<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_11_2332207</id>
	<title>EU Overturns Agreement With US On Banking Data</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1265898120000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Following the lead of the civil liberties committee which  <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/02/06/1836221/EU-Committee-Says-No-To-Bank-Data-Sharing">last week recommended dropping it</a> (against the wishes of the US), qmaqdk writes <i>"The <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8510471.stm">EU parliament overturned the previous agreement with the US</a> which allowed US intelligence agencies to access EU banking data."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Following the lead of the civil liberties committee which last week recommended dropping it ( against the wishes of the US ) , qmaqdk writes " The EU parliament overturned the previous agreement with the US which allowed US intelligence agencies to access EU banking data .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Following the lead of the civil liberties committee which  last week recommended dropping it (against the wishes of the US), qmaqdk writes "The EU parliament overturned the previous agreement with the US which allowed US intelligence agencies to access EU banking data.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110866</id>
	<title>Will SWIFT stay in Europe?</title>
	<author>houghi</author>
	<datestamp>1265971680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the possibilaties is that SWIFT moves to Switserland where the EU has nothing to say. The banks do not really care, so it would be an easy solution for them. That would mean that new laws would be made (perhaps in each country individually) to avaoid the transfer of the information to Switserland (and then to the US).</p><p>This will be a lot harder to avoid and could take several years if it would happen at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the possibilaties is that SWIFT moves to Switserland where the EU has nothing to say .
The banks do not really care , so it would be an easy solution for them .
That would mean that new laws would be made ( perhaps in each country individually ) to avaoid the transfer of the information to Switserland ( and then to the US ) .This will be a lot harder to avoid and could take several years if it would happen at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the possibilaties is that SWIFT moves to Switserland where the EU has nothing to say.
The banks do not really care, so it would be an easy solution for them.
That would mean that new laws would be made (perhaps in each country individually) to avaoid the transfer of the information to Switserland (and then to the US).This will be a lot harder to avoid and could take several years if it would happen at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108738</id>
	<title>Well done!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265901780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good for them, way to grow a spine, Europe! Now if only American banks had the same motivation to protect its customers data from the very same agencies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good for them , way to grow a spine , Europe !
Now if only American banks had the same motivation to protect its customers data from the very same agencies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good for them, way to grow a spine, Europe!
Now if only American banks had the same motivation to protect its customers data from the very same agencies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110502</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, it's more sinister than that...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265966880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Actually, as I understand it, this one was more a case of I'll show you yours if you'll show me mine.</p></div><p>No. The agreement was unilateral. The US had no obligation to provide the EU with the same information, which was the main reason why it was overturned. At least, that's the main point according to news sources on our side of the Atlantic.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , as I understand it , this one was more a case of I 'll show you yours if you 'll show me mine.No .
The agreement was unilateral .
The US had no obligation to provide the EU with the same information , which was the main reason why it was overturned .
At least , that 's the main point according to news sources on our side of the Atlantic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, as I understand it, this one was more a case of I'll show you yours if you'll show me mine.No.
The agreement was unilateral.
The US had no obligation to provide the EU with the same information, which was the main reason why it was overturned.
At least, that's the main point according to news sources on our side of the Atlantic.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110694</id>
	<title>Warning - mentally ill people in US Gov.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265969100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...in case you think I'm a troll - this is official!<br>No wonder they come up with ideas like "let's make everyone give their banking data to US!"</p><p><a href="http://www.justice.gov/oarm/jobs/attorneyvotingoarm2010.htm" title="justice.gov" rel="nofollow">http://www.justice.gov/oarm/jobs/attorneyvotingoarm2010.htm</a> [justice.gov] </p><p><div class="quote"><p> <b>The U.S. Department of Justice</b>, Civil Rights Division is seeking up<br>to 10 experienced attorneys for the position of Trial Attorney in the<br>Voting Section in Washington, D.C.<br>[...]<br>The Civil Rights Division encourages qualified applicants with<br>targeted disabilities to apply. Targeted disabilities are<br>[...]<br><b>mental retardation, mental illness</b><br>[...]</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...in case you think I 'm a troll - this is official ! No wonder they come up with ideas like " let 's make everyone give their banking data to US !
" http : //www.justice.gov/oarm/jobs/attorneyvotingoarm2010.htm [ justice.gov ] The U.S. Department of Justice , Civil Rights Division is seeking upto 10 experienced attorneys for the position of Trial Attorney in theVoting Section in Washington , D.C. [ ... ] The Civil Rights Division encourages qualified applicants withtargeted disabilities to apply .
Targeted disabilities are [ ... ] mental retardation , mental illness [ ... ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...in case you think I'm a troll - this is official!No wonder they come up with ideas like "let's make everyone give their banking data to US!
"http://www.justice.gov/oarm/jobs/attorneyvotingoarm2010.htm [justice.gov]  The U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division is seeking upto 10 experienced attorneys for the position of Trial Attorney in theVoting Section in Washington, D.C.[...]The Civil Rights Division encourages qualified applicants withtargeted disabilities to apply.
Targeted disabilities are[...]mental retardation, mental illness[...]
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110320</id>
	<title>Let the Light Shine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266006900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>      There is no valid reason for anyone to be able to have private bank data. Encouraging lies, cheating and tax fraud are not what nations should be about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no valid reason for anyone to be able to have private bank data .
Encouraging lies , cheating and tax fraud are not what nations should be about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>      There is no valid reason for anyone to be able to have private bank data.
Encouraging lies, cheating and tax fraud are not what nations should be about.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109700</id>
	<title>Huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265911860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Huh? This bank service had servers in the USA, and then, after 911 the transactions were under a secret investigation, and then, the bank service moved their servers to Belgium, and then, the USA obtained a secret agreement at the EU to continue tracking transactions, and then, got found out, and then, EU officials say, no.

This is supposed to be a big "win" for democracy?

Was this bank service, like, handling the transactions that finance world terror groups and insuring their privacy?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh ?
This bank service had servers in the USA , and then , after 911 the transactions were under a secret investigation , and then , the bank service moved their servers to Belgium , and then , the USA obtained a secret agreement at the EU to continue tracking transactions , and then , got found out , and then , EU officials say , no .
This is supposed to be a big " win " for democracy ?
Was this bank service , like , handling the transactions that finance world terror groups and insuring their privacy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh?
This bank service had servers in the USA, and then, after 911 the transactions were under a secret investigation, and then, the bank service moved their servers to Belgium, and then, the USA obtained a secret agreement at the EU to continue tracking transactions, and then, got found out, and then, EU officials say, no.
This is supposed to be a big "win" for democracy?
Was this bank service, like, handling the transactions that finance world terror groups and insuring their privacy?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31112984</id>
	<title>HA HA!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265990100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Up yours CIA/NSA/FBI!!!  Some people in this world understand what FREEDOM means!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Up yours CIA/NSA/FBI ! ! !
Some people in this world understand what FREEDOM means ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Up yours CIA/NSA/FBI!!!
Some people in this world understand what FREEDOM means!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109750</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone please explain to me ...</title>
	<author>rve</author>
	<datestamp>1265912520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Obama is using diplomacy to get other countries to do what we want, while Bush used more or less thinly veiled threats. Whether or not that's better is debatable, but at least in theory it will give other countries more of a choice in the matters.</p></div><p>That was only a stated 'intention' beforehand.</p><p>After one round of foreign diplomacy, the Obama administration scratched their heads and went "huh, I don't get it, now we asked them nicely and those foreign governments still want to put their own interests before American interests. Oh well, it's back to thinly veiled threats then"</p><p>I don't know what exactly goes on in the mind of a world power leader who somehow expected foreign leaders suddenly to stop doing their job (which is putting the interests of their own countries first) and start putting American interests first, with nothing to gain in return, purely on the basis of a more handsome face and more eloquently phrased thinly veiled threats.</p><p>It's hardly a secret that, despite his popularity (compared to his predecessor at least) among the people, the Obama administration seems to be getting along poorly with the European governments, and now they seem to be picking fights with allies in Asia.</p><p>I'm not saying that this is wrong. Obama's job description is to look out for American interests only. It's obvious that if you want to get something for nothing, you're going to have to use threats, so that's what he'll be doing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama is using diplomacy to get other countries to do what we want , while Bush used more or less thinly veiled threats .
Whether or not that 's better is debatable , but at least in theory it will give other countries more of a choice in the matters.That was only a stated 'intention ' beforehand.After one round of foreign diplomacy , the Obama administration scratched their heads and went " huh , I do n't get it , now we asked them nicely and those foreign governments still want to put their own interests before American interests .
Oh well , it 's back to thinly veiled threats then " I do n't know what exactly goes on in the mind of a world power leader who somehow expected foreign leaders suddenly to stop doing their job ( which is putting the interests of their own countries first ) and start putting American interests first , with nothing to gain in return , purely on the basis of a more handsome face and more eloquently phrased thinly veiled threats.It 's hardly a secret that , despite his popularity ( compared to his predecessor at least ) among the people , the Obama administration seems to be getting along poorly with the European governments , and now they seem to be picking fights with allies in Asia.I 'm not saying that this is wrong .
Obama 's job description is to look out for American interests only .
It 's obvious that if you want to get something for nothing , you 're going to have to use threats , so that 's what he 'll be doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama is using diplomacy to get other countries to do what we want, while Bush used more or less thinly veiled threats.
Whether or not that's better is debatable, but at least in theory it will give other countries more of a choice in the matters.That was only a stated 'intention' beforehand.After one round of foreign diplomacy, the Obama administration scratched their heads and went "huh, I don't get it, now we asked them nicely and those foreign governments still want to put their own interests before American interests.
Oh well, it's back to thinly veiled threats then"I don't know what exactly goes on in the mind of a world power leader who somehow expected foreign leaders suddenly to stop doing their job (which is putting the interests of their own countries first) and start putting American interests first, with nothing to gain in return, purely on the basis of a more handsome face and more eloquently phrased thinly veiled threats.It's hardly a secret that, despite his popularity (compared to his predecessor at least) among the people, the Obama administration seems to be getting along poorly with the European governments, and now they seem to be picking fights with allies in Asia.I'm not saying that this is wrong.
Obama's job description is to look out for American interests only.
It's obvious that if you want to get something for nothing, you're going to have to use threats, so that's what he'll be doing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110744</id>
	<title>Re:The easiest way to deal with such US demands...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265969940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, that worked really well when the US required travellers' details.<br>Or when the US enforced flights to have body-scanned travellers on-board.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , that worked really well when the US required travellers ' details.Or when the US enforced flights to have body-scanned travellers on-board .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, that worked really well when the US required travellers' details.Or when the US enforced flights to have body-scanned travellers on-board.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31111776</id>
	<title>Incorrect - One direction only!!!</title>
	<author>Frans Faase</author>
	<datestamp>1265983320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This deal was only about the US government being allowed to monitor all money transfers made by SWIFT and had noting to do with any European organisation being allowed to see money transfers inside the US. Please note that the US government was already monitorying all money transfers made by SWIFT secretly before the previous agreement (or the one before that). But as I understood it, there was some (gentlemen's) agreement that the US government would share their finding of terrorist activities after having analyzed the data.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This deal was only about the US government being allowed to monitor all money transfers made by SWIFT and had noting to do with any European organisation being allowed to see money transfers inside the US .
Please note that the US government was already monitorying all money transfers made by SWIFT secretly before the previous agreement ( or the one before that ) .
But as I understood it , there was some ( gentlemen 's ) agreement that the US government would share their finding of terrorist activities after having analyzed the data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This deal was only about the US government being allowed to monitor all money transfers made by SWIFT and had noting to do with any European organisation being allowed to see money transfers inside the US.
Please note that the US government was already monitorying all money transfers made by SWIFT secretly before the previous agreement (or the one before that).
But as I understood it, there was some (gentlemen's) agreement that the US government would share their finding of terrorist activities after having analyzed the data.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110136</id>
	<title>Re:As a US Citizen all I can say is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265917800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The US has bent everyone else over and had their way far too long.</p></div></blockquote><p>Umm...  No.  Not at all really.</p><blockquote><div><p>Now that the US's economy is a mess, the dollar is weak and getting weaker and the Euro is fast taking the place the Dollar once had</p></div></blockquote><p>The dollar has gained quite significantly since 2007.  The Euro's mindshare was the first thing to go in the recession...  Not just a chink in the armor, but a forced realization that a defacto currency, from which any country can opt-out at any time, with no central governing authority, but with individual authorities with a poor understanding of how to handle such changes, and with several weak players involved, is not a safe bet in the slightest.  The risk of Greece defaulting on it's loans is forcing down the Euro right this minute, despite stronger EU countries making guarantees on Greece's behalf...</p><p>Much like China, the EU looks like a great economy, if you don't look too deeply, and you're not forced to see what is going to happen when the first speed-bump comes along.</p><blockquote><div><p>the US needs to be sent a strong, loud and clear message that it's hay day is over and it's going to have to rely upon diplomacy, cooperation and fair play instead of idle threats and ham-fisted foreign policy towards it's allies.</p></div></blockquote><p>I'd point to Kosovo for a look at what European "diplomacy" can do...  Lots of speeches over the years about "never again," and then a whole lot of nothing when a real stand needs to be made, when nobody has economic interests on the line...  For all the money, for all the pot-shots at the US, for all the bluster, nobody in the world stood up to put a stop to the genocide, until the US stepped in...  This in not just my opinion, for the record, there's no shortage of Europeans who hang their head in shame when forced to recognize their leaders lack the backbone to backup their own stated morals.</p><p>Sadly, we saw this repeated again in Darfur.  The US was tied-up in two all-out wars, so the most flagrant example of genocide in decades in left unopposed.  No Europe, no China, no Russia.  Nobody.  It took the US to make a big deal about it, politically, and pledge a large chunk of money towards the effort, before anything happened, and it was still a pathetic effort, which left many thousands to be raped and murdered long into the effort, such as it was.  Contrast this with Kosovo.</p><p>I say this not as an ignorant and arrogant American, but as a distant observer...  Frankly, we'd all better hope and pray that the US's "hay day" isn't over, by a long shot, because it's clear there's nobody out there willing to take over the tough and unrewarding roles the US has performed for several decades...  When the pirates are taking over the oceans, making trade impossible, and China is doing really nasty stuff with it's clout, everyone will long for the days when the worst we had to deal with was "ham-fisted foreign policy" we all whined about...  Not that it shouldn't be whined about, but this (largely Europeans) fervent anti-Americanism we see touted on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. so often is a rather serious case of not being able to see the forest for the trees.  The grass may seems greener on the other side, but it's pretty clear that there's no grass at all over there...</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The US has bent everyone else over and had their way far too long.Umm... No. Not at all really.Now that the US 's economy is a mess , the dollar is weak and getting weaker and the Euro is fast taking the place the Dollar once hadThe dollar has gained quite significantly since 2007 .
The Euro 's mindshare was the first thing to go in the recession... Not just a chink in the armor , but a forced realization that a defacto currency , from which any country can opt-out at any time , with no central governing authority , but with individual authorities with a poor understanding of how to handle such changes , and with several weak players involved , is not a safe bet in the slightest .
The risk of Greece defaulting on it 's loans is forcing down the Euro right this minute , despite stronger EU countries making guarantees on Greece 's behalf...Much like China , the EU looks like a great economy , if you do n't look too deeply , and you 're not forced to see what is going to happen when the first speed-bump comes along.the US needs to be sent a strong , loud and clear message that it 's hay day is over and it 's going to have to rely upon diplomacy , cooperation and fair play instead of idle threats and ham-fisted foreign policy towards it 's allies.I 'd point to Kosovo for a look at what European " diplomacy " can do... Lots of speeches over the years about " never again , " and then a whole lot of nothing when a real stand needs to be made , when nobody has economic interests on the line... For all the money , for all the pot-shots at the US , for all the bluster , nobody in the world stood up to put a stop to the genocide , until the US stepped in... This in not just my opinion , for the record , there 's no shortage of Europeans who hang their head in shame when forced to recognize their leaders lack the backbone to backup their own stated morals.Sadly , we saw this repeated again in Darfur .
