bright educated people can govern?</p></div><p>What, you prefer that the dimwitted and ignorant be in charge?  What a utopia that would be.  If we are talking about a republic, then yes I definitely want my representatives to be intelligent and well educated (now, if only that could be arranged...).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As if there is some assumption that only bright educated people can govern ? What , you prefer that the dimwitted and ignorant be in charge ?
What a utopia that would be .
If we are talking about a republic , then yes I definitely want my representatives to be intelligent and well educated ( now , if only that could be arranged... ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As if there is some assumption that only bright educated people can govern?What, you prefer that the dimwitted and ignorant be in charge?
What a utopia that would be.
If we are talking about a republic, then yes I definitely want my representatives to be intelligent and well educated (now, if only that could be arranged...).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30112438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30110200</id>
	<title>Re:End the pretense</title>
	<author>sapphire wyvern</author>
	<datestamp>1258289340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>let them wear jackets with sponsor patches ala Nascar</p></div><p>Let them? How about require them to!</p><p>That's actually a very insightful approach to data visualisation of campaign contributions. If prominence and size of a contributor's logo was tied to the amount of money they'd contributed in the same way as it is for sports teams &amp; racing, voters would be able to intuitively figure out the major influences on the politician, by analogy with their familiarity with the world of professional sports.</p><p>Realistically, it'll never happen, because politicians want to be seen as holding to an ideology rather than being beholden to vested interests. But a nice photoshop based around the concept would be an excellent piece of art for a third party to create during a campaign, as a way of both criticizing the lobbyist system and simultaneously educating the public.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>let them wear jackets with sponsor patches ala NascarLet them ?
How about require them to ! That 's actually a very insightful approach to data visualisation of campaign contributions .
If prominence and size of a contributor 's logo was tied to the amount of money they 'd contributed in the same way as it is for sports teams &amp; racing , voters would be able to intuitively figure out the major influences on the politician , by analogy with their familiarity with the world of professional sports.Realistically , it 'll never happen , because politicians want to be seen as holding to an ideology rather than being beholden to vested interests .
But a nice photoshop based around the concept would be an excellent piece of art for a third party to create during a campaign , as a way of both criticizing the lobbyist system and simultaneously educating the public .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>let them wear jackets with sponsor patches ala NascarLet them?
How about require them to!That's actually a very insightful approach to data visualisation of campaign contributions.
If prominence and size of a contributor's logo was tied to the amount of money they'd contributed in the same way as it is for sports teams &amp; racing, voters would be able to intuitively figure out the major influences on the politician, by analogy with their familiarity with the world of professional sports.Realistically, it'll never happen, because politicians want to be seen as holding to an ideology rather than being beholden to vested interests.
But a nice photoshop based around the concept would be an excellent piece of art for a third party to create during a campaign, as a way of both criticizing the lobbyist system and simultaneously educating the public.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30110056</id>
	<title>no pre existing conditions is needed! Rape is one</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1258288200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>no pre existing conditions is needed! Rape is one so that system has to go as some people have lost health care over just about anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>no pre existing conditions is needed !
Rape is one so that system has to go as some people have lost health care over just about anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no pre existing conditions is needed!
Rape is one so that system has to go as some people have lost health care over just about anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109346</id>
	<title>Why can ideologists and unions lobby?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258283100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obama has excempted trade unions from registering as lobbyists, in spite of seeking to do excatly the same things as companies do - fighting for their interests.</p><p>The same goes for ideological organisations.</p><p>Why are companies banned from lobbying, while others with an agenda are not?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama has excempted trade unions from registering as lobbyists , in spite of seeking to do excatly the same things as companies do - fighting for their interests.The same goes for ideological organisations.Why are companies banned from lobbying , while others with an agenda are not ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama has excempted trade unions from registering as lobbyists, in spite of seeking to do excatly the same things as companies do - fighting for their interests.The same goes for ideological organisations.Why are companies banned from lobbying, while others with an agenda are not?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109262</id>
	<title>Puppets!</title>
	<author>Shikaku</author>
	<datestamp>1258282440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All of them!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All of them !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of them!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109418</id>
	<title>Can we get rid of foreign lobbyists?</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1258283640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why are foreign companies even allowed to lobby in the United States?  IT's a fricking invasion, is what this is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are foreign companies even allowed to lobby in the United States ?
IT 's a fricking invasion , is what this is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are foreign companies even allowed to lobby in the United States?
IT's a fricking invasion, is what this is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30110280</id>
	<title>Happens often != Not-nefarious</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1258289880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rape happens all the time.  Murder happens all the time.  Fraud, waste and abuse happens all the time.  Politicians demonstrating behavior of being bought and paid for by big money interests happens all the time.  None of these things are good and all of them should be brought under control.</p><p>One of the biggest problems of corruption today is that people think it's acceptable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rape happens all the time .
Murder happens all the time .
Fraud , waste and abuse happens all the time .
Politicians demonstrating behavior of being bought and paid for by big money interests happens all the time .
None of these things are good and all of them should be brought under control.One of the biggest problems of corruption today is that people think it 's acceptable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rape happens all the time.
Murder happens all the time.
Fraud, waste and abuse happens all the time.
Politicians demonstrating behavior of being bought and paid for by big money interests happens all the time.
None of these things are good and all of them should be brought under control.One of the biggest problems of corruption today is that people think it's acceptable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109552</id>
	<title>Re:Yay lobbyist-speak</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1258284420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I used to get really upset about lobbyists, but I think the problem is really the general incompetence of our elected officials. They have trouble distinguishing between good information and bad information, and end up going with the most convenient information (although in their minds they will have some logic loop that proves to them that they chose the good information).<br> <br>
The problem is a good portion of the US has trouble figuring out how to distinguish good information from bad information. Think of how many people pay $50 a bottle to drink acai juice thinking it will help them lose weight.  Think how many people buy lottery tickets. These are people who are just out of touch with reality.<br> <br>
Strangely it has nothing to do with education levels, either.  You wouldn't believe how many educated people I talked to were certain that president Bush would call martial law and cancel the election before Obama could be voted in (thus becoming emperor).  You may have been one of them.  As crazy as that seems, the fact is, knowing how to distinguish good information from bad information is really hard and takes a lot of experience. You can't take the easy shortcut and only rely on peer-reviewed papers because a lot of reality hasn't been peer reviewed yet (and peer-review in no way shows that something is true).<br> <br>
It is no surprise that a population that can't distinguish between reality and fantasy elects representatives that can't distinguish between reality and fantasy as well. The solution is to educate the populace, and it is improving: pay attention to the memes that get spread around; by now everyone on the internet knows that "correlation != causation" and many have a more nuanced understanding of that idea.  Five years ago, that thought wasn't so widespread. Same with the "[Citation Needed]" trend: as annoying as it was, it spread the idea that citations are a good thing.<br> <br>
If this trend continues, the problem will be self-correcting. Representatives will understand that lobbyists are biased and will go look for other sources of information. Unfortunately there is no other way to solve the problem: there is no amount of legislation that can fix it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to get really upset about lobbyists , but I think the problem is really the general incompetence of our elected officials .
They have trouble distinguishing between good information and bad information , and end up going with the most convenient information ( although in their minds they will have some logic loop that proves to them that they chose the good information ) .
The problem is a good portion of the US has trouble figuring out how to distinguish good information from bad information .
Think of how many people pay $ 50 a bottle to drink acai juice thinking it will help them lose weight .
Think how many people buy lottery tickets .
These are people who are just out of touch with reality .
Strangely it has nothing to do with education levels , either .
You would n't believe how many educated people I talked to were certain that president Bush would call martial law and cancel the election before Obama could be voted in ( thus becoming emperor ) .
You may have been one of them .
As crazy as that seems , the fact is , knowing how to distinguish good information from bad information is really hard and takes a lot of experience .
You ca n't take the easy shortcut and only rely on peer-reviewed papers because a lot of reality has n't been peer reviewed yet ( and peer-review in no way shows that something is true ) .