The US was tied-up in two all-out wars , so the most flagrant example of genocide in decades in left unopposed .
No Europe , no China , no Russia .
Nobody. It took the US to make a big deal about it , politically , and pledge a large chunk of money towards the effort , before anything happened , and it was still a pathetic effort , which left many thousands to be raped and murdered long into the effort , such as it was .
Contrast this with Kosovo.I say this not as an ignorant and arrogant American , but as a distant observer... Frankly , we 'd all better hope and pray that the US 's " hay day " is n't over , by a long shot , because it 's clear there 's nobody out there willing to take over the tough and unrewarding roles the US has performed for several decades... When the pirates are taking over the oceans , making trade impossible , and China is doing really nasty stuff with it 's clout , everyone will long for the days when the worst we had to deal with was " ham-fisted foreign policy " we all whined about... Not that it should n't be whined about , but this ( largely Europeans ) fervent anti-Americanism we see touted on / .
so often is a rather serious case of not being able to see the forest for the trees .
The grass may seems greener on the other side , but it 's pretty clear that there 's no grass at all over there.. .  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US has bent everyone else over and had their way far too long.Umm...  No.  Not at all really.Now that the US's economy is a mess, the dollar is weak and getting weaker and the Euro is fast taking the place the Dollar once hadThe dollar has gained quite significantly since 2007.
The Euro's mindshare was the first thing to go in the recession...  Not just a chink in the armor, but a forced realization that a defacto currency, from which any country can opt-out at any time, with no central governing authority, but with individual authorities with a poor understanding of how to handle such changes, and with several weak players involved, is not a safe bet in the slightest.
The risk of Greece defaulting on it's loans is forcing down the Euro right this minute, despite stronger EU countries making guarantees on Greece's behalf...Much like China, the EU looks like a great economy, if you don't look too deeply, and you're not forced to see what is going to happen when the first speed-bump comes along.the US needs to be sent a strong, loud and clear message that it's hay day is over and it's going to have to rely upon diplomacy, cooperation and fair play instead of idle threats and ham-fisted foreign policy towards it's allies.I'd point to Kosovo for a look at what European "diplomacy" can do...  Lots of speeches over the years about "never again," and then a whole lot of nothing when a real stand needs to be made, when nobody has economic interests on the line...  For all the money, for all the pot-shots at the US, for all the bluster, nobody in the world stood up to put a stop to the genocide, until the US stepped in...  This in not just my opinion, for the record, there's no shortage of Europeans who hang their head in shame when forced to recognize their leaders lack the backbone to backup their own stated morals.Sadly, we saw this repeated again in Darfur.
The US was tied-up in two all-out wars, so the most flagrant example of genocide in decades in left unopposed.
No Europe, no China, no Russia.
Nobody.  It took the US to make a big deal about it, politically, and pledge a large chunk of money towards the effort, before anything happened, and it was still a pathetic effort, which left many thousands to be raped and murdered long into the effort, such as it was.
Contrast this with Kosovo.I say this not as an ignorant and arrogant American, but as a distant observer...  Frankly, we'd all better hope and pray that the US's "hay day" isn't over, by a long shot, because it's clear there's nobody out there willing to take over the tough and unrewarding roles the US has performed for several decades...  When the pirates are taking over the oceans, making trade impossible, and China is doing really nasty stuff with it's clout, everyone will long for the days when the worst we had to deal with was "ham-fisted foreign policy" we all whined about...  Not that it shouldn't be whined about, but this (largely Europeans) fervent anti-Americanism we see touted on /.
so often is a rather serious case of not being able to see the forest for the trees.
The grass may seems greener on the other side, but it's pretty clear that there's no grass at all over there...
 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31112408</id>
	<title>Re:Cool, now nobody has to pay taxes.</title>
	<author>Neoprofin</author>
	<datestamp>1265987460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since when is the US high tax or high unemployment?<br> <br>
I think the far easier answer to why Europeans don&#228;t hide their money in the U.S. is that it's much convenient to hide it in Switzerland, Luxemburg, or Lichtenstein.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when is the US high tax or high unemployment ?
I think the far easier answer to why Europeans don   t hide their money in the U.S. is that it 's much convenient to hide it in Switzerland , Luxemburg , or Lichtenstein .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since when is the US high tax or high unemployment?
I think the far easier answer to why Europeans donät hide their money in the U.S. is that it's much convenient to hide it in Switzerland, Luxemburg, or Lichtenstein.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109240</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone please explain to me ...</title>
	<author>Dragonslicer</author>
	<datestamp>1265906340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>
How's Obama any different than Bush?
</p><p>
The US is still oppressing their rules and wishes onto the rest of the world.
</p><p>
Nothing has changed.</p></div><p>Obama is using diplomacy to get other countries to do what we want, while Bush used more or less thinly veiled threats. Whether or not that's better is debatable, but at least in theory it will give other countries more of a choice in the matters.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How 's Obama any different than Bush ?
The US is still oppressing their rules and wishes onto the rest of the world .
Nothing has changed.Obama is using diplomacy to get other countries to do what we want , while Bush used more or less thinly veiled threats .
Whether or not that 's better is debatable , but at least in theory it will give other countries more of a choice in the matters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
How's Obama any different than Bush?
The US is still oppressing their rules and wishes onto the rest of the world.
Nothing has changed.Obama is using diplomacy to get other countries to do what we want, while Bush used more or less thinly veiled threats.
Whether or not that's better is debatable, but at least in theory it will give other countries more of a choice in the matters.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109448</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone please explain to me ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265909100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>How's Obama any different than Bush?</i></p><p>Bush was honest about what he believes.</p><p>Bush's agenda was all about maintaining the physical safety of Americans, even if privacy had to suffer. (I disagree with this too BTW)<br>Obama's agenda is all about claiming high ideals while brokering backroom deals to do whatever the fuck he wants to anyway.</p><p>LK</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How 's Obama any different than Bush ? Bush was honest about what he believes.Bush 's agenda was all about maintaining the physical safety of Americans , even if privacy had to suffer .
( I disagree with this too BTW ) Obama 's agenda is all about claiming high ideals while brokering backroom deals to do whatever the fuck he wants to anyway.LK</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How's Obama any different than Bush?Bush was honest about what he believes.Bush's agenda was all about maintaining the physical safety of Americans, even if privacy had to suffer.
(I disagree with this too BTW)Obama's agenda is all about claiming high ideals while brokering backroom deals to do whatever the fuck he wants to anyway.LK</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110734</id>
	<title>Don't get your hopes up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265969820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The leader of the Socialist group, Martin Schulz MEP, said: "We want a new and better deal with proper safeguards for people's privacy."</p></div><p>So there will be a new deal. It will just be less crappy than the old one. (How much less, that we will see.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The leader of the Socialist group , Martin Schulz MEP , said : " We want a new and better deal with proper safeguards for people 's privacy .
" So there will be a new deal .
It will just be less crappy than the old one .
( How much less , that we will see .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The leader of the Socialist group, Martin Schulz MEP, said: "We want a new and better deal with proper safeguards for people's privacy.
"So there will be a new deal.
It will just be less crappy than the old one.
(How much less, that we will see.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31124232</id>
	<title>Re:As a US Citizen all I can say is...</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1265995020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The dollar regained gained some, after having steadily declined from about EUR 1.25 to about EUR 0.65</p></div></blockquote><p>And?  Yes, there was a very short love-affair with the Euro, causing it to get ridiculously inflated, as the US was quicker to show signs of the recession coming on...</p><blockquote><div><p>It's unthinkable</p></div></blockquote><p>Only while times are good...  In times of real depression, all it takes is one country getting fed-up, maybe stationing a few divisions of soldiers on the border, and declaring they won't be playing any more.  Even if you were flagrantly ignorant of the obvious before now, the problems with Greece have should have made it crystal clear how little central control the EU has, when it's not to the advantage of an individual member country.  Again, if things got really bad, instead of offering to help, Germany &amp; France could simply called-in control of their own currency.</p><blockquote><div><p>It has a whole lot to do with the reluctance towards looking at only one side of an issue.</p></div></blockquote><p>The intellectual dishonesty you've shown in your response is absolutely astonishing.  The US did not arbitrarily pick a side.  Europeans openly recognized, before the US did anything, that genocide was taking place, and that something needed to be done.  The idea you could twist it into a "nuanced issue" just shows exactly how dishonest you're willing to be, to try and support your point.</p><blockquote><div><p>In my experience the anti-Americanism in Europe is exaggerated in the US media.</p></div></blockquote><p>The US media hardly ever touches on the subject, so I don't know what you're talking about.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. OTOH, is a great example, where all the anti-Americanism is on display, front and center.</p><blockquote><div><p>I don't experience anti-Americanism in Europe as worse than anti-Europism in the US, or anti-California-ism in Texas.</p></div></blockquote><p>I might believe that, if you'd been honest about ANYTHING in the rest of your comment...  And for the several Euro ex-pats with whom I've discussed the subject before.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The dollar regained gained some , after having steadily declined from about EUR 1.25 to about EUR 0.65And ?
Yes , there was a very short love-affair with the Euro , causing it to get ridiculously inflated , as the US was quicker to show signs of the recession coming on...It 's unthinkableOnly while times are good... In times of real depression , all it takes is one country getting fed-up , maybe stationing a few divisions of soldiers on the border , and declaring they wo n't be playing any more .
Even if you were flagrantly ignorant of the obvious before now , the problems with Greece have should have made it crystal clear how little central control the EU has , when it 's not to the advantage of an individual member country .
Again , if things got really bad , instead of offering to help , Germany &amp; France could simply called-in control of their own currency.It has a whole lot to do with the reluctance towards looking at only one side of an issue.The intellectual dishonesty you 've shown in your response is absolutely astonishing .
The US did not arbitrarily pick a side .
Europeans openly recognized , before the US did anything , that genocide was taking place , and that something needed to be done .
The idea you could twist it into a " nuanced issue " just shows exactly how dishonest you 're willing to be , to try and support your point.In my experience the anti-Americanism in Europe is exaggerated in the US media.The US media hardly ever touches on the subject , so I do n't know what you 're talking about .
/. OTOH , is a great example , where all the anti-Americanism is on display , front and center.I do n't experience anti-Americanism in Europe as worse than anti-Europism in the US , or anti-California-ism in Texas.I might believe that , if you 'd been honest about ANYTHING in the rest of your comment... And for the several Euro ex-pats with whom I 've discussed the subject before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The dollar regained gained some, after having steadily declined from about EUR 1.25 to about EUR 0.65And?
Yes, there was a very short love-affair with the Euro, causing it to get ridiculously inflated, as the US was quicker to show signs of the recession coming on...It's unthinkableOnly while times are good...  In times of real depression, all it takes is one country getting fed-up, maybe stationing a few divisions of soldiers on the border, and declaring they won't be playing any more.
Even if you were flagrantly ignorant of the obvious before now, the problems with Greece have should have made it crystal clear how little central control the EU has, when it's not to the advantage of an individual member country.
Again, if things got really bad, instead of offering to help, Germany &amp; France could simply called-in control of their own currency.It has a whole lot to do with the reluctance towards looking at only one side of an issue.The intellectual dishonesty you've shown in your response is absolutely astonishing.
The US did not arbitrarily pick a side.
Europeans openly recognized, before the US did anything, that genocide was taking place, and that something needed to be done.
The idea you could twist it into a "nuanced issue" just shows exactly how dishonest you're willing to be, to try and support your point.In my experience the anti-Americanism in Europe is exaggerated in the US media.The US media hardly ever touches on the subject, so I don't know what you're talking about.
/. OTOH, is a great example, where all the anti-Americanism is on display, front and center.I don't experience anti-Americanism in Europe as worse than anti-Europism in the US, or anti-California-ism in Texas.I might believe that, if you'd been honest about ANYTHING in the rest of your comment...  And for the several Euro ex-pats with whom I've discussed the subject before.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31111206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31113032</id>
	<title>Re:parliament</title>
	<author>zoney\_ie</author>
	<datestamp>1265990400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, the commission is not quite as bad as you make out, as the commissioners are nominated by the elected governments in the European Union. This shouldn't be a surprise as much of Europe does not want a directly democratic federal model, but rather want their national governments to remain one of the main influences in Europe.</p><p>A lot of the Euroskeptics want to have their cake and eat it - i.e. undemocratic when national governments set the agenda, and impinging on national sovereignty if the European Parliament was to have greater powers.</p><p>But basically, the best way is what we have (especially post-Lisbon) of power divided between the two.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , the commission is not quite as bad as you make out , as the commissioners are nominated by the elected governments in the European Union .
This should n't be a surprise as much of Europe does not want a directly democratic federal model , but rather want their national governments to remain one of the main influences in Europe.A lot of the Euroskeptics want to have their cake and eat it - i.e .
undemocratic when national governments set the agenda , and impinging on national sovereignty if the European Parliament was to have greater powers.But basically , the best way is what we have ( especially post-Lisbon ) of power divided between the two .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, the commission is not quite as bad as you make out, as the commissioners are nominated by the elected governments in the European Union.
This shouldn't be a surprise as much of Europe does not want a directly democratic federal model, but rather want their national governments to remain one of the main influences in Europe.A lot of the Euroskeptics want to have their cake and eat it - i.e.
undemocratic when national governments set the agenda, and impinging on national sovereignty if the European Parliament was to have greater powers.But basically, the best way is what we have (especially post-Lisbon) of power divided between the two.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110462</id>
	<title>Re:Cool, now nobody has to pay taxes.</title>
	<author>KDR\_11k</author>
	<datestamp>1265966100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is about the SWIFT database that catalogs international transactions, not the contents of your Swiss bank account.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is about the SWIFT database that catalogs international transactions , not the contents of your Swiss bank account .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is about the SWIFT database that catalogs international transactions, not the contents of your Swiss bank account.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31111590</id>
	<title>Re:Well done!</title>
	<author>Captain Hook</author>
	<datestamp>1265981040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually it's not quite as good of a decision as was being made out once you get past the headlines.</p><p>The decision in question was specific to a few paragraphs in a report which the UK government had said had to be censored because the US asked us to keep out of the public - so we did.</p><p>At some point, a report in the US publically quoted those paragraphs and so UK courts ruled that since the information was now in the public domain there was no reason not to publish the censored paragraphs ourselves</p><p>The decision did however go against the UK governments continued wish to keep the paragraphs censored since those paragraphs basically said the UK knew about and supported torture of a UK citizen.</p><blockquote><div><p>[It was reported that a new series of interviews was conducted by the United States authorities prior to 17 May 2001 as part of a new strategy designed by an expert interviewer.
</p><p>
v)  It was reported that at some stage during that further interview process by the United States authorities, BM had been intentionally subjected to continuous sleep deprivation.  The effects of the sleep deprivation were carefully observed.
</p><p>
vi) It was reported that combined with the sleep deprivation, threats and inducements were made to him.  His fears of being removed from United States custody and "disappearing" were played upon.
</p><p>
vii) It was reported that the stress brought about by these deliberate tactics was increased by him being shackled in his interviews
</p><p>
viii) It was clear not only from the reports of the content of the interviews but also from the report that he was being kept under self-harm observation, that the inter views were having a marked effect upon him and causing him significant mental stress and suffering.
</p><p>
ix) We regret to have to conclude that the reports provide to the SyS made clear to anyone reading them that BM was being subjected to the treatment that we have described and the effect upon him of that intentional treatment.