It is no surprise that a population that ca n't distinguish between reality and fantasy elects representatives that ca n't distinguish between reality and fantasy as well .
The solution is to educate the populace , and it is improving : pay attention to the memes that get spread around ; by now everyone on the internet knows that " correlation ! = causation " and many have a more nuanced understanding of that idea .
Five years ago , that thought was n't so widespread .
Same with the " [ Citation Needed ] " trend : as annoying as it was , it spread the idea that citations are a good thing .
If this trend continues , the problem will be self-correcting .
Representatives will understand that lobbyists are biased and will go look for other sources of information .
Unfortunately there is no other way to solve the problem : there is no amount of legislation that can fix it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to get really upset about lobbyists, but I think the problem is really the general incompetence of our elected officials.
They have trouble distinguishing between good information and bad information, and end up going with the most convenient information (although in their minds they will have some logic loop that proves to them that they chose the good information).
The problem is a good portion of the US has trouble figuring out how to distinguish good information from bad information.
Think of how many people pay $50 a bottle to drink acai juice thinking it will help them lose weight.
Think how many people buy lottery tickets.
These are people who are just out of touch with reality.
Strangely it has nothing to do with education levels, either.
You wouldn't believe how many educated people I talked to were certain that president Bush would call martial law and cancel the election before Obama could be voted in (thus becoming emperor).
You may have been one of them.
As crazy as that seems, the fact is, knowing how to distinguish good information from bad information is really hard and takes a lot of experience.
You can't take the easy shortcut and only rely on peer-reviewed papers because a lot of reality hasn't been peer reviewed yet (and peer-review in no way shows that something is true).
It is no surprise that a population that can't distinguish between reality and fantasy elects representatives that can't distinguish between reality and fantasy as well.
The solution is to educate the populace, and it is improving: pay attention to the memes that get spread around; by now everyone on the internet knows that "correlation != causation" and many have a more nuanced understanding of that idea.
Five years ago, that thought wasn't so widespread.
Same with the "[Citation Needed]" trend: as annoying as it was, it spread the idea that citations are a good thing.
If this trend continues, the problem will be self-correcting.
Representatives will understand that lobbyists are biased and will go look for other sources of information.
Unfortunately there is no other way to solve the problem: there is no amount of legislation that can fix it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30110126</id>
	<title>Re:Yay lobbyist-speak</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258288680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The solution is to educate the populace, and it is improving: pay attention to the memes that get spread around; by now everyone on the internet knows that "correlation != causation" and many have a more nuanced understanding of that idea. Five years ago, that thought wasn't so widespread. Same with the "[Citation Needed]" trend: as annoying as it was, it spread the idea that citations are a good thing."</p><p>If you truly believe that "everyone on the internet" knows (not even subscribes) to these memes that you have seen on the rise in your circles and that they are evidence of a trend that will counter an ill-informed government and populace then I question your ability to discern good information from bad.</p><p>But, heck, I questioned that the moment that you implied the problem was one of inability and not desire.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The solution is to educate the populace , and it is improving : pay attention to the memes that get spread around ; by now everyone on the internet knows that " correlation ! = causation " and many have a more nuanced understanding of that idea .
Five years ago , that thought was n't so widespread .
Same with the " [ Citation Needed ] " trend : as annoying as it was , it spread the idea that citations are a good thing .
" If you truly believe that " everyone on the internet " knows ( not even subscribes ) to these memes that you have seen on the rise in your circles and that they are evidence of a trend that will counter an ill-informed government and populace then I question your ability to discern good information from bad.But , heck , I questioned that the moment that you implied the problem was one of inability and not desire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The solution is to educate the populace, and it is improving: pay attention to the memes that get spread around; by now everyone on the internet knows that "correlation != causation" and many have a more nuanced understanding of that idea.
Five years ago, that thought wasn't so widespread.
Same with the "[Citation Needed]" trend: as annoying as it was, it spread the idea that citations are a good thing.