</p><p>
x) The treatment reported, if had been administered on behalf of the United Kingdom, would clearly have been in breach of the undertakings given by the United Kingdom in 1972.  Although it is not necessary for us to categorise the treatment reported, it could readily be contended to be at the very least cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by the United States authorities]"
</p><p> <b>Source: FCO Website : <a href="http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/news/latest-news/?view=News&amp;id=21733568" title="fco.gov.uk">http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/news/latest-news/?view=News&amp;id=21733568</a> [fco.gov.uk] </b> </p></div>
</blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually it 's not quite as good of a decision as was being made out once you get past the headlines.The decision in question was specific to a few paragraphs in a report which the UK government had said had to be censored because the US asked us to keep out of the public - so we did.At some point , a report in the US publically quoted those paragraphs and so UK courts ruled that since the information was now in the public domain there was no reason not to publish the censored paragraphs ourselvesThe decision did however go against the UK governments continued wish to keep the paragraphs censored since those paragraphs basically said the UK knew about and supported torture of a UK citizen .
[ It was reported that a new series of interviews was conducted by the United States authorities prior to 17 May 2001 as part of a new strategy designed by an expert interviewer .
v ) It was reported that at some stage during that further interview process by the United States authorities , BM had been intentionally subjected to continuous sleep deprivation .
The effects of the sleep deprivation were carefully observed .
vi ) It was reported that combined with the sleep deprivation , threats and inducements were made to him .
His fears of being removed from United States custody and " disappearing " were played upon .
vii ) It was reported that the stress brought about by these deliberate tactics was increased by him being shackled in his interviews viii ) It was clear not only from the reports of the content of the interviews but also from the report that he was being kept under self-harm observation , that the inter views were having a marked effect upon him and causing him significant mental stress and suffering .
ix ) We regret to have to conclude that the reports provide to the SyS made clear to anyone reading them that BM was being subjected to the treatment that we have described and the effect upon him of that intentional treatment .
x ) The treatment reported , if had been administered on behalf of the United Kingdom , would clearly have been in breach of the undertakings given by the United Kingdom in 1972 .
Although it is not necessary for us to categorise the treatment reported , it could readily be contended to be at the very least cruel , inhuman and degrading treatment by the United States authorities ] " Source : FCO Website : http : //www.fco.gov.uk/en/news/latest-news/ ? view = News&amp;id = 21733568 [ fco.gov.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually it's not quite as good of a decision as was being made out once you get past the headlines.The decision in question was specific to a few paragraphs in a report which the UK government had said had to be censored because the US asked us to keep out of the public - so we did.At some point, a report in the US publically quoted those paragraphs and so UK courts ruled that since the information was now in the public domain there was no reason not to publish the censored paragraphs ourselvesThe decision did however go against the UK governments continued wish to keep the paragraphs censored since those paragraphs basically said the UK knew about and supported torture of a UK citizen.
[It was reported that a new series of interviews was conducted by the United States authorities prior to 17 May 2001 as part of a new strategy designed by an expert interviewer.
v)  It was reported that at some stage during that further interview process by the United States authorities, BM had been intentionally subjected to continuous sleep deprivation.
The effects of the sleep deprivation were carefully observed.
vi) It was reported that combined with the sleep deprivation, threats and inducements were made to him.
His fears of being removed from United States custody and "disappearing" were played upon.
vii) It was reported that the stress brought about by these deliberate tactics was increased by him being shackled in his interviews

viii) It was clear not only from the reports of the content of the interviews but also from the report that he was being kept under self-harm observation, that the inter views were having a marked effect upon him and causing him significant mental stress and suffering.
ix) We regret to have to conclude that the reports provide to the SyS made clear to anyone reading them that BM was being subjected to the treatment that we have described and the effect upon him of that intentional treatment.
x) The treatment reported, if had been administered on behalf of the United Kingdom, would clearly have been in breach of the undertakings given by the United Kingdom in 1972.
Although it is not necessary for us to categorise the treatment reported, it could readily be contended to be at the very least cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by the United States authorities]"
 Source: FCO Website : http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/news/latest-news/?view=News&amp;id=21733568 [fco.gov.uk]  

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109100</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone please explain to me ...</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1265904900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For starters, we don't seem to be bombarded with "with us or against us" rhetoric.</p><p>Also, current administration has at least enough tact to not encourage negative attitued towards, say, France; or "Old Europe".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For starters , we do n't seem to be bombarded with " with us or against us " rhetoric.Also , current administration has at least enough tact to not encourage negative attitued towards , say , France ; or " Old Europe " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For starters, we don't seem to be bombarded with "with us or against us" rhetoric.Also, current administration has at least enough tact to not encourage negative attitued towards, say, France; or "Old Europe".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109186</id>
	<title>Old Europe strikes again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265905800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Putting their own petty concerns over the safety and security of American citizens.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Putting their own petty concerns over the safety and security of American citizens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Putting their own petty concerns over the safety and security of American citizens.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109204</id>
	<title>Re:Cool, now nobody has to pay taxes.</title>
	<author>siddesu</author>
	<datestamp>1265905920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This ain't about tax avoidance at all.</p><p>It has always been the case that those Americans who want to avoid taxes can do so in the US easily -- simply setup up a non-profit for the purpose, and be done with it, safely and legally. I know quite a few Americans who do just that, and don't bother with offshore accounts.</p><p>Shipping data wholesale to the US authorities is a legal problem in Europe mostly because there privacy protection still has some limited meaning.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This ai n't about tax avoidance at all.It has always been the case that those Americans who want to avoid taxes can do so in the US easily -- simply setup up a non-profit for the purpose , and be done with it , safely and legally .
I know quite a few Americans who do just that , and do n't bother with offshore accounts.Shipping data wholesale to the US authorities is a legal problem in Europe mostly because there privacy protection still has some limited meaning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This ain't about tax avoidance at all.It has always been the case that those Americans who want to avoid taxes can do so in the US easily -- simply setup up a non-profit for the purpose, and be done with it, safely and legally.
I know quite a few Americans who do just that, and don't bother with offshore accounts.Shipping data wholesale to the US authorities is a legal problem in Europe mostly because there privacy protection still has some limited meaning.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31112462</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone please explain to me ...</title>
	<author>Neoprofin</author>
	<datestamp>1265987760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Look at the posts in this thread and tell me who has an "us vs. them" mentality. Bush didn't do anything to convince Americans to dislike Europe (rumors of Freedom Fries are greatly exaggerated), and he didn't need to do anything to convince Europeans to dislike the US.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Look at the posts in this thread and tell me who has an " us vs. them " mentality .
Bush did n't do anything to convince Americans to dislike Europe ( rumors of Freedom Fries are greatly exaggerated ) , and he did n't need to do anything to convince Europeans to dislike the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look at the posts in this thread and tell me who has an "us vs. them" mentality.
Bush didn't do anything to convince Americans to dislike Europe (rumors of Freedom Fries are greatly exaggerated), and he didn't need to do anything to convince Europeans to dislike the US.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31111310</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone please explain to me ...</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1265977500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Obama's agenda is all about claiming high ideals while brokering backroom deals to do whatever the fuck he wants to anyway.</p></div><p>He certainly disappointed on the wiretapping issue - caving even before being elected.<br>But from what I'm seeing its more of a case of being pushed back from his ideals.</p><p>For example - the whole healthcare thing - he tried to do it 100\% out in the open, tried to let congress do it while he was hands-off even. But after 6 months of pretty much nothing he really had no choice but to start trying to go the backroom way.  And don't confuse me for a supporter - I think nationalized healthcare is the wrong way to go - the current system is fucked because of partial socialization - we need to go the other way and eliminate the health 'insurance' industry completely - return to real insurance (catastrophic coverage only, no HMOs, etc).  But the way its played out seems as plain as day to me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama 's agenda is all about claiming high ideals while brokering backroom deals to do whatever the fuck he wants to anyway.He certainly disappointed on the wiretapping issue - caving even before being elected.But from what I 'm seeing its more of a case of being pushed back from his ideals.For example - the whole healthcare thing - he tried to do it 100 \ % out in the open , tried to let congress do it while he was hands-off even .
But after 6 months of pretty much nothing he really had no choice but to start trying to go the backroom way .
And do n't confuse me for a supporter - I think nationalized healthcare is the wrong way to go - the current system is fucked because of partial socialization - we need to go the other way and eliminate the health 'insurance ' industry completely - return to real insurance ( catastrophic coverage only , no HMOs , etc ) .
But the way its played out seems as plain as day to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama's agenda is all about claiming high ideals while brokering backroom deals to do whatever the fuck he wants to anyway.He certainly disappointed on the wiretapping issue - caving even before being elected.But from what I'm seeing its more of a case of being pushed back from his ideals.For example - the whole healthcare thing - he tried to do it 100\% out in the open, tried to let congress do it while he was hands-off even.
But after 6 months of pretty much nothing he really had no choice but to start trying to go the backroom way.
And don't confuse me for a supporter - I think nationalized healthcare is the wrong way to go - the current system is fucked because of partial socialization - we need to go the other way and eliminate the health 'insurance' industry completely - return to real insurance (catastrophic coverage only, no HMOs, etc).
But the way its played out seems as plain as day to me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110436</id>
	<title>Re:The easiest way to deal with such US demands...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265965620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I always said, subject US citizens to the same scrutiny as they do with us.</p><p>That includes treating them as criminals (finger prints, travel itineraries, personal information, etc.) when they enter the EU and of course all data they want has to come back here too under the same conditions; so our secret agencies can pass their corporations' banking data to their EU competitors.</p><p>That would be the best way to stop all that nonsense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I always said , subject US citizens to the same scrutiny as they do with us.That includes treating them as criminals ( finger prints , travel itineraries , personal information , etc .
) when they enter the EU and of course all data they want has to come back here too under the same conditions ; so our secret agencies can pass their corporations ' banking data to their EU competitors.That would be the best way to stop all that nonsense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always said, subject US citizens to the same scrutiny as they do with us.That includes treating them as criminals (finger prints, travel itineraries, personal information, etc.
) when they enter the EU and of course all data they want has to come back here too under the same conditions; so our secret agencies can pass their corporations' banking data to their EU competitors.That would be the best way to stop all that nonsense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108770</id>
	<title>Damn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265902020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now they'll just have to go back to the old fashioned way.</p><p><i>In case of emergency, break law</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now they 'll just have to go back to the old fashioned way.In case of emergency , break law</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now they'll just have to go back to the old fashioned way.In case of emergency, break law</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108824</id>
	<title>Can someone please explain to me ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265902500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
How's Obama any different than Bush?
</p><p>
The US is still oppressing their rules and wishes onto the rest of the world.
</p><p>
Nothing has changed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How 's Obama any different than Bush ?
The US is still oppressing their rules and wishes onto the rest of the world .
Nothing has changed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
How's Obama any different than Bush?
The US is still oppressing their rules and wishes onto the rest of the world.
Nothing has changed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110742</id>
	<title>Allow me to say...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265969880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Victory is ours!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Victory is ours !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Victory is ours!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31111002</id>
	<title>Re:As a US Citizen all I can say is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265973780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; nobody in the world stood up to put a stop to the genocide, until the US stepped in</p><p>While that's true and embarrassing, it also has to be said that it's the US that has (via its proxies in the NATO, mainly its UK poodle) sabotaged all European attempts to build an EU force. The US doesn't want a strong Europe, unless under its control, so there is always only the NATO to step in. You reap what you sow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; nobody in the world stood up to put a stop to the genocide , until the US stepped inWhile that 's true and embarrassing , it also has to be said that it 's the US that has ( via its proxies in the NATO , mainly its UK poodle ) sabotaged all European attempts to build an EU force .
The US does n't want a strong Europe , unless under its control , so there is always only the NATO to step in .
You reap what you sow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; nobody in the world stood up to put a stop to the genocide, until the US stepped inWhile that's true and embarrassing, it also has to be said that it's the US that has (via its proxies in the NATO, mainly its UK poodle) sabotaged all European attempts to build an EU force.
The US doesn't want a strong Europe, unless under its control, so there is always only the NATO to step in.
You reap what you sow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31114672</id>
	<title>Re:Well done!</title>
	<author>Zaiff Urgulbunger</author>
	<datestamp>1265996820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Didn't this only happen because it turned out that the "secret" information had already been made public by a US court? So the whole "we don't want to upset the Americans" thing was kind of moot, and made it an easy decision. If that hadn't been the case, I'm not certain which way it would've gone!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't this only happen because it turned out that the " secret " information had already been made public by a US court ?
So the whole " we do n't want to upset the Americans " thing was kind of moot , and made it an easy decision .
If that had n't been the case , I 'm not certain which way it would 've gone !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't this only happen because it turned out that the "secret" information had already been made public by a US court?
So the whole "we don't want to upset the Americans" thing was kind of moot, and made it an easy decision.
If that hadn't been the case, I'm not certain which way it would've gone!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31112260</id>
	<title>Come on! The joke!</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1265986620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The big joke here is that we Americans actually had the double think of publicly asking for permission to spy on everyone. Europeans, on the other hand, have known for centuries that spying is something that you do in secret and don't ask. Thus, while we Americans are like, "uh, we can't spy on Europeans because we are not allowed", the reality is, the British, French and Swiss intelligence services probably know from data mining what I'm going to eat for lunch before I will.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The big joke here is that we Americans actually had the double think of publicly asking for permission to spy on everyone .
Europeans , on the other hand , have known for centuries that spying is something that you do in secret and do n't ask .
Thus , while we Americans are like , " uh , we ca n't spy on Europeans because we are not allowed " , the reality is , the British , French and Swiss intelligence services probably know from data mining what I 'm going to eat for lunch before I will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The big joke here is that we Americans actually had the double think of publicly asking for permission to spy on everyone.
Europeans, on the other hand, have known for centuries that spying is something that you do in secret and don't ask.
Thus, while we Americans are like, "uh, we can't spy on Europeans because we are not allowed", the reality is, the British, French and Swiss intelligence services probably know from data mining what I'm going to eat for lunch before I will.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110548</id>
	<title>Re: Let the Light Shine</title>
	<author>Pence128</author>
	<datestamp>1265967480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So you'd have no problem posting all your transaction records here then?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So you 'd have no problem posting all your transaction records here then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you'd have no problem posting all your transaction records here then?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31111714</id>
	<title>Re:Cool, now nobody has to pay taxes.</title>
	<author>jonbryce</author>
	<datestamp>1265982540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't think that will work.  There is a tax information sharing agreement, and as data flows both ways on that one, it isn't affected.  SWIFT does international wire transfers and doesn't know what happens to the money once it has been transferred.</p><p>Anyway, if you want to avoid tax, you put your money in Switzerland or Leichtenstein, or maybe Cayman Islands or British Virgin Islands.  Those countries are not in the EU.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't think that will work .
There is a tax information sharing agreement , and as data flows both ways on that one , it is n't affected .
SWIFT does international wire transfers and does n't know what happens to the money once it has been transferred.Anyway , if you want to avoid tax , you put your money in Switzerland or Leichtenstein , or maybe Cayman Islands or British Virgin Islands .
Those countries are not in the EU .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't think that will work.
There is a tax information sharing agreement, and as data flows both ways on that one, it isn't affected.
SWIFT does international wire transfers and doesn't know what happens to the money once it has been transferred.Anyway, if you want to avoid tax, you put your money in Switzerland or Leichtenstein, or maybe Cayman Islands or British Virgin Islands.