"If you truly believe that "everyone on the internet" knows (not even subscribes) to these memes that you have seen on the rise in your circles and that they are evidence of a trend that will counter an ill-informed government and populace then I question your ability to discern good information from bad.But, heck, I questioned that the moment that you implied the problem was one of inability and not desire.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30110284</id>
	<title>Re:Puppets!</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1258289880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, Genentech was doing something morally wrong.  Contributing to the delinquency of others is morally wrong. It's just not as bad as what their sock puppets are doing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , Genentech was doing something morally wrong .
Contributing to the delinquency of others is morally wrong .
It 's just not as bad as what their sock puppets are doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, Genentech was doing something morally wrong.
Contributing to the delinquency of others is morally wrong.
It's just not as bad as what their sock puppets are doing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109574</id>
	<title>Problem and Solution</title>
	<author>F34nor</author>
	<datestamp>1258284600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Problem: Lobbyists exert a disproportional amount of influence in the legislative branch of government.<br>Solution: Tax lobbyists.<br>Problem: The Supreme Court see the 14th amendment as giving human rights to property and also see money as a form of speech so we can't touch them.<br>Solution: New constitutional amendment. "Money is not a form of speech."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Problem : Lobbyists exert a disproportional amount of influence in the legislative branch of government.Solution : Tax lobbyists.Problem : The Supreme Court see the 14th amendment as giving human rights to property and also see money as a form of speech so we ca n't touch them.Solution : New constitutional amendment .
" Money is not a form of speech .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Problem: Lobbyists exert a disproportional amount of influence in the legislative branch of government.Solution: Tax lobbyists.Problem: The Supreme Court see the 14th amendment as giving human rights to property and also see money as a form of speech so we can't touch them.Solution: New constitutional amendment.
"Money is not a form of speech.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30110110</id>
	<title>"Nothing nefarious"??</title>
	<author>Jane Q. Public</author>
	<datestamp>1258288620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's "nothing nefarious about it"??  Since when do Swiss-owned corporations write statements for American congresscritters?
<br> <br>
"Nothing nefarious" my cute little butt.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's " nothing nefarious about it " ? ?
Since when do Swiss-owned corporations write statements for American congresscritters ?
" Nothing nefarious " my cute little butt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's "nothing nefarious about it"??
Since when do Swiss-owned corporations write statements for American congresscritters?
"Nothing nefarious" my cute little butt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30116636</id>
	<title>but it is the insurance companies they care about</title>
	<author>sgt scrub</author>
	<datestamp>1258393080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Insurance companies increase profits by investing the money they receive from customers by investing it in the stock market and keeping payouts low by employing civil lawyers.  It has been my experience that attorneys know their skills are recognized when an insurance company employs their services.  Does it stand to reason that because Insurance companies invest so much money in the stock market and attorneys that they have gained too much control over the country?  For instance, if attorneys are co-joined by income from insurance companies to the point of bias and attorneys are comprised of people with political desires (the majority of people elected to a public office are attorneys) isn't it likely they are biased towards the interests of insurance companies above all else?  I believe I'm correct because the priorities of people in those offices, of late, have been the health of the market through tax payer bail outs and the redirection of the national health care debate towards a mandatory insurance law.  It looks to me like these lawyers are just using whatever information supports their goals as opposed to supporting the drug companies agenda.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Insurance companies increase profits by investing the money they receive from customers by investing it in the stock market and keeping payouts low by employing civil lawyers .
It has been my experience that attorneys know their skills are recognized when an insurance company employs their services .
Does it stand to reason that because Insurance companies invest so much money in the stock market and attorneys that they have gained too much control over the country ?
For instance , if attorneys are co-joined by income from insurance companies to the point of bias and attorneys are comprised of people with political desires ( the majority of people elected to a public office are attorneys ) is n't it likely they are biased towards the interests of insurance companies above all else ?
I believe I 'm correct because the priorities of people in those offices , of late , have been the health of the market through tax payer bail outs and the redirection of the national health care debate towards a mandatory insurance law .