Those countries are not in the EU.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110038</id>
	<title>Re:Cool, now nobody has to pay taxes.</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1265916180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Americans that want to avoid taxes, can now bank in Europe again. Soon the USA will follow suit and allow Europeans who do not wish to pay taxes to be shielded from Europe.</p></div><p>If they earn their money in US, then transfer to a European bank would originate in US, ultimately, and can be monitored.</p><p>If they didn't earn their money in US, and they don't reside there, then why is it any business of US government in the first place?</p><p>(I understand you may have that written in your laws, but it's not like that would the the first silly American law, and the world at large has no obligation to help you enforce such laws - no more so than it has any obligations to help you enforce your online gambling ban.)</p><p>If they earned their money abroad, come there to pick it up, and then enter US, then your customs should be trained to deal with it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Americans that want to avoid taxes , can now bank in Europe again .
Soon the USA will follow suit and allow Europeans who do not wish to pay taxes to be shielded from Europe.If they earn their money in US , then transfer to a European bank would originate in US , ultimately , and can be monitored.If they did n't earn their money in US , and they do n't reside there , then why is it any business of US government in the first place ?
( I understand you may have that written in your laws , but it 's not like that would the the first silly American law , and the world at large has no obligation to help you enforce such laws - no more so than it has any obligations to help you enforce your online gambling ban .
) If they earned their money abroad , come there to pick it up , and then enter US , then your customs should be trained to deal with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Americans that want to avoid taxes, can now bank in Europe again.
Soon the USA will follow suit and allow Europeans who do not wish to pay taxes to be shielded from Europe.If they earn their money in US, then transfer to a European bank would originate in US, ultimately, and can be monitored.If they didn't earn their money in US, and they don't reside there, then why is it any business of US government in the first place?
(I understand you may have that written in your laws, but it's not like that would the the first silly American law, and the world at large has no obligation to help you enforce such laws - no more so than it has any obligations to help you enforce your online gambling ban.
)If they earned their money abroad, come there to pick it up, and then enter US, then your customs should be trained to deal with it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31111788</id>
	<title>This changes nothing - they'll still get your data</title>
	<author>Bearhouse</author>
	<datestamp>1265983500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The German Chancellor has said that it's OK for her tax-collectors to buy &amp; use bank data that was stolen...</p><p><a href="http://newsfeedresearcher.com/data/articles\_w6/data-german-laws.html" title="newsfeedresearcher.com">http://newsfeedresearcher.com/data/articles\_w6/data-german-laws.html</a> [newsfeedresearcher.com]</p><p>Since most Western Govs are broke, they're going after any cash they can, whatever it takes.</p><p>So don't worry about the intelligence guys being deprived; they'll just call their buddies in IRS, (who still have access to US accounts in the EU, I believe).  Chinese walls, I hear you say?  Know how to recognise one?  It's got a grapevine growing over the top...</p><p>Failing that, they'll steal the info, (directly or indirectly).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The German Chancellor has said that it 's OK for her tax-collectors to buy &amp; use bank data that was stolen...http : //newsfeedresearcher.com/data/articles \ _w6/data-german-laws.html [ newsfeedresearcher.com ] Since most Western Govs are broke , they 're going after any cash they can , whatever it takes.So do n't worry about the intelligence guys being deprived ; they 'll just call their buddies in IRS , ( who still have access to US accounts in the EU , I believe ) .
Chinese walls , I hear you say ?
Know how to recognise one ?
It 's got a grapevine growing over the top...Failing that , they 'll steal the info , ( directly or indirectly ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The German Chancellor has said that it's OK for her tax-collectors to buy &amp; use bank data that was stolen...http://newsfeedresearcher.com/data/articles\_w6/data-german-laws.html [newsfeedresearcher.com]Since most Western Govs are broke, they're going after any cash they can, whatever it takes.So don't worry about the intelligence guys being deprived; they'll just call their buddies in IRS, (who still have access to US accounts in the EU, I believe).
Chinese walls, I hear you say?
Know how to recognise one?
It's got a grapevine growing over the top...Failing that, they'll steal the info, (directly or indirectly).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108804</id>
	<title>We already know how this works</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265902380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll show you mine if you show me yours.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll show you mine if you show me yours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll show you mine if you show me yours.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31112240</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, it's more sinister than that...</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1265986500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Actually, as I understand it, this one was more a case of I'll show you yours if you'll show me mine.</p></div><p>No. The agreement was unilateral. The US had no obligation to provide the EU with the same information, which was the main reason why it was overturned. At least, that's the main point according to news sources on our side of the Atlantic.</p></div><p>That is what the poster you responded to said. Since the agreement wasn't for both sides to see data from the other it was overturned. The EU has been trying to get access to US banking records for quite some time. They want to be able to get access for their tax authorities.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , as I understand it , this one was more a case of I 'll show you yours if you 'll show me mine.No .
The agreement was unilateral .
The US had no obligation to provide the EU with the same information , which was the main reason why it was overturned .
At least , that 's the main point according to news sources on our side of the Atlantic.That is what the poster you responded to said .
Since the agreement was n't for both sides to see data from the other it was overturned .
The EU has been trying to get access to US banking records for quite some time .
They want to be able to get access for their tax authorities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, as I understand it, this one was more a case of I'll show you yours if you'll show me mine.No.
The agreement was unilateral.
The US had no obligation to provide the EU with the same information, which was the main reason why it was overturned.
At least, that's the main point according to news sources on our side of the Atlantic.That is what the poster you responded to said.
Since the agreement wasn't for both sides to see data from the other it was overturned.
The EU has been trying to get access to US banking records for quite some time.
They want to be able to get access for their tax authorities.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31125360</id>
	<title>Re:Well done!</title>
	<author>shnull</author>
	<datestamp>1266053940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yea, also, what previous agreement ??!? And also, i don't like the way it says 'against the wishes of the US' ? We really have no need for an extension of your patriot act towards us. I think this is one of the worst pr-moves Obama has made so far. That, and the blunt refusel to go against the nuclear threat of Iran. Other than tha</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yea , also , what previous agreement ? ? ! ?
And also , i do n't like the way it says 'against the wishes of the US ' ?
We really have no need for an extension of your patriot act towards us .
I think this is one of the worst pr-moves Obama has made so far .
That , and the blunt refusel to go against the nuclear threat of Iran .
Other than tha</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yea, also, what previous agreement ??!?
And also, i don't like the way it says 'against the wishes of the US' ?
We really have no need for an extension of your patriot act towards us.
I think this is one of the worst pr-moves Obama has made so far.
That, and the blunt refusel to go against the nuclear threat of Iran.
Other than tha</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110918</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>Cederic</author>
	<datestamp>1265972640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Was this bank service, like, handling the transactions that finance world terror groups and insuring their privacy?</p></div><p>I'm sorry, I don't see why that excuses a foreign Government monitoring the financial transactions of people, companies and financial institutions in my country.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Was this bank service , like , handling the transactions that finance world terror groups and insuring their privacy ? I 'm sorry , I do n't see why that excuses a foreign Government monitoring the financial transactions of people , companies and financial institutions in my country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Was this bank service, like, handling the transactions that finance world terror groups and insuring their privacy?I'm sorry, I don't see why that excuses a foreign Government monitoring the financial transactions of people, companies and financial institutions in my country.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108944</id>
	<title>Re:Cool, now nobody has to pay taxes.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265903520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, AGAIN, it's not like the US always had the right to see EU banking data.<br>Furthermore the world is a bit bigger than only the US and the EU, there'll always be opportunities.<br>They'll still be able to see the cashflow going out of the country though, unless it's foreign money.<br>In short: not a valid argument and props to the EU for finally deciding that they will not kiss American ass any longer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , AGAIN , it 's not like the US always had the right to see EU banking data.Furthermore the world is a bit bigger than only the US and the EU , there 'll always be opportunities.They 'll still be able to see the cashflow going out of the country though , unless it 's foreign money.In short : not a valid argument and props to the EU for finally deciding that they will not kiss American ass any longer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, AGAIN, it's not like the US always had the right to see EU banking data.Furthermore the world is a bit bigger than only the US and the EU, there'll always be opportunities.They'll still be able to see the cashflow going out of the country though, unless it's foreign money.In short: not a valid argument and props to the EU for finally deciding that they will not kiss American ass any longer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108826</id>
	<title>As a US Citizen all I can say is...</title>
	<author>l0ungeb0y</author>
	<datestamp>1265902560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>About time the EU showed some backbone and told the US where to stick it. The US has bent everyone else over and had their way far too long. Now that the US's economy is a mess, the dollar is weak and getting weaker and the Euro is fast taking the place the Dollar once had, the US needs to be sent a strong, loud and clear message that it's hay day is over and it's going to have to rely upon diplomacy, cooperation and fair play instead of idle threats and ham-fisted foreign policy towards it's allies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>About time the EU showed some backbone and told the US where to stick it .
The US has bent everyone else over and had their way far too long .
Now that the US 's economy is a mess , the dollar is weak and getting weaker and the Euro is fast taking the place the Dollar once had , the US needs to be sent a strong , loud and clear message that it 's hay day is over and it 's going to have to rely upon diplomacy , cooperation and fair play instead of idle threats and ham-fisted foreign policy towards it 's allies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>About time the EU showed some backbone and told the US where to stick it.
The US has bent everyone else over and had their way far too long.
Now that the US's economy is a mess, the dollar is weak and getting weaker and the Euro is fast taking the place the Dollar once had, the US needs to be sent a strong, loud and clear message that it's hay day is over and it's going to have to rely upon diplomacy, cooperation and fair play instead of idle threats and ham-fisted foreign policy towards it's allies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109076</id>
	<title>Re:Cool, now nobody has to pay taxes.</title>
	<author>horza</author>
	<datestamp>1265904720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Americans tax their citizens on their world-wide income, no matter where they live. The reverse isn't true. So why would a rich European want to hide in a high tax, high unemployment country with record gun crime and without a decent health care system? Though I may sound a little harsh on your system, you under-estimate your fellow Americans. My job is to sell luxury real estate to the wealthy, and I also arrange private banking in Monaco. Virtually none of my American clients are eager to avoid paying taxes.I won't name other nationalities, for fear of being accused of stereotyping, but I will say that in my experience Americans are in the very top percentile of honest tax payers. Though you may have problems with corporations, where every tax dodge is purely for the benefit of the shareholder, you should have more faith in your fellow citizens. Overall you can be proud of them.</p><p>Phillip.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Americans tax their citizens on their world-wide income , no matter where they live .
The reverse is n't true .
So why would a rich European want to hide in a high tax , high unemployment country with record gun crime and without a decent health care system ?
Though I may sound a little harsh on your system , you under-estimate your fellow Americans .
My job is to sell luxury real estate to the wealthy , and I also arrange private banking in Monaco .
Virtually none of my American clients are eager to avoid paying taxes.I wo n't name other nationalities , for fear of being accused of stereotyping , but I will say that in my experience Americans are in the very top percentile of honest tax payers .
Though you may have problems with corporations , where every tax dodge is purely for the benefit of the shareholder , you should have more faith in your fellow citizens .
Overall you can be proud of them.Phillip .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Americans tax their citizens on their world-wide income, no matter where they live.
The reverse isn't true.
So why would a rich European want to hide in a high tax, high unemployment country with record gun crime and without a decent health care system?
Though I may sound a little harsh on your system, you under-estimate your fellow Americans.
My job is to sell luxury real estate to the wealthy, and I also arrange private banking in Monaco.
Virtually none of my American clients are eager to avoid paying taxes.I won't name other nationalities, for fear of being accused of stereotyping, but I will say that in my experience Americans are in the very top percentile of honest tax payers.
Though you may have problems with corporations, where every tax dodge is purely for the benefit of the shareholder, you should have more faith in your fellow citizens.
Overall you can be proud of them.Phillip.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110730</id>
	<title>Re:Well done!</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1265969640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>British courts did the right thing this week too- they ruled against the British government/US attempts to cover up US intelligence handed to the UK proving that one of our citizens was tortured before being moved to Guantanamo before being eventually released with no charges.</p><p>Turns out British intelligence was aware of the torture, which is why most people assumed our foreign office had such an interest in keeping it covered up in the first place.</p><p>Despite American threats to withdraw intelligence sharing if the data was released, our courts ruled that the data should be released, so it's a bit of a double win this week in standing up to oppressive American strong arm tactics of threatening to put us at risk from terrorists if we don't do what they say.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>British courts did the right thing this week too- they ruled against the British government/US attempts to cover up US intelligence handed to the UK proving that one of our citizens was tortured before being moved to Guantanamo before being eventually released with no charges.Turns out British intelligence was aware of the torture , which is why most people assumed our foreign office had such an interest in keeping it covered up in the first place.Despite American threats to withdraw intelligence sharing if the data was released , our courts ruled that the data should be released , so it 's a bit of a double win this week in standing up to oppressive American strong arm tactics of threatening to put us at risk from terrorists if we do n't do what they say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>British courts did the right thing this week too- they ruled against the British government/US attempts to cover up US intelligence handed to the UK proving that one of our citizens was tortured before being moved to Guantanamo before being eventually released with no charges.Turns out British intelligence was aware of the torture, which is why most people assumed our foreign office had such an interest in keeping it covered up in the first place.Despite American threats to withdraw intelligence sharing if the data was released, our courts ruled that the data should be released, so it's a bit of a double win this week in standing up to oppressive American strong arm tactics of threatening to put us at risk from terrorists if we don't do what they say.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108952</id>
	<title>^Yuo fail 1t</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265903640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>invited bac4 aga1n.</htmltext>
<tokenext>invited bac4 aga1n .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>invited bac4 aga1n.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110512</id>
	<title>Re:The easiest way to deal with such US demands...</title>
	<author>MemoryDragon</author>
	<datestamp>1265967060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You also have to be aware that you have to be in a certain position to make such demands, the US is slowly but surely loosing that position. The european countries have not had such a position for a long time. And I must say it is more cozy not to have it than to have it.<br>But the US has to get used to it, and that transition is mentally hard for a lot of people!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You also have to be aware that you have to be in a certain position to make such demands , the US is slowly but surely loosing that position .
The european countries have not had such a position for a long time .
And I must say it is more cozy not to have it than to have it.But the US has to get used to it , and that transition is mentally hard for a lot of people !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You also have to be aware that you have to be in a certain position to make such demands, the US is slowly but surely loosing that position.
The european countries have not had such a position for a long time.
And I must say it is more cozy not to have it than to have it.But the US has to get used to it, and that transition is mentally hard for a lot of people!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108756</id>
	<title>f1rst b@nk</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265901900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>f1rst b@nk</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>f1rst b @ nk</tokentext>
<sentencetext>f1rst b@nk</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109032</id>
	<title>Foreign power in my bank account, no thanks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265904360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is good, why should some foreign power be able to see my banking records?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is good , why should some foreign power be able to see my banking records ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is good, why should some foreign power be able to see my banking records?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31111540</id>
	<title>Ok, it's official ...</title>
	<author>golodh</author>
	<datestamp>1265980620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The EU grew something resembling a spine. Fine. Well done. You've got to start somewhere.
<p>
Now the remaining question is: how do we make sure that EU banking data is adequately mined for leads and clues and that the US is warned the instant something is detected? Because it just so happens that the US is the party that's most at risk, and the EU is the party with porous borders to Islamic nations around the Mediterranean, and an indigenous Muslim population numbering several million which demonstrably contains radical elements. So it's fine if the EU wants to do the data-mining for itself, but it has to be done.
</p><p>
The EU will now probably find that it needs a "federal" investigation agency because letting 23-odd governments in on what queries are run is a recipe for leakage. So it needs to be one agency that's capable of keeping a secret. In case they already had one, now is the time to give it some manpower and computers and let it cooperate with whoever is doing the profiling in the US, because sharing data on *suspect* individuals and *suspect* transactions is well within the scope of conventional police cooperation.
</p><p>
As an interim measure we can probably agree on a few queries with at least one "bogus" query which, if leaked, will cause visible changes in shady people's banking. If the new hopefully-soon-to-be-operational "EU FBI" passes that test they may actually be a help.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The EU grew something resembling a spine .
Fine. Well done .
You 've got to start somewhere .
Now the remaining question is : how do we make sure that EU banking data is adequately mined for leads and clues and that the US is warned the instant something is detected ?
Because it just so happens that the US is the party that 's most at risk , and the EU is the party with porous borders to Islamic nations around the Mediterranean , and an indigenous Muslim population numbering several million which demonstrably contains radical elements .
So it 's fine if the EU wants to do the data-mining for itself , but it has to be done .
The EU will now probably find that it needs a " federal " investigation agency because letting 23-odd governments in on what queries are run is a recipe for leakage .
So it needs to be one agency that 's capable of keeping a secret .
In case they already had one , now is the time to give it some manpower and computers and let it cooperate with whoever is doing the profiling in the US , because sharing data on * suspect * individuals and * suspect * transactions is well within the scope of conventional police cooperation .
As an interim measure we can probably agree on a few queries with at least one " bogus " query which , if leaked , will cause visible changes in shady people 's banking .
If the new hopefully-soon-to-be-operational " EU FBI " passes that test they may actually be a help .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The EU grew something resembling a spine.
Fine. Well done.
You've got to start somewhere.
Now the remaining question is: how do we make sure that EU banking data is adequately mined for leads and clues and that the US is warned the instant something is detected?
Because it just so happens that the US is the party that's most at risk, and the EU is the party with porous borders to Islamic nations around the Mediterranean, and an indigenous Muslim population numbering several million which demonstrably contains radical elements.
So it's fine if the EU wants to do the data-mining for itself, but it has to be done.
The EU will now probably find that it needs a "federal" investigation agency because letting 23-odd governments in on what queries are run is a recipe for leakage.
So it needs to be one agency that's capable of keeping a secret.
In case they already had one, now is the time to give it some manpower and computers and let it cooperate with whoever is doing the profiling in the US, because sharing data on *suspect* individuals and *suspect* transactions is well within the scope of conventional police cooperation.
As an interim measure we can probably agree on a few queries with at least one "bogus" query which, if leaked, will cause visible changes in shady people's banking.
If the new hopefully-soon-to-be-operational "EU FBI" passes that test they may actually be a help.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31111308</id>
	<title>Re:As a US Citizen all I can say is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265977500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, since you are very clearly having no clue about europe at all;</p><p>1. The European states have no tradition of acting like the world police. A lot of them were colonial powers in the past, and we all know how that ended. Once burned...</p><p>2. Who'd do it? You talk about "Europe" like it's a single entity, but it's most definitely not. So, who'd do it?</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; The Spaniards? Who haven't seen any serious fighting except among themselves since guns were loaded with powder, and ships were powered by sails? Not to mention that their economy is about to fail too, atm.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; The French? The country which gave us the word "chauvinism"? You want to send them on a humanitarian mission? Even if they could be bothered, they're already busy in africa.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; The Brits? Sorry, too busy being the US lapdog following the the americans like a shadow. For that matter they have their hands full of their own problems, social as well as economical.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; The Italians? Please god, tell me that's a joke.</p><p>Or are you suggesting... the Germans? Probably the most capable but... I don't really think I need to explain the difficulties with this proposition.</p><p>3.  How about a joint-venture then? It has been done in small scale, but the integration is nowhere near what would be needed to do it on a larger scale, and without a very specific mission. Simple things like getting a working cooperation between different countries for transporting wonded etc, still takes months or even years to get going, etc, etc, and it only gets worse the more countries who get involved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , since you are very clearly having no clue about europe at all ; 1 .
The European states have no tradition of acting like the world police .
A lot of them were colonial powers in the past , and we all know how that ended .
Once burned...2 .
Who 'd do it ?
You talk about " Europe " like it 's a single entity , but it 's most definitely not .
So , who 'd do it ?
    The Spaniards ?
Who have n't seen any serious fighting except among themselves since guns were loaded with powder , and ships were powered by sails ?
Not to mention that their economy is about to fail too , atm .
    The French ?
The country which gave us the word " chauvinism " ?
You want to send them on a humanitarian mission ?
Even if they could be bothered , they 're already busy in africa .
    The Brits ?
Sorry , too busy being the US lapdog following the the americans like a shadow .
For that matter they have their hands full of their own problems , social as well as economical .
    The Italians ?
Please god , tell me that 's a joke.Or are you suggesting... the Germans ?
Probably the most capable but... I do n't really think I need to explain the difficulties with this proposition.3 .
How about a joint-venture then ?
It has been done in small scale , but the integration is nowhere near what would be needed to do it on a larger scale , and without a very specific mission .
Simple things like getting a working cooperation between different countries for transporting wonded etc , still takes months or even years to get going , etc , etc , and it only gets worse the more countries who get involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, since you are very clearly having no clue about europe at all;1.
The European states have no tradition of acting like the world police.
A lot of them were colonial powers in the past, and we all know how that ended.
Once burned...2.
Who'd do it?
You talk about "Europe" like it's a single entity, but it's most definitely not.
So, who'd do it?
    The Spaniards?
Who haven't seen any serious fighting except among themselves since guns were loaded with powder, and ships were powered by sails?
Not to mention that their economy is about to fail too, atm.
    The French?
The country which gave us the word "chauvinism"?
You want to send them on a humanitarian mission?
Even if they could be bothered, they're already busy in africa.
    The Brits?
Sorry, too busy being the US lapdog following the the americans like a shadow.
For that matter they have their hands full of their own problems, social as well as economical.
    The Italians?
Please god, tell me that's a joke.Or are you suggesting... the Germans?
Probably the most capable but... I don't really think I need to explain the difficulties with this proposition.3.
How about a joint-venture then?
It has been done in small scale, but the integration is nowhere near what would be needed to do it on a larger scale, and without a very specific mission.
Simple things like getting a working cooperation between different countries for transporting wonded etc, still takes months or even years to get going, etc, etc, and it only gets worse the more countries who get involved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31115710</id>
	<title>Re:As a US Citizen all I can say is...</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1266000900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Now that the US's economy is a mess, the dollar is weak and getting weaker and the Euro is fast taking the place the Dollar once had, the US needs to be sent a strong, loud and clear message that it's hay day is over and it's going to have to rely upon diplomacy, cooperation and fair play instead of idle threats and ham-fisted foreign policy towards it's allies.</i></p><p>Our economy is doing better than yours, EU-boy. Suck it down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now that the US 's economy is a mess , the dollar is weak and getting weaker and the Euro is fast taking the place the Dollar once had , the US needs to be sent a strong , loud and clear message that it 's hay day is over and it 's going to have to rely upon diplomacy , cooperation and fair play instead of idle threats and ham-fisted foreign policy towards it 's allies.Our economy is doing better than yours , EU-boy .
Suck it down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now that the US's economy is a mess, the dollar is weak and getting weaker and the Euro is fast taking the place the Dollar once had, the US needs to be sent a strong, loud and clear message that it's hay day is over and it's going to have to rely upon diplomacy, cooperation and fair play instead of idle threats and ham-fisted foreign policy towards it's allies.Our economy is doing better than yours, EU-boy.
Suck it down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31112570</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone please explain to me ...</title>
	<author>Neoprofin</author>
	<datestamp>1265988360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Obama is just as beholden to special interests as Bush was, his record setting fund raising didn&#228;t come out of nowhere after all. The problem is that he promised change and even the parts that were well within his control have failed.<br> <br>

1)More transparency such as putting health care reform documentation online before it was voted on OR even allowing the debates to be televised like everything else - Fail<br> <br>

2) Promising not to hire lobbyists for his cabinets lasted all of week.<br> <br>

This is not to say that he hasn't done some things correctly, but for most people living in the US his likability (which is very high) is staring to take a back seat to an honest evaluation of his accomplishments (which have been few because of his unability to organize his own party behind him) and that's why his popularity dips ever lower here. There's already backlash against at the level of elected officials and it's starting to look like the next round of elections wont be a fun one for the Democrats even this soon after Bush.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama is just as beholden to special interests as Bush was , his record setting fund raising didn   t come out of nowhere after all .
The problem is that he promised change and even the parts that were well within his control have failed .
1 ) More transparency such as putting health care reform documentation online before it was voted on OR even allowing the debates to be televised like everything else - Fail 2 ) Promising not to hire lobbyists for his cabinets lasted all of week .
This is not to say that he has n't done some things correctly , but for most people living in the US his likability ( which is very high ) is staring to take a back seat to an honest evaluation of his accomplishments ( which have been few because of his unability to organize his own party behind him ) and that 's why his popularity dips ever lower here .
There 's already backlash against at the level of elected officials and it 's starting to look like the next round of elections wont be a fun one for the Democrats even this soon after Bush .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama is just as beholden to special interests as Bush was, his record setting fund raising didnät come out of nowhere after all.
The problem is that he promised change and even the parts that were well within his control have failed.
1)More transparency such as putting health care reform documentation online before it was voted on OR even allowing the debates to be televised like everything else - Fail 

2) Promising not to hire lobbyists for his cabinets lasted all of week.
This is not to say that he hasn't done some things correctly, but for most people living in the US his likability (which is very high) is staring to take a back seat to an honest evaluation of his accomplishments (which have been few because of his unability to organize his own party behind him) and that's why his popularity dips ever lower here.
There's already backlash against at the level of elected officials and it's starting to look like the next round of elections wont be a fun one for the Democrats even this soon after Bush.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108810</id>
	<title>Re:Well done!</title>
	<author>biryokumaru</author>
	<datestamp>1265902380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not like America needs special privileges for a lot of <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/02/11/2129212" title="slashdot.org">that information</a> [slashdot.org] right now anyways.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not like America needs special privileges for a lot of that information [ slashdot.org ] right now anyways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not like America needs special privileges for a lot of that information [slashdot.org] right now anyways.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110210</id>
	<title>parliament</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266005340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The european government consists of two elements - the commission and the parliament.</p><p>What you need to know in short:</p><p>The commission is <b>appointed</b>, completely undemocratic, and holds most of the power and does most of the actual activity. It also bends over backwards whenever the US wants something. It was the commission who gave away our flight data, our personal data, our Internet data and now our banking data.</p><p>The parliament is <b>elected</b>, is the democratic body, and has very limited powers (though they have shifted around a bit with the last reform). It isn't exactly a mecca of reason, but it more often than not stops the worst excesses of the commission.</p><p>So once again, I applaud the parliament. They're fighting uphill battles against the commission all the time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The european government consists of two elements - the commission and the parliament.What you need to know in short : The commission is appointed , completely undemocratic , and holds most of the power and does most of the actual activity .
It also bends over backwards whenever the US wants something .
It was the commission who gave away our flight data , our personal data , our Internet data and now our banking data.The parliament is elected , is the democratic body , and has very limited powers ( though they have shifted around a bit with the last reform ) .
It is n't exactly a mecca of reason , but it more often than not stops the worst excesses of the commission.So once again , I applaud the parliament .
They 're fighting uphill battles against the commission all the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The european government consists of two elements - the commission and the parliament.What you need to know in short:The commission is appointed, completely undemocratic, and holds most of the power and does most of the actual activity.
It also bends over backwards whenever the US wants something.
It was the commission who gave away our flight data, our personal data, our Internet data and now our banking data.The parliament is elected, is the democratic body, and has very limited powers (though they have shifted around a bit with the last reform).
It isn't exactly a mecca of reason, but it more often than not stops the worst excesses of the commission.So once again, I applaud the parliament.
They're fighting uphill battles against the commission all the time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31111110</id>
	<title>Re:As a US Citizen all I can say is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265975640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The USA managed to *get* so strong in the first place through a strong reputation of diplomacy, cooperation, and fair play. It's just a question of going back to that winning strategy.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The USA managed to * get * so strong in the first place through a strong reputation of diplomacy , cooperation , and fair play .
It 's just a question of going back to that winning strategy .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The USA managed to *get* so strong in the first place through a strong reputation of diplomacy, cooperation, and fair play.
It's just a question of going back to that winning strategy.
:-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108950</id>
	<title>cryptic reasoning</title>
	<author>tardis owner</author>
	<datestamp>1265903580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course the EU has no interest in the US gaining access to EU banking data.  There is no way in Hell they would willingly give up this info.

The US intelligence community probably is saying they are only looking for information for anti-terrorist data.  The EU isn't refusing the providing individual pieces on information.  They just don't want to submit to US supremacy.  They don't even need to.

However, information leads to power. Power leads to control. The EU is not looking to give the US that kind of control.

In the "conspiracy theory" direction, the EU has several "families" that are collectively owed trillions in debt, owed by the people, collectively, of the US.  Also, these families do not want any information (money trails), leading back to them, in any regards to their use of power and control in their day to day (behind the scenes) puppet mastering.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course the EU has no interest in the US gaining access to EU banking data .
There is no way in Hell they would willingly give up this info .
The US intelligence community probably is saying they are only looking for information for anti-terrorist data .
The EU is n't refusing the providing individual pieces on information .
They just do n't want to submit to US supremacy .
They do n't even need to .
However , information leads to power .
Power leads to control .
The EU is not looking to give the US that kind of control .
In the " conspiracy theory " direction , the EU has several " families " that are collectively owed trillions in debt , owed by the people , collectively , of the US .
Also , these families do not want any information ( money trails ) , leading back to them , in any regards to their use of power and control in their day to day ( behind the scenes ) puppet mastering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course the EU has no interest in the US gaining access to EU banking data.
There is no way in Hell they would willingly give up this info.
The US intelligence community probably is saying they are only looking for information for anti-terrorist data.
The EU isn't refusing the providing individual pieces on information.
They just don't want to submit to US supremacy.
They don't even need to.
However, information leads to power.
Power leads to control.
The EU is not looking to give the US that kind of control.
In the "conspiracy theory" direction, the EU has several "families" that are collectively owed trillions in debt, owed by the people, collectively, of the US.
Also, these families do not want any information (money trails), leading back to them, in any regards to their use of power and control in their day to day (behind the scenes) puppet mastering.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109088</id>
	<title>Re:Cool, now nobody has to pay taxes.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265904780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do.  I used a false name.<br>The US will never check the name Osama Bin Laden because they'll assume hes using an alias.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do .
I used a false name.The US will never check the name Osama Bin Laden because they 'll assume hes using an alias .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do.
I used a false name.The US will never check the name Osama Bin Laden because they'll assume hes using an alias.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108814</id>
	<title>A good start!</title>
	<author>newcastlejon</author>
	<datestamp>1265902440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a shame that similar action won't be forthcoming when it comes to the lopsided extradition treaties though.</p><p>N.B. These don't apply to all EU member states but are particularly bad with our spineless foreign office.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a shame that similar action wo n't be forthcoming when it comes to the lopsided extradition treaties though.N.B .
These do n't apply to all EU member states but are particularly bad with our spineless foreign office .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a shame that similar action won't be forthcoming when it comes to the lopsided extradition treaties though.N.B.
These don't apply to all EU member states but are particularly bad with our spineless foreign office.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108930</id>
	<title>This isn't over</title>
	<author>countertrolling</author>
	<datestamp>1265903340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The same thing will come back again and again under a different name each time. And besides there are other ways. Somebody "accidentally" leaves a suitcase full of backup tapes of customer info in a taxi... No problem</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The same thing will come back again and again under a different name each time .
And besides there are other ways .
Somebody " accidentally " leaves a suitcase full of backup tapes of customer info in a taxi... No problem</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The same thing will come back again and again under a different name each time.
And besides there are other ways.
Somebody "accidentally" leaves a suitcase full of backup tapes of customer info in a taxi... No problem</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109438</id>
	<title>Re:Well done!</title>
	<author>Lord Kano</author>
	<datestamp>1265908920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Now if only American banks had the same motivation to protect its customers data from the very same agencies.</i></p><p>The problem with that is banks are Federally chartered in the US. The FBI can make life difficult for any bank that does not comply.</p><p>LK</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now if only American banks had the same motivation to protect its customers data from the very same agencies.The problem with that is banks are Federally chartered in the US .