It looks to me like these lawyers are just using whatever information supports their goals as opposed to supporting the drug companies agenda .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Insurance companies increase profits by investing the money they receive from customers by investing it in the stock market and keeping payouts low by employing civil lawyers.
It has been my experience that attorneys know their skills are recognized when an insurance company employs their services.
Does it stand to reason that because Insurance companies invest so much money in the stock market and attorneys that they have gained too much control over the country?
For instance, if attorneys are co-joined by income from insurance companies to the point of bias and attorneys are comprised of people with political desires (the majority of people elected to a public office are attorneys) isn't it likely they are biased towards the interests of insurance companies above all else?
I believe I'm correct because the priorities of people in those offices, of late, have been the health of the market through tax payer bail outs and the redirection of the national health care debate towards a mandatory insurance law.
It looks to me like these lawyers are just using whatever information supports their goals as opposed to supporting the drug companies agenda.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109588</id>
	<title>We need another party</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258284720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>As can be seen we really only have one party in Washington.  The money party.  It's a smoke and mirrors thing.  They use ideology to divide and confuse the public while they take our money.  It's been working well for them.  I sometimes think no one in Washington D.C. believes in anything.....I hope I'm wrong...but I don't think so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As can be seen we really only have one party in Washington .
The money party .
It 's a smoke and mirrors thing .
They use ideology to divide and confuse the public while they take our money .
It 's been working well for them .
I sometimes think no one in Washington D.C. believes in anything.....I hope I 'm wrong...but I do n't think so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As can be seen we really only have one party in Washington.
The money party.
It's a smoke and mirrors thing.
They use ideology to divide and confuse the public while they take our money.
It's been working well for them.
I sometimes think no one in Washington D.C. believes in anything.....I hope I'm wrong...but I don't think so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30110864</id>
	<title>Lies, Damn Lies and Article Titles</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1258294980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Providing a sales brochure with sales points tailored to a couple of different potential customer groups is perfectly normal. It is fervently hoped that they, having tried the drug, will sing its praises. The provided talking points may or may not get used, but if they do it'll sound like they've been reading the same sales brochure -- they have. There is nothing unusual or unethical about providing sales and marketing information openly. Not even if, say the brochure provides information on a drug intended for users who take it to (1) control high blood pressure, or (2) grow hair in spots losing hair due to male pattern baldness. The same drug does both.</p><p>Politicians are likely to talk about the drug and related laws and regulations, and the marketoids hope very much they'll read the brochures and use the provided talking points. If they use their own, albeit perfectly aligned with one of the major party platform planks regarding it, the points get made, but haphazardly. Those not provided with the brochure will only have others to listen to. It is no less illegal or unethical to provide congresscritters with sales brochures so they can talk about it without having to write their own material. Two versions might be produced, say (1) for those who want oversight regulations to be relaxed vs (2) those who want to have greater specific oversight over certain drugs regardless of their position on oversight on the FDA in general. Providing both is no more problematic than providing one or the other.</p><p>Now, the article summary's title as presented here on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., it implies some sort of wrong doing, despite the fact that the material out there which educates people about its uses and possible problems. Even though some of the other summarizes repeat a known issue with voting lobbyists, it is only incorrect, not attempting to manipulate anyone's opinions other than letting them spout off random concepts, as the title seems intended to accuse the lobbyists of doing. The situation is intended that one should more comply than have to drive around forever, using an old tow truck and 20 year old trailer. It is not likely you would have heard the provided material before haring congress talking about it. It happens to make use of the same 'word-of-mouth' advertising proven to work so well with the population. This is neither illegal nor unethical.</p><p>Now, for an article's summary to include a statement to be used as a title, that implies that a/the main character is in danger, this is all perfectly normal MPAA activity. It also suggests that should one or another congresscritter use the talking points, they'll be in error . If the brochure were intended to hasten the break up to find some relief then it was meddling, which is unethical. But it doesn't, it just provides likely word-of-mouth phrases so that everybody is talking on the same boat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Providing a sales brochure with sales points tailored to a couple of different potential customer groups is perfectly normal .