The FBI can make life difficult for any bank that does not comply.LK</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now if only American banks had the same motivation to protect its customers data from the very same agencies.The problem with that is banks are Federally chartered in the US.
The FBI can make life difficult for any bank that does not comply.LK</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31112888</id>
	<title>Not going to stop the US</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265989620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My first reaction when I read this was: Yes! Finally!. And sure, it is a good move from EU MPs, but I dont think this will halt US agencies from getting their info as they want.<br>They'll just break the law, and why wouldn't they? EU certainly isn't going to "punish" the US for breaking that law. EU, sadly, won't dare to do that. Besides, privacy in the EU itself is a bit shameful; all my phonecalls are stored into some EU data storage center, for what reason again????</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My first reaction when I read this was : Yes !
Finally ! . And sure , it is a good move from EU MPs , but I dont think this will halt US agencies from getting their info as they want.They 'll just break the law , and why would n't they ?
EU certainly is n't going to " punish " the US for breaking that law .
EU , sadly , wo n't dare to do that .
Besides , privacy in the EU itself is a bit shameful ; all my phonecalls are stored into some EU data storage center , for what reason again ? ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My first reaction when I read this was: Yes!
Finally!. And sure, it is a good move from EU MPs, but I dont think this will halt US agencies from getting their info as they want.They'll just break the law, and why wouldn't they?
EU certainly isn't going to "punish" the US for breaking that law.
EU, sadly, won't dare to do that.
Besides, privacy in the EU itself is a bit shameful; all my phonecalls are stored into some EU data storage center, for what reason again???
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109020</id>
	<title>Re:Cool, now nobody has to pay taxes.</title>
	<author>BitterOak</author>
	<datestamp>1265904300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Americans that want to avoid taxes, can now bank in Europe again.  Soon the USA will follow suit and allow Europeans who do not wish to pay taxes to be shielded from Europe.</p></div><p>Nope.  Sorry.  This has nothing to do with sharing records for tax collection.  This agreement allowed <i>intelligence agencies</i> in the U.S. to secretly access banking information for <i>all</i> customers, including non-U.S. citizens.  The tax data sharing agreements are separate and above board and require the bank to supply data only on those required to pay income tax in the U.S. (or whichever country they share with).  Virtually all countries participate in tax data sharing now, so I'm afraid you can't get out of paying your taxes simply by banking in Europe.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Americans that want to avoid taxes , can now bank in Europe again .
Soon the USA will follow suit and allow Europeans who do not wish to pay taxes to be shielded from Europe.Nope .
Sorry. This has nothing to do with sharing records for tax collection .
This agreement allowed intelligence agencies in the U.S. to secretly access banking information for all customers , including non-U.S. citizens. The tax data sharing agreements are separate and above board and require the bank to supply data only on those required to pay income tax in the U.S. ( or whichever country they share with ) .
Virtually all countries participate in tax data sharing now , so I 'm afraid you ca n't get out of paying your taxes simply by banking in Europe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Americans that want to avoid taxes, can now bank in Europe again.
Soon the USA will follow suit and allow Europeans who do not wish to pay taxes to be shielded from Europe.Nope.
Sorry.  This has nothing to do with sharing records for tax collection.
This agreement allowed intelligence agencies in the U.S. to secretly access banking information for all customers, including non-U.S. citizens.  The tax data sharing agreements are separate and above board and require the bank to supply data only on those required to pay income tax in the U.S. (or whichever country they share with).
Virtually all countries participate in tax data sharing now, so I'm afraid you can't get out of paying your taxes simply by banking in Europe.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110838</id>
	<title>Re:The easiest way to deal with such US demands...</title>
	<author>houghi</author>
	<datestamp>1265971200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not a good way. What if the US agrees to it? Then we Eurpoeans still have our privacy violated as well as the privacy of the American public. Two wrongs don't make a right.</p><p>It is not so much that we do not want to share data about (potential) criminal activities. The problem is that we do not want to share the bulk.</p><p>It is like listening in on phone calls. Not OOjk if you listen to them all. OK if you have a court order to listen to specific individuals to build a case against them.</p><p>So not OK to see all my data. OK to see all the data from Osama Bin Laden <b>if a court has decided that it is needed</b>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not a good way .
What if the US agrees to it ?
Then we Eurpoeans still have our privacy violated as well as the privacy of the American public .
Two wrongs do n't make a right.It is not so much that we do not want to share data about ( potential ) criminal activities .
The problem is that we do not want to share the bulk.It is like listening in on phone calls .
Not OOjk if you listen to them all .
OK if you have a court order to listen to specific individuals to build a case against them.So not OK to see all my data .
OK to see all the data from Osama Bin Laden if a court has decided that it is needed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not a good way.
What if the US agrees to it?
Then we Eurpoeans still have our privacy violated as well as the privacy of the American public.
Two wrongs don't make a right.It is not so much that we do not want to share data about (potential) criminal activities.
The problem is that we do not want to share the bulk.It is like listening in on phone calls.
Not OOjk if you listen to them all.
OK if you have a court order to listen to specific individuals to build a case against them.So not OK to see all my data.
OK to see all the data from Osama Bin Laden if a court has decided that it is needed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110716</id>
	<title>Re:As a US Citizen all I can say is...</title>
	<author>Antiocheian</author>
	<datestamp>1265969520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Frankly, we'd all better hope and pray that the US's "hay day" isn't over</p></div><p>Does "we" include Iraqis and Palestinians ?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Frankly , we 'd all better hope and pray that the US 's " hay day " is n't overDoes " we " include Iraqis and Palestinians ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frankly, we'd all better hope and pray that the US's "hay day" isn't overDoes "we" include Iraqis and Palestinians ?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31113940</id>
	<title>Re:Well done!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265994240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The 'agency' has shown to be incapable of protecting it's own citizen's privacy.<br>The 'agency' has demonstrated multiple times utter contempt for their own declaration of independence and it's ammendments, human rights declarations, geneva conventions,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>They've also demonstrated they don't have any scrupules to getting the data they need without any form of consent (they used the data covertly for 6 years)<br>These are the kind of people that simply need a deal to hush up public opinion about the topic, they'll never stick to the conditions necessary to preserve privacy.<br>And tbh the rest of the world had already said NO before they started their war, if you're neck deep in the shit you've created don't come whining when everyone else told you it wasn't a good idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The 'agency ' has shown to be incapable of protecting it 's own citizen 's privacy.The 'agency ' has demonstrated multiple times utter contempt for their own declaration of independence and it 's ammendments , human rights declarations , geneva conventions , ...They 've also demonstrated they do n't have any scrupules to getting the data they need without any form of consent ( they used the data covertly for 6 years ) These are the kind of people that simply need a deal to hush up public opinion about the topic , they 'll never stick to the conditions necessary to preserve privacy.And tbh the rest of the world had already said NO before they started their war , if you 're neck deep in the shit you 've created do n't come whining when everyone else told you it was n't a good idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 'agency' has shown to be incapable of protecting it's own citizen's privacy.The 'agency' has demonstrated multiple times utter contempt for their own declaration of independence and it's ammendments, human rights declarations, geneva conventions, ...They've also demonstrated they don't have any scrupules to getting the data they need without any form of consent (they used the data covertly for 6 years)These are the kind of people that simply need a deal to hush up public opinion about the topic, they'll never stick to the conditions necessary to preserve privacy.And tbh the rest of the world had already said NO before they started their war, if you're neck deep in the shit you've created don't come whining when everyone else told you it wasn't a good idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109404</id>
	<title>Soon a new US law</title>
	<author>arthurpaliden</author>
	<datestamp>1265908380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It will soon be illegal for an American or any entity operating in the United States to use the SWIFT money transfer service.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It will soon be illegal for an American or any entity operating in the United States to use the SWIFT money transfer service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It will soon be illegal for an American or any entity operating in the United States to use the SWIFT money transfer service.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109128</id>
	<title>Oh, it's more sinister than that...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265905320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, as I understand it, this one was more a case of I'll show you yours if you'll show me mine.</p><p>The intelligence "sharing" is done precisely because each side could get in legal and/or political trouble for spying on its own citizens without good cause. On the other hand, if it's just foreign intelligence provided by a friendly state, well, that's OK, then. This is as much one in the eye for certain EU governments (whose appointed representatives previously forced this measure through at European level mere hours before the Lisbon Treaty kicked in and meant the elected MEPs would get a say, remember) as it is for the US.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , as I understand it , this one was more a case of I 'll show you yours if you 'll show me mine.The intelligence " sharing " is done precisely because each side could get in legal and/or political trouble for spying on its own citizens without good cause .
On the other hand , if it 's just foreign intelligence provided by a friendly state , well , that 's OK , then .
This is as much one in the eye for certain EU governments ( whose appointed representatives previously forced this measure through at European level mere hours before the Lisbon Treaty kicked in and meant the elected MEPs would get a say , remember ) as it is for the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, as I understand it, this one was more a case of I'll show you yours if you'll show me mine.The intelligence "sharing" is done precisely because each side could get in legal and/or political trouble for spying on its own citizens without good cause.
On the other hand, if it's just foreign intelligence provided by a friendly state, well, that's OK, then.
This is as much one in the eye for certain EU governments (whose appointed representatives previously forced this measure through at European level mere hours before the Lisbon Treaty kicked in and meant the elected MEPs would get a say, remember) as it is for the US.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110246</id>
	<title>Re:Well done!</title>
	<author>ShakaUVM</author>
	<datestamp>1266005700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;Now if only American banks had the same motivation to protect its customers data from the very same agencies.</p><p>I think they're more motivated by Uncle Sam's moneybags.</p><p>If you're a friend of the government, the government will cover your risky losses. You get to be Goldman Sachs. If you're not, then you get to play as Wachovia. In other words, being a friend of the government is the optimal place to be, since it lets you gamble as wildly as you like - you pocket any upside, and if your gamble doesn't pay off you just get a job as Treasury Secretary and write a blank check to your former place of employment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; Now if only American banks had the same motivation to protect its customers data from the very same agencies.I think they 're more motivated by Uncle Sam 's moneybags.If you 're a friend of the government , the government will cover your risky losses .
You get to be Goldman Sachs .
If you 're not , then you get to play as Wachovia .
In other words , being a friend of the government is the optimal place to be , since it lets you gamble as wildly as you like - you pocket any upside , and if your gamble does n't pay off you just get a job as Treasury Secretary and write a blank check to your former place of employment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;Now if only American banks had the same motivation to protect its customers data from the very same agencies.I think they're more motivated by Uncle Sam's moneybags.If you're a friend of the government, the government will cover your risky losses.
You get to be Goldman Sachs.
If you're not, then you get to play as Wachovia.
In other words, being a friend of the government is the optimal place to be, since it lets you gamble as wildly as you like - you pocket any upside, and if your gamble doesn't pay off you just get a job as Treasury Secretary and write a blank check to your former place of employment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109000</id>
	<title>Re:We already know how this works</title>
	<author>skine</author>
	<datestamp>1265904060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>slut</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>slut</tokentext>
<sentencetext>slut</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31111146</id>
	<title>Yeah just for checking terrorism...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265976060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had a business trip to US last year. At the customs i gave the security guy my passport. He was checking it for 10 secs, then he asked me "So you're working for a Swiss company?".<br>I was stunned. I am actually working for a company in Italy and using a Swiss company as payroll company. Almost no one knows this. In all forms, I fill in my Italian company. I guess they tracked my swift transactions from my payroll company...</p><p>Anyway, why isn't Europe allowed to track all American financial transactions?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had a business trip to US last year .
At the customs i gave the security guy my passport .
He was checking it for 10 secs , then he asked me " So you 're working for a Swiss company ?
" .I was stunned .
I am actually working for a company in Italy and using a Swiss company as payroll company .
Almost no one knows this .
In all forms , I fill in my Italian company .
I guess they tracked my swift transactions from my payroll company...Anyway , why is n't Europe allowed to track all American financial transactions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had a business trip to US last year.
At the customs i gave the security guy my passport.
He was checking it for 10 secs, then he asked me "So you're working for a Swiss company?
".I was stunned.
I am actually working for a company in Italy and using a Swiss company as payroll company.
Almost no one knows this.
In all forms, I fill in my Italian company.
I guess they tracked my swift transactions from my payroll company...Anyway, why isn't Europe allowed to track all American financial transactions?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108962</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone please explain to me ...</title>
	<author>countertrolling</author>
	<datestamp>1265903760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who, besides the fanbois, said he was?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who , besides the fanbois , said he was ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who, besides the fanbois, said he was?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31111560</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone please explain to me ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265980800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it was about truly awful leaders and genocide, we'd have invaded Ethiopia. If it was about nuclear proliferation and providing arms to terrorists, we'd have invaded Pakistan. If it was about improving the safety of Americans, we'd have ended the "war on drugs" by switching from jail-terms to treatment, and stripped the Taliban of their heroin income in Afghanistan. (This is still one of their primary income sources.)</p><p>No, Bush's concerns were about "proving himself" by finishing his daddy's war in Iraq, and about oil. Iraq is one of the largest petroleum suppliers in the world.  Putting it directly under US control helps counter OPEC power to manipulate oil prices, and leaving its oil output low helps protect a vital reserve of oil for US use. (This is a subtle reason \_not\_ to invest heavily in protecting or expanding their existing oil pipelines, to extend the life of a critical economic and industrial resource.) Remember, this President Bush was an oilman before, and he's an oilman again now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it was about truly awful leaders and genocide , we 'd have invaded Ethiopia .
If it was about nuclear proliferation and providing arms to terrorists , we 'd have invaded Pakistan .
If it was about improving the safety of Americans , we 'd have ended the " war on drugs " by switching from jail-terms to treatment , and stripped the Taliban of their heroin income in Afghanistan .
( This is still one of their primary income sources .
) No , Bush 's concerns were about " proving himself " by finishing his daddy 's war in Iraq , and about oil .
Iraq is one of the largest petroleum suppliers in the world .
Putting it directly under US control helps counter OPEC power to manipulate oil prices , and leaving its oil output low helps protect a vital reserve of oil for US use .
( This is a subtle reason \ _not \ _ to invest heavily in protecting or expanding their existing oil pipelines , to extend the life of a critical economic and industrial resource .
) Remember , this President Bush was an oilman before , and he 's an oilman again now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it was about truly awful leaders and genocide, we'd have invaded Ethiopia.
If it was about nuclear proliferation and providing arms to terrorists, we'd have invaded Pakistan.
If it was about improving the safety of Americans, we'd have ended the "war on drugs" by switching from jail-terms to treatment, and stripped the Taliban of their heroin income in Afghanistan.
(This is still one of their primary income sources.
)No, Bush's concerns were about "proving himself" by finishing his daddy's war in Iraq, and about oil.
Iraq is one of the largest petroleum suppliers in the world.
Putting it directly under US control helps counter OPEC power to manipulate oil prices, and leaving its oil output low helps protect a vital reserve of oil for US use.
(This is a subtle reason \_not\_ to invest heavily in protecting or expanding their existing oil pipelines, to extend the life of a critical economic and industrial resource.
) Remember, this President Bush was an oilman before, and he's an oilman again now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109490</id>
	<title>The easiest way to deal with such US demands...</title>
	<author>linuxhansl</author>
	<datestamp>1265909640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>is to require reciprocity. That goes for access to financial data as well as travelling/airline data.
<p>
It seems to me the US is quick to access other countries' data, but it far less willing to provide equal access to internal data as well.
<br>
Hence this would either level the playing ground or put a stop to US demands.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is to require reciprocity .
That goes for access to financial data as well as travelling/airline data .
It seems to me the US is quick to access other countries ' data , but it far less willing to provide equal access to internal data as well .
Hence this would either level the playing ground or put a stop to US demands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is to require reciprocity.
That goes for access to financial data as well as travelling/airline data.
It seems to me the US is quick to access other countries' data, but it far less willing to provide equal access to internal data as well.
Hence this would either level the playing ground or put a stop to US demands.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31111206</id>
	<title>Re:As a US Citizen all I can say is...</title>
	<author>rve</author>
	<datestamp>1265976660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The dollar has gained quite significantly since 2007.  The Euro's mindshare was the first thing to go in the recession...  Not just a chink in the armor, but a forced realization that a defacto currency, from which any country can opt-out at any time, with no central governing authority, but with individual authorities with a poor understanding of how to handle such changes, and with several weak players involved, is not a safe bet in the slightest</p></div><p>The dollar regained gained some, after having steadily declined from about EUR 1.25 to about EUR 0.65</p><p>I don't know what you base the idea on that any country could opt-out of it at any time. Such an operation would be purely theoretical, the actual process of leaving the EUR after having joined would take years, carry a staggering cost and would seriously harm the economic outlook of any country attempting it. It's unthinkable, joining the EUR is a one way path.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I'd point to Kosovo for a look at what European "diplomacy" can do...  Lots of speeches over the years about "never again," and then a whole lot of nothing when a real stand needs to be made,</p></div><p>It has a whole lot to do with the reluctance towards looking at only one side of an issue. I'd call it a difference in culture between the US and post WW2 Europe. In the US, there is still a strong belief in right vs wrong, good vs. evil. In a conflict, there must be one side that's right and another one that is wrong. Kosovo and Bosnia were solved very decisively by the US, by picking a side, obliterating the other side, and blaming the entire conflict on the obliterated party. It worked, the conflict is over. It no longer matters that the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo later turned out to have been a fabrication, and that the good guys in Bosnia turned out to have been almost as nasty as the bad guys.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I say this not as an ignorant and arrogant American, but as a distant observer..<br>(...) but this (largely Europeans) fervent anti-Americanism we see touted on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. so often is a rather serious case of not being able to see the forest for the trees.  The grass may seems greener on the other side, but it's pretty clear that there's no grass at all over there...</p></div><p>I say this as a half-yank, half-eurofag. In my experience the anti-Americanism in Europe is exaggerated in the US media. Euros just tend to be more 'negative' in general, and many Americans experience any shimmer of doubt or negativity as anti-American. I don't experience anti-Americanism in Europe as worse than anti-Europism in the US, or anti-California-ism in Texas.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The dollar has gained quite significantly since 2007 .
The Euro 's mindshare was the first thing to go in the recession... Not just a chink in the armor , but a forced realization that a defacto currency , from which any country can opt-out at any time , with no central governing authority , but with individual authorities with a poor understanding of how to handle such changes , and with several weak players involved , is not a safe bet in the slightestThe dollar regained gained some , after having steadily declined from about EUR 1.25 to about EUR 0.65I do n't know what you base the idea on that any country could opt-out of it at any time .
Such an operation would be purely theoretical , the actual process of leaving the EUR after having joined would take years , carry a staggering cost and would seriously harm the economic outlook of any country attempting it .
It 's unthinkable , joining the EUR is a one way path.I 'd point to Kosovo for a look at what European " diplomacy " can do... Lots of speeches over the years about " never again , " and then a whole lot of nothing when a real stand needs to be made,It has a whole lot to do with the reluctance towards looking at only one side of an issue .
I 'd call it a difference in culture between the US and post WW2 Europe .
In the US , there is still a strong belief in right vs wrong , good vs. evil. In a conflict , there must be one side that 's right and another one that is wrong .
Kosovo and Bosnia were solved very decisively by the US , by picking a side , obliterating the other side , and blaming the entire conflict on the obliterated party .
It worked , the conflict is over .
It no longer matters that the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo later turned out to have been a fabrication , and that the good guys in Bosnia turned out to have been almost as nasty as the bad guys.I say this not as an ignorant and arrogant American , but as a distant observer.. ( ... ) but this ( largely Europeans ) fervent anti-Americanism we see touted on / .
so often is a rather serious case of not being able to see the forest for the trees .
The grass may seems greener on the other side , but it 's pretty clear that there 's no grass at all over there...I say this as a half-yank , half-eurofag .
In my experience the anti-Americanism in Europe is exaggerated in the US media .
Euros just tend to be more 'negative ' in general , and many Americans experience any shimmer of doubt or negativity as anti-American .
I do n't experience anti-Americanism in Europe as worse than anti-Europism in the US , or anti-California-ism in Texas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The dollar has gained quite significantly since 2007.
The Euro's mindshare was the first thing to go in the recession...  Not just a chink in the armor, but a forced realization that a defacto currency, from which any country can opt-out at any time, with no central governing authority, but with individual authorities with a poor understanding of how to handle such changes, and with several weak players involved, is not a safe bet in the slightestThe dollar regained gained some, after having steadily declined from about EUR 1.25 to about EUR 0.65I don't know what you base the idea on that any country could opt-out of it at any time.
Such an operation would be purely theoretical, the actual process of leaving the EUR after having joined would take years, carry a staggering cost and would seriously harm the economic outlook of any country attempting it.
It's unthinkable, joining the EUR is a one way path.I'd point to Kosovo for a look at what European "diplomacy" can do...  Lots of speeches over the years about "never again," and then a whole lot of nothing when a real stand needs to be made,It has a whole lot to do with the reluctance towards looking at only one side of an issue.
I'd call it a difference in culture between the US and post WW2 Europe.
In the US, there is still a strong belief in right vs wrong, good vs. evil. In a conflict, there must be one side that's right and another one that is wrong.
Kosovo and Bosnia were solved very decisively by the US, by picking a side, obliterating the other side, and blaming the entire conflict on the obliterated party.
It worked, the conflict is over.
It no longer matters that the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo later turned out to have been a fabrication, and that the good guys in Bosnia turned out to have been almost as nasty as the bad guys.I say this not as an ignorant and arrogant American, but as a distant observer..(...) but this (largely Europeans) fervent anti-Americanism we see touted on /.
so often is a rather serious case of not being able to see the forest for the trees.
The grass may seems greener on the other side, but it's pretty clear that there's no grass at all over there...I say this as a half-yank, half-eurofag.
In my experience the anti-Americanism in Europe is exaggerated in the US media.
Euros just tend to be more 'negative' in general, and many Americans experience any shimmer of doubt or negativity as anti-American.
I don't experience anti-Americanism in Europe as worse than anti-Europism in the US, or anti-California-ism in Texas.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110498</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone please explain to me ...</title>
	<author>MemoryDragon</author>
	<datestamp>1265966820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would not be so harsh about Obama,he has to face an entirely different situation. Bush also was not honest about his believes, most of the Iraq war just was done to get a handful of US corporations to cash in. Cheneys company was one of the huge winners of this deal, the international soldiers the loosers.</p><p>Obama currently fights an entirely different battle, Bush gave to him a basically fucked up country, not close to bankrupcy but with a serious debt problem, an pushing everything through is a problem because the entire parliament is just whores on the payroll of lobbyists anymore. So to get your agendas even remotely through you have to do some rearrangements with the current political situation. The situation of Bush was much easier because he just reigned for the payroll of the lobbyists and did not care about anything else.</p><p>For that I personally think Obama has been doing very well, but my personal opinion simply is you cannot rule the US anymore, there is too much greed selfishism and too much bribery (on legal level via donations) going on. I personally doubt anyone could do better than Obama did, I think 99\% of all people in his position would even do worse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would not be so harsh about Obama,he has to face an entirely different situation .
Bush also was not honest about his believes , most of the Iraq war just was done to get a handful of US corporations to cash in .
Cheneys company was one of the huge winners of this deal , the international soldiers the loosers.Obama currently fights an entirely different battle , Bush gave to him a basically fucked up country , not close to bankrupcy but with a serious debt problem , an pushing everything through is a problem because the entire parliament is just whores on the payroll of lobbyists anymore .
So to get your agendas even remotely through you have to do some rearrangements with the current political situation .
The situation of Bush was much easier because he just reigned for the payroll of the lobbyists and did not care about anything else.For that I personally think Obama has been doing very well , but my personal opinion simply is you can not rule the US anymore , there is too much greed selfishism and too much bribery ( on legal level via donations ) going on .
I personally doubt anyone could do better than Obama did , I think 99 \ % of all people in his position would even do worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would not be so harsh about Obama,he has to face an entirely different situation.
Bush also was not honest about his believes, most of the Iraq war just was done to get a handful of US corporations to cash in.
Cheneys company was one of the huge winners of this deal, the international soldiers the loosers.Obama currently fights an entirely different battle, Bush gave to him a basically fucked up country, not close to bankrupcy but with a serious debt problem, an pushing everything through is a problem because the entire parliament is just whores on the payroll of lobbyists anymore.
So to get your agendas even remotely through you have to do some rearrangements with the current political situation.
The situation of Bush was much easier because he just reigned for the payroll of the lobbyists and did not care about anything else.For that I personally think Obama has been doing very well, but my personal opinion simply is you cannot rule the US anymore, there is too much greed selfishism and too much bribery (on legal level via donations) going on.
I personally doubt anyone could do better than Obama did, I think 99\% of all people in his position would even do worse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110722</id>
	<title>Re:As a US Citizen all I can say is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265969580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh yes. Americans bombed Serbia to the ground and right after that Albania funds a rebellion in Macedonia - a dream of Great Albania nearly came true. Thanks a bunch, Merkins.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh yes .
Americans bombed Serbia to the ground and right after that Albania funds a rebellion in Macedonia - a dream of Great Albania nearly came true .
Thanks a bunch , Merkins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh yes.
Americans bombed Serbia to the ground and right after that Albania funds a rebellion in Macedonia - a dream of Great Albania nearly came true.
Thanks a bunch, Merkins.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108808</id>
	<title>Cool, now nobody has to pay taxes.</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1265902380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Americans that want to avoid taxes, can now bank in Europe again.  Soon the USA will follow suit and allow Europeans who do not wish to pay taxes to be shielded from Europe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Americans that want to avoid taxes , can now bank in Europe again .
Soon the USA will follow suit and allow Europeans who do not wish to pay taxes to be shielded from Europe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Americans that want to avoid taxes, can now bank in Europe again.
Soon the USA will follow suit and allow Europeans who do not wish to pay taxes to be shielded from Europe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31111050</id>
	<title>Re:Cool, now nobody has to pay taxes.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265974380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So why would a rich European want to hide in a high tax, high unemployment country with record gun crime and without a decent health care system?</p></div></blockquote><p>Well perhaps it's a navigational mistake that so many well educated and (moderately) wealthy Europeans move to the US - they meant to go to Switzerland but took the wrong plane or something similar. I would however propose a different theory. Let's break down you claims:</p><p>1) Taxes: I, as a small business owner pay a net of about 60\% taxes. That's not including the 25\% value added tax which is slapped on everything I purchase. In the US I would pay about 30\%, probably less.<br>2) High unemployment: The EU unemployment rate is about 10\%. US unemployment rate is about 10\%. Not that it matters for the wealthy category.<br>3) Gun crime: Sure it's higher in the US, but again not something that is a great problem for the rich or for the upper middle class.<br>4) Health care: The US has the best health care system in the world as far as medicine goes. Nearly all medical research comes from the US. The best doctors from all over the world move to the US - both for professional and economic reasons. The health care in Europe is "free" (i.e. you pay it through taxes) which is good for people with low incomes. For the middle class and the wealthy paying for insurance and medical costs isn't a problem. They would prefer getting better quality.</p><p>The bottom line is that Europe has a stronger social protection grid - something that benefits unemployed and people with low incomes. For the rest it just means that you pay more for bad quality of services. So if you are in the upper middle class, the US is a far better choice. You get to keep more of your money, stuff is a lot cheaper and you can get better quality of service. As for the super rich, well, it doesn't matter one way or the other. They live in a different sphere where issues of tax and health care are trivial.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So why would a rich European want to hide in a high tax , high unemployment country with record gun crime and without a decent health care system ? Well perhaps it 's a navigational mistake that so many well educated and ( moderately ) wealthy Europeans move to the US - they meant to go to Switzerland but took the wrong plane or something similar .
I would however propose a different theory .
Let 's break down you claims : 1 ) Taxes : I , as a small business owner pay a net of about 60 \ % taxes .
That 's not including the 25 \ % value added tax which is slapped on everything I purchase .
In the US I would pay about 30 \ % , probably less.2 ) High unemployment : The EU unemployment rate is about 10 \ % .
US unemployment rate is about 10 \ % .
Not that it matters for the wealthy category.3 ) Gun crime : Sure it 's higher in the US , but again not something that is a great problem for the rich or for the upper middle class.4 ) Health care : The US has the best health care system in the world as far as medicine goes .
Nearly all medical research comes from the US .
The best doctors from all over the world move to the US - both for professional and economic reasons .
The health care in Europe is " free " ( i.e .
you pay it through taxes ) which is good for people with low incomes .
For the middle class and the wealthy paying for insurance and medical costs is n't a problem .
They would prefer getting better quality.The bottom line is that Europe has a stronger social protection grid - something that benefits unemployed and people with low incomes .
For the rest it just means that you pay more for bad quality of services .
So if you are in the upper middle class , the US is a far better choice .
You get to keep more of your money , stuff is a lot cheaper and you can get better quality of service .
As for the super rich , well , it does n't matter one way or the other .
They live in a different sphere where issues of tax and health care are trivial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So why would a rich European want to hide in a high tax, high unemployment country with record gun crime and without a decent health care system?Well perhaps it's a navigational mistake that so many well educated and (moderately) wealthy Europeans move to the US - they meant to go to Switzerland but took the wrong plane or something similar.
I would however propose a different theory.
Let's break down you claims:1) Taxes: I, as a small business owner pay a net of about 60\% taxes.
That's not including the 25\% value added tax which is slapped on everything I purchase.
In the US I would pay about 30\%, probably less.2) High unemployment: The EU unemployment rate is about 10\%.
US unemployment rate is about 10\%.
Not that it matters for the wealthy category.3) Gun crime: Sure it's higher in the US, but again not something that is a great problem for the rich or for the upper middle class.4) Health care: The US has the best health care system in the world as far as medicine goes.
Nearly all medical research comes from the US.
The best doctors from all over the world move to the US - both for professional and economic reasons.
The health care in Europe is "free" (i.e.
you pay it through taxes) which is good for people with low incomes.
For the middle class and the wealthy paying for insurance and medical costs isn't a problem.
They would prefer getting better quality.The bottom line is that Europe has a stronger social protection grid - something that benefits unemployed and people with low incomes.
For the rest it just means that you pay more for bad quality of services.
So if you are in the upper middle class, the US is a far better choice.
You get to keep more of your money, stuff is a lot cheaper and you can get better quality of service.
As for the super rich, well, it doesn't matter one way or the other.