It is fervently hoped that they , having tried the drug , will sing its praises .
The provided talking points may or may not get used , but if they do it 'll sound like they 've been reading the same sales brochure -- they have .
There is nothing unusual or unethical about providing sales and marketing information openly .
Not even if , say the brochure provides information on a drug intended for users who take it to ( 1 ) control high blood pressure , or ( 2 ) grow hair in spots losing hair due to male pattern baldness .
The same drug does both.Politicians are likely to talk about the drug and related laws and regulations , and the marketoids hope very much they 'll read the brochures and use the provided talking points .
If they use their own , albeit perfectly aligned with one of the major party platform planks regarding it , the points get made , but haphazardly .
Those not provided with the brochure will only have others to listen to .
It is no less illegal or unethical to provide congresscritters with sales brochures so they can talk about it without having to write their own material .
Two versions might be produced , say ( 1 ) for those who want oversight regulations to be relaxed vs ( 2 ) those who want to have greater specific oversight over certain drugs regardless of their position on oversight on the FDA in general .
Providing both is no more problematic than providing one or the other.Now , the article summary 's title as presented here on /. , it implies some sort of wrong doing , despite the fact that the material out there which educates people about its uses and possible problems .
Even though some of the other summarizes repeat a known issue with voting lobbyists , it is only incorrect , not attempting to manipulate anyone 's opinions other than letting them spout off random concepts , as the title seems intended to accuse the lobbyists of doing .
The situation is intended that one should more comply than have to drive around forever , using an old tow truck and 20 year old trailer .
It is not likely you would have heard the provided material before haring congress talking about it .
It happens to make use of the same 'word-of-mouth ' advertising proven to work so well with the population .
This is neither illegal nor unethical.Now , for an article 's summary to include a statement to be used as a title , that implies that a/the main character is in danger , this is all perfectly normal MPAA activity .
It also suggests that should one or another congresscritter use the talking points , they 'll be in error .
If the brochure were intended to hasten the break up to find some relief then it was meddling , which is unethical .
But it does n't , it just provides likely word-of-mouth phrases so that everybody is talking on the same boat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Providing a sales brochure with sales points tailored to a couple of different potential customer groups is perfectly normal.
It is fervently hoped that they, having tried the drug, will sing its praises.
The provided talking points may or may not get used, but if they do it'll sound like they've been reading the same sales brochure -- they have.
There is nothing unusual or unethical about providing sales and marketing information openly.
Not even if, say the brochure provides information on a drug intended for users who take it to (1) control high blood pressure, or (2) grow hair in spots losing hair due to male pattern baldness.
The same drug does both.Politicians are likely to talk about the drug and related laws and regulations, and the marketoids hope very much they'll read the brochures and use the provided talking points.
If they use their own, albeit perfectly aligned with one of the major party platform planks regarding it, the points get made, but haphazardly.
Those not provided with the brochure will only have others to listen to.
It is no less illegal or unethical to provide congresscritters with sales brochures so they can talk about it without having to write their own material.
Two versions might be produced, say (1) for those who want oversight regulations to be relaxed vs (2) those who want to have greater specific oversight over certain drugs regardless of their position on oversight on the FDA in general.
Providing both is no more problematic than providing one or the other.Now, the article summary's title as presented here on /., it implies some sort of wrong doing, despite the fact that the material out there which educates people about its uses and possible problems.
Even though some of the other summarizes repeat a known issue with voting lobbyists, it is only incorrect, not attempting to manipulate anyone's opinions other than letting them spout off random concepts, as the title seems intended to accuse the lobbyists of doing.
The situation is intended that one should more comply than have to drive around forever, using an old tow truck and 20 year old trailer.
It is not likely you would have heard the provided material before haring congress talking about it.
It happens to make use of the same 'word-of-mouth' advertising proven to work so well with the population.
This is neither illegal nor unethical.Now, for an article's summary to include a statement to be used as a title, that implies that a/the main character is in danger, this is all perfectly normal MPAA activity.
It also suggests that should one or another congresscritter use the talking points, they'll be in error .