They live in a different sphere where issues of tax and health care are trivial.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108994</id>
	<title>Re:As a US Citizen all I can say is...</title>
	<author>scdeimos</author>
	<datestamp>1265904000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I like your<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.sig:<p><div class="quote"><p> <i> <a href="http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http\%3A\%2F\%2Fnews.google.com" title="w3.org" rel="nofollow">Google? HTML? I think not</a> [w3.org] </i></p> </div><p>I'm sure you could trawl every organisation involved with Web Standards to find faults on their sites, though. For example:</p><p> <a href="http://www.w3.org/Help/" title="w3.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.w3.org/Help/</a> [w3.org] has an empty <b>&lt;a&gt;&lt;/a&gt;</b> tag pair that should throw a warning in W3C's "strict" XHTML 1.0 validator but doesn't: <a href="http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http\%3A\%2F\%2Fwww.w3.org\%2FHelp\%2F" title="w3.org" rel="nofollow">Validate this</a> [w3.org] </p><p> <a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/site-comments/" title="w3.org" rel="nofollow">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/site-comments/</a> [w3.org] doesn't include a type="text/css" attribute on one of its stylesheet &lt;link...&gt; tags, but again this isn't picked-up in the W3C validator: <a href="http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http\%3A\%2F\%2Flists.w3.org\%2FArchives\%2FPublic\%2Fsite-comments\%2F" title="w3.org" rel="nofollow">Validate this</a> [w3.org] which instead complains about an issue with the DOCTYPE tag.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like your .sig : Google ?
HTML ? I think not [ w3.org ] I 'm sure you could trawl every organisation involved with Web Standards to find faults on their sites , though .
For example : http : //www.w3.org/Help/ [ w3.org ] has an empty tag pair that should throw a warning in W3C 's " strict " XHTML 1.0 validator but does n't : Validate this [ w3.org ] http : //lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/site-comments/ [ w3.org ] does n't include a type = " text/css " attribute on one of its stylesheet tags , but again this is n't picked-up in the W3C validator : Validate this [ w3.org ] which instead complains about an issue with the DOCTYPE tag .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like your .sig:  Google?
HTML? I think not [w3.org]  I'm sure you could trawl every organisation involved with Web Standards to find faults on their sites, though.
For example: http://www.w3.org/Help/ [w3.org] has an empty  tag pair that should throw a warning in W3C's "strict" XHTML 1.0 validator but doesn't: Validate this [w3.org]  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/site-comments/ [w3.org] doesn't include a type="text/css" attribute on one of its stylesheet  tags, but again this isn't picked-up in the W3C validator: Validate this [w3.org] which instead complains about an issue with the DOCTYPE tag.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110908</id>
	<title>Re:parliament</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265972400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The commission is appointed, completely undemocratic,</p> </div><p>The commission is appointed by the governments of the member states, and has to be approved by the EU parliament. Just in the recent weeks, a new commission was formed, and one of the candidates appointed by the national governments needed to be replaced because it became apparent that there was too much resistance against her in the parliament (which doubted her competence). Not saying it is perfect, a big point for criticism for example is that the parliament (AFAIK, still) can only accept or reject the proposed commission as a whole.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It was the commission who gave away [...] now our banking data.</p></div><p>But they needed the unanimous agreement of the 27 national governments. The commission alone could not decide that. I completely agree though that it is good that the parliament (and thus democracy) is strengthened in the EU now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The commission is appointed , completely undemocratic , The commission is appointed by the governments of the member states , and has to be approved by the EU parliament .
Just in the recent weeks , a new commission was formed , and one of the candidates appointed by the national governments needed to be replaced because it became apparent that there was too much resistance against her in the parliament ( which doubted her competence ) .
Not saying it is perfect , a big point for criticism for example is that the parliament ( AFAIK , still ) can only accept or reject the proposed commission as a whole.It was the commission who gave away [ ... ] now our banking data.But they needed the unanimous agreement of the 27 national governments .
The commission alone could not decide that .
I completely agree though that it is good that the parliament ( and thus democracy ) is strengthened in the EU now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The commission is appointed, completely undemocratic, The commission is appointed by the governments of the member states, and has to be approved by the EU parliament.
Just in the recent weeks, a new commission was formed, and one of the candidates appointed by the national governments needed to be replaced because it became apparent that there was too much resistance against her in the parliament (which doubted her competence).
Not saying it is perfect, a big point for criticism for example is that the parliament (AFAIK, still) can only accept or reject the proposed commission as a whole.It was the commission who gave away [...] now our banking data.But they needed the unanimous agreement of the 27 national governments.
The commission alone could not decide that.
I completely agree though that it is good that the parliament (and thus democracy) is strengthened in the EU now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31111510</id>
	<title>Re:The easiest way to deal with such US demands...</title>
	<author>tehcyder</author>
	<datestamp>1265980320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Two wrongs don't make a right.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Two wrongs do n't make a right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two wrongs don't make a right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31116518</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone please explain to me ...</title>
	<author>centuren</author>
	<datestamp>1266004140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How's Obama any different than Bush?</p><p>Bush was honest about what he believes.</p></div><p>Perhaps, but I find that doubtful. The primary thing that struck me about Bush was how amazingly long he went without admitting anything went wrong, even when it was clear that it did. It wasn't that he'd defend a course of action against negative information and critics, but rather that he'd talk about things going well. If we take the major example of justification for Iraq, I can concede that Bush believed Iraq had WMD and was a direct threat to the US. However, when it was clear how enormously wrong the WMD line was, his speeches smoothly morphed into "spreading freedom and democracy" and "fighting Al-Queda" without addressing, either vocally or administratively, that huge error.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How 's Obama any different than Bush ? Bush was honest about what he believes.Perhaps , but I find that doubtful .
The primary thing that struck me about Bush was how amazingly long he went without admitting anything went wrong , even when it was clear that it did .
It was n't that he 'd defend a course of action against negative information and critics , but rather that he 'd talk about things going well .
If we take the major example of justification for Iraq , I can concede that Bush believed Iraq had WMD and was a direct threat to the US .
However , when it was clear how enormously wrong the WMD line was , his speeches smoothly morphed into " spreading freedom and democracy " and " fighting Al-Queda " without addressing , either vocally or administratively , that huge error .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How's Obama any different than Bush?Bush was honest about what he believes.Perhaps, but I find that doubtful.
The primary thing that struck me about Bush was how amazingly long he went without admitting anything went wrong, even when it was clear that it did.
It wasn't that he'd defend a course of action against negative information and critics, but rather that he'd talk about things going well.
If we take the major example of justification for Iraq, I can concede that Bush believed Iraq had WMD and was a direct threat to the US.
However, when it was clear how enormously wrong the WMD line was, his speeches smoothly morphed into "spreading freedom and democracy" and "fighting Al-Queda" without addressing, either vocally or administratively, that huge error.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108970</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone please explain to me ...</title>
	<author>spiffmastercow</author>
	<datestamp>1265903760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Um, he's black?  Duh.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Um , he 's black ?
Duh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um, he's black?
Duh.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31116572</id>
	<title>Imagine the scene in the US Congress...</title>
	<author>EWAdams</author>
	<datestamp>1266004320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... if Sarkozy insisted on the right to snoop into every American's bank transactions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... if Sarkozy insisted on the right to snoop into every American 's bank transactions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... if Sarkozy insisted on the right to snoop into every American's bank transactions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31113354</id>
	<title>Re:As a US Citizen all I can say is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265991900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>ethnic cleansing in Kosovo later turned out to have been a fabrication</p></div><p>[citation needed]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>ethnic cleansing in Kosovo later turned out to have been a fabrication [ citation needed ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ethnic cleansing in Kosovo later turned out to have been a fabrication[citation needed]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31111206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31116748</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone please explain to me ...</title>
	<author>centuren</author>
	<datestamp>1266005280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Obama currently fights an entirely different battle, Bush gave to him a basically fucked up country, not close to bankrupcy but with a serious debt problem, an pushing everything through is a problem because the entire parliament is just whores on the payroll of lobbyists anymore. So to get your agendas even remotely through you have to do some rearrangements with the current political situation. The situation of Bush was much easier because he just reigned for the payroll of the lobbyists and did not care about anything else.</p></div><p>I think this is an interesting time for the American Executive branch, as Mr. Obama follows a President who consolidated a lot of power in the office. Illustrated especially with the Health Care Reform process, I am starting to see this time in American politics as the age of Congress (Legislative branch). Mr. Obama is getting a hard time from many for not getting enough done after promising so much, but I don't see much of it as his responsibility. The job has a lot that falls under his responsibility, and the broad term of "leader" is definitely a major component.</p><p>However, he is a President not a Prime Minister, and so has much looser ties to Congress than the latter does with Parliament. As much as the public expects him to lead Congress, even the best shepherd will have trouble if his flock is, say, suffering from physically or mentally degenerative diseases. If the same political party has a massive majority in both the upper and lower houses, and STILL can't send finished bills off to the President to be signed into law, I see that as a major failing of Congress above and beyond anyone else. Mr. Obama is an easy political target as a result, but for the time being I think it's hurting the US to single him out. Whether or not Mr. Obama could be doing better, Congress DEFINITELY should be doing better, and I think public opinion and pundits alike should start targeting them as primary offenders.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama currently fights an entirely different battle , Bush gave to him a basically fucked up country , not close to bankrupcy but with a serious debt problem , an pushing everything through is a problem because the entire parliament is just whores on the payroll of lobbyists anymore .
So to get your agendas even remotely through you have to do some rearrangements with the current political situation .
The situation of Bush was much easier because he just reigned for the payroll of the lobbyists and did not care about anything else.I think this is an interesting time for the American Executive branch , as Mr. Obama follows a President who consolidated a lot of power in the office .
Illustrated especially with the Health Care Reform process , I am starting to see this time in American politics as the age of Congress ( Legislative branch ) .
Mr. Obama is getting a hard time from many for not getting enough done after promising so much , but I do n't see much of it as his responsibility .
The job has a lot that falls under his responsibility , and the broad term of " leader " is definitely a major component.However , he is a President not a Prime Minister , and so has much looser ties to Congress than the latter does with Parliament .
As much as the public expects him to lead Congress , even the best shepherd will have trouble if his flock is , say , suffering from physically or mentally degenerative diseases .
If the same political party has a massive majority in both the upper and lower houses , and STILL ca n't send finished bills off to the President to be signed into law , I see that as a major failing of Congress above and beyond anyone else .
Mr. Obama is an easy political target as a result , but for the time being I think it 's hurting the US to single him out .
Whether or not Mr. Obama could be doing better , Congress DEFINITELY should be doing better , and I think public opinion and pundits alike should start targeting them as primary offenders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama currently fights an entirely different battle, Bush gave to him a basically fucked up country, not close to bankrupcy but with a serious debt problem, an pushing everything through is a problem because the entire parliament is just whores on the payroll of lobbyists anymore.
So to get your agendas even remotely through you have to do some rearrangements with the current political situation.
The situation of Bush was much easier because he just reigned for the payroll of the lobbyists and did not care about anything else.I think this is an interesting time for the American Executive branch, as Mr. Obama follows a President who consolidated a lot of power in the office.
Illustrated especially with the Health Care Reform process, I am starting to see this time in American politics as the age of Congress (Legislative branch).
Mr. Obama is getting a hard time from many for not getting enough done after promising so much, but I don't see much of it as his responsibility.
The job has a lot that falls under his responsibility, and the broad term of "leader" is definitely a major component.However, he is a President not a Prime Minister, and so has much looser ties to Congress than the latter does with Parliament.
As much as the public expects him to lead Congress, even the best shepherd will have trouble if his flock is, say, suffering from physically or mentally degenerative diseases.
If the same political party has a massive majority in both the upper and lower houses, and STILL can't send finished bills off to the President to be signed into law, I see that as a major failing of Congress above and beyond anyone else.
Mr. Obama is an easy political target as a result, but for the time being I think it's hurting the US to single him out.
Whether or not Mr. Obama could be doing better, Congress DEFINITELY should be doing better, and I think public opinion and pundits alike should start targeting them as primary offenders.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110244</id>
	<title>Re:Cool, now nobody has to pay taxes.</title>
	<author>CaptainZapp</author>
	<datestamp>1266005640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This agreement allowed intelligence agencies in the U.S. to secretly access banking information for all customers, including non-U.S. citizens.</p></div><p>Uhhh, no; it does not. You may want to look up what <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWIFT" title="wikipedia.org">SWIFT </a> [wikipedia.org] actually does:</p><p>

<tt>The Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication ("SWIFT") operates a worldwide financial messaging network which exchanges messages between banks and other financial institutions. SWIFT also markets software and services to financial institutions, much of it for use on the SWIFTNet Network, and ISO 9362 bank identifier codes (BICs) are popularly known as "SWIFT codes".</tt> </p><p>

So what the intelligence services could access up to now where payments, or more precisely, messages that where trasnmitted via SWIFT. The dodgy money changer, around the corner, doesn't use SWIFT for transfers and SWIFT wouldn't know about your banking relationships, unless you're the final beneficiary from a payment via them. And there's no point for them to store data on an end-customer level, since it's a messaging service between financial institutions, exclusively.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This agreement allowed intelligence agencies in the U.S. to secretly access banking information for all customers , including non-U.S. citizens.Uhhh , no ; it does not .
You may want to look up what SWIFT [ wikipedia.org ] actually does : The Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication ( " SWIFT " ) operates a worldwide financial messaging network which exchanges messages between banks and other financial institutions .
SWIFT also markets software and services to financial institutions , much of it for use on the SWIFTNet Network , and ISO 9362 bank identifier codes ( BICs ) are popularly known as " SWIFT codes " .
So what the intelligence services could access up to now where payments , or more precisely , messages that where trasnmitted via SWIFT .
The dodgy money changer , around the corner , does n't use SWIFT for transfers and SWIFT would n't know about your banking relationships , unless you 're the final beneficiary from a payment via them .
And there 's no point for them to store data on an end-customer level , since it 's a messaging service between financial institutions , exclusively .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This agreement allowed intelligence agencies in the U.S. to secretly access banking information for all customers, including non-U.S. citizens.Uhhh, no; it does not.
You may want to look up what SWIFT  [wikipedia.org] actually does:

The Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication ("SWIFT") operates a worldwide financial messaging network which exchanges messages between banks and other financial institutions.
SWIFT also markets software and services to financial institutions, much of it for use on the SWIFTNet Network, and ISO 9362 bank identifier codes (BICs) are popularly known as "SWIFT codes".
So what the intelligence services could access up to now where payments, or more precisely, messages that where trasnmitted via SWIFT.
The dodgy money changer, around the corner, doesn't use SWIFT for transfers and SWIFT wouldn't know about your banking relationships, unless you're the final beneficiary from a payment via them.
And there's no point for them to store data on an end-customer level, since it's a messaging service between financial institutions, exclusively.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109020</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2332207_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2332207_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31111308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2332207_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2332207_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2332207_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31111050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2332207_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31111110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2332207_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31125360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2332207_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2332207_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31114672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2332207_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2332207_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2332207_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2332207_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31116748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2332207_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31111510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2332207_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2332207_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2332207_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2332207_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2332207_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31112462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2332207_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2332207_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2332207_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31112570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2332207_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31116518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2332207_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2332207_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31111590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2332207_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31111560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2332207_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31112240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2332207_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2332207_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31113940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2332207_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2332207_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2332207_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2332207_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31111714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2332207_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31111776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2332207_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2332207_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31111002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2332207_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2332207_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2332207_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2332207_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2332207_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31124232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31111206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2332207_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31113032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2332207_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31112408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2332207_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2332207_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31113354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31111206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2332207_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31115710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2332207_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31111310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2332207.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110866
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2332207.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110136
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31111206
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31113354
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31124232
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110716
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110722
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31111002
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31111308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31115710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31111110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108994
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2332207.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109186
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2332207.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110548
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2332207.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31125360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110730
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31111590
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31114672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110246
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31113940
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2332207.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31113032
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2332207.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108770
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2332207.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109404
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2332207.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109128
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31111776
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110502
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31112240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109000
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2332207.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31111714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109076
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31111050
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31112408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109020
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109088
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109204
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2332207.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109448
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31111560
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110498
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31112570
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31116748
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31116518
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31111310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109240
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109100
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31112462
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2332207.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31111510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110512
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2332207.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108930
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2332207.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31109700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31110918
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2332207.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2332207.31108950
</commentlist>
</conversation>