If the brochure were intended to hasten the break up to find some relief then it was meddling, which is unethical.
But it doesn't, it just provides likely word-of-mouth phrases so that everybody is talking on the same boat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109758</id>
	<title>Dont blame Libbyst but The Congrescritters</title>
	<author>omb</author>
	<datestamp>1258286040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Doing this should be cause for banning the member Aids for two years, let him do some WORK.<br><br>You Americans are getting just the corrupt lying conniving government you claim to object to in the third world,<br>and nothing seems to change it. You need to get rid of PACs and Soft money and have rigid two term limits.<br><br>The sense of entitlemeent from these guys is worse the the Wall St CEO.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Doing this should be cause for banning the member Aids for two years , let him do some WORK.You Americans are getting just the corrupt lying conniving government you claim to object to in the third world,and nothing seems to change it .
You need to get rid of PACs and Soft money and have rigid two term limits.The sense of entitlemeent from these guys is worse the the Wall St CEO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doing this should be cause for banning the member Aids for two years, let him do some WORK.You Americans are getting just the corrupt lying conniving government you claim to object to in the third world,and nothing seems to change it.
You need to get rid of PACs and Soft money and have rigid two term limits.The sense of entitlemeent from these guys is worse the the Wall St CEO.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109696</id>
	<title>Absolutely true.</title>
	<author>BrookHarty</author>
	<datestamp>1258285560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>America has the best government money can buy.</p><p>Obama was voted in to open up our government. He stated bills would exclude pork riders, bills with company backing would include a list of the companies making money off the bill, bills would sit on his desk for 5 days.  His long list to open the government up was just election lies.</p><p>He is pushing this health care bill through with mandates, people are forced to buy insurance and a public option hardly anybody can qualify for.  There are countries that have universal health care that works, our method isn't even close to a working model. All the talk that a bad bill is a good first step, so just shut up and go along with the crowd pisses me off.  And if you say anything against it, you are a tea-bagger nut job. At least SNL can start to comment on the lack of progress in this presidents term.</p><p>There is a reason every insurance company and drug company wants the bill to pass, no price controls and all citizens must buy health care.</p><p>SSDD, follow the money, and most are on the take.</p><p>Funny, I'm more upset about the mandatory piece, when I'm not even in the age bracket that will be affected. I have insurance from work. The people just out of school not living at home getting hit with a 200-500 insurance bill. Or the middle class people who just lost their jobs and cant afford to pay the mortgage, and now has to pay insurance on top of it for a family.  Good kick to people while they are down. They wont be accepted for the public option, and cant afford insurance, so will be fined with a tax, and have their unemployment garnished..</p><p>Of course, what do I know. Just my jaded rambling based on my personal life experience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>America has the best government money can buy.Obama was voted in to open up our government .
He stated bills would exclude pork riders , bills with company backing would include a list of the companies making money off the bill , bills would sit on his desk for 5 days .
His long list to open the government up was just election lies.He is pushing this health care bill through with mandates , people are forced to buy insurance and a public option hardly anybody can qualify for .
There are countries that have universal health care that works , our method is n't even close to a working model .
All the talk that a bad bill is a good first step , so just shut up and go along with the crowd pisses me off .
And if you say anything against it , you are a tea-bagger nut job .
At least SNL can start to comment on the lack of progress in this presidents term.There is a reason every insurance company and drug company wants the bill to pass , no price controls and all citizens must buy health care.SSDD , follow the money , and most are on the take.Funny , I 'm more upset about the mandatory piece , when I 'm not even in the age bracket that will be affected .
I have insurance from work .
The people just out of school not living at home getting hit with a 200-500 insurance bill .
Or the middle class people who just lost their jobs and cant afford to pay the mortgage , and now has to pay insurance on top of it for a family .
Good kick to people while they are down .
They wont be accepted for the public option , and cant afford insurance , so will be fined with a tax , and have their unemployment garnished..Of course , what do I know .
Just my jaded rambling based on my personal life experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>America has the best government money can buy.Obama was voted in to open up our government.
He stated bills would exclude pork riders, bills with company backing would include a list of the companies making money off the bill, bills would sit on his desk for 5 days.
His long list to open the government up was just election lies.He is pushing this health care bill through with mandates, people are forced to buy insurance and a public option hardly anybody can qualify for.
There are countries that have universal health care that works, our method isn't even close to a working model.
All the talk that a bad bill is a good first step, so just shut up and go along with the crowd pisses me off.
And if you say anything against it, you are a tea-bagger nut job.
At least SNL can start to comment on the lack of progress in this presidents term.There is a reason every insurance company and drug company wants the bill to pass, no price controls and all citizens must buy health care.SSDD, follow the money, and most are on the take.Funny, I'm more upset about the mandatory piece, when I'm not even in the age bracket that will be affected.
I have insurance from work.
The people just out of school not living at home getting hit with a 200-500 insurance bill.
Or the middle class people who just lost their jobs and cant afford to pay the mortgage, and now has to pay insurance on top of it for a family.
Good kick to people while they are down.
They wont be accepted for the public option, and cant afford insurance, so will be fined with a tax, and have their unemployment garnished..Of course, what do I know.
Just my jaded rambling based on my personal life experience.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109344</id>
	<title>Everyone remebers "Die Quickly" line</title>
	<author>should\_be\_linear</author>
	<datestamp>1258283100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But thet was not Roche, right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>But thet was not Roche , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But thet was not Roche, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30110134</id>
	<title>Re:Yuh huh...</title>
	<author>hairyfeet</author>
	<datestamp>1258288800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bah! Wasting perfectly good bullets on the puppets you are. Better to go for the money lenders, they are the real power elite. Goldman Sachs FTW!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bah !
Wasting perfectly good bullets on the puppets you are .
Better to go for the money lenders , they are the real power elite .
Goldman Sachs FTW !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bah!
Wasting perfectly good bullets on the puppets you are.
Better to go for the money lenders, they are the real power elite.
Goldman Sachs FTW!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109928</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1939218_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30110044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1939218_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30114446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30111090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1939218_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30110108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1939218_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30117036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1939218_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30110056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1939218_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30111312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1939218_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30122104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30112438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1939218_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1939218_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1939218_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1939218_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30111476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1939218_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30121988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30110110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1939218_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30111092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1939218_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30112364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1939218_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1939218_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30157450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30110394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1939218_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1939218_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30110126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1939218_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30110134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1939218_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30110284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1939218_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1939218_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1939218_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1939218_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30114032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1939218_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30126172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1939218_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30112496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1939218_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30110402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1939218_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30111532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1939218_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30120728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1939218_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30114994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30110172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1939218_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30110712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1939218_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1939218_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30111040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1939218_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30112180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1939218_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30115192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1939218_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1939218_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1939218_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30110380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1939218_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30110086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1939218_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30110122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1939218_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30111044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30110110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1939218_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30115108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1939218_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30110200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1939218_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30111136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30110394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1939218_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30116366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30112438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1939218_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30111128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1939218_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30118422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30112438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_1939218.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109418
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_1939218.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30110086
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_1939218.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109462
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109664
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109868
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_1939218.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109438
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109928
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30110134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109390
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30110284
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30110712
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30110172
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30114994
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109734
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30112438
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30116366
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30122104
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30118422
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30111312
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30111532
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109780
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30117036
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109644
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30112496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30110380
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_1939218.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30110394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30157450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30111136
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_1939218.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109316
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_1939218.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30111090
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30114446
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_1939218.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30111040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30110200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30110044
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_1939218.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30126172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30110402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30112364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109552
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30115108
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30111092
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30114032
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30110126
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109832
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109720
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30111476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109758
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_1939218.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109940
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_1939218.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30110864
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_1939218.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30110056
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_1939218.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109456
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_1939218.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30115192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30111128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30110122
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_1939218.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30110110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30111044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30121988
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_1939218.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30109588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30120728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30110108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1939218.30112180
</commentlist>
</conversation>
