<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_19_1642201</id>
	<title>Officers Lose 243 Homeland Security Guns</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1266603780000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>In a screw up so big it could only be brought to you by the government or a famous athlete, <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/18/government.guns/index.html?hpt=T2">243 guns were lost by Homeland Security agencies</a> between 2006 and 2008. 179 guns, were lost "because officers did not properly secure them," an inspector general report said. One of the worst examples of carelessness cites a customs officer who left a firearm in an idling vehicle in the parking lot of a convenience store. The vehicle was stolen while the officer was inside. "A local law enforcement officer later recovered the firearm from a suspected gang member and drug smuggler," the report said.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In a screw up so big it could only be brought to you by the government or a famous athlete , 243 guns were lost by Homeland Security agencies between 2006 and 2008 .
179 guns , were lost " because officers did not properly secure them , " an inspector general report said .
One of the worst examples of carelessness cites a customs officer who left a firearm in an idling vehicle in the parking lot of a convenience store .
The vehicle was stolen while the officer was inside .
" A local law enforcement officer later recovered the firearm from a suspected gang member and drug smuggler , " the report said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a screw up so big it could only be brought to you by the government or a famous athlete, 243 guns were lost by Homeland Security agencies between 2006 and 2008.
179 guns, were lost "because officers did not properly secure them," an inspector general report said.
One of the worst examples of carelessness cites a customs officer who left a firearm in an idling vehicle in the parking lot of a convenience store.
The vehicle was stolen while the officer was inside.
"A local law enforcement officer later recovered the firearm from a suspected gang member and drug smuggler," the report said.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31203816</id>
	<title>Re:Too big to fail</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1266572700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No one else has proven capable.</p><p>Next question?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No one else has proven capable.Next question ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one else has proven capable.Next question?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31204038</id>
	<title>Re:Statistics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266573660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are better reasons to impeach Obama but, sure lets go with that...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are better reasons to impeach Obama but , sure lets go with that.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are better reasons to impeach Obama but, sure lets go with that...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31203618</id>
	<title>because its better than our corporate healthcare</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1266572040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>who care more about delivering value to stockholders, than delivering you life</p><p>the idea that there will be government death panels is hilarious, since we currently have corporate death panels: ex-nurses in cubicles looking at your list of CPT codes purposefully working hard to make sure you don't cost so much as you die</p><p>besides, i wonder if you've ever dealt with the maze of paperwork between hospitals, doctors, health insurers. now THAT'S a bloated bureaucracy. not that the feds won't indulge in odious amounts of waste, but it might actually be an improvement, since there are currently so many entities in the game throwing reams of paper at each other. and it would COST less, since there is no profit motive to run 900 tests on you every time you have a chest pain, while completely ignoring things like preventative medicine because its not profitable. instead, forcing uninsured diabetics to sit in expensive emergency rooms because they can't afford a doctor. which you pay for, and its more expensive. pathetic</p><p>no one says universal socialized healthcare is perfect. i advocate for it, and openly admit it would suck in many ways</p><p>the point is it would suck WAY LESS than the bullshit system we have no</p><p>so i accept admit and endorse every criticism of universal socialized healthcare you can imagine</p><p>and then challenge you to defend our current bullshit system as remotely better in any way</p><p>wake the fuck up</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>who care more about delivering value to stockholders , than delivering you lifethe idea that there will be government death panels is hilarious , since we currently have corporate death panels : ex-nurses in cubicles looking at your list of CPT codes purposefully working hard to make sure you do n't cost so much as you diebesides , i wonder if you 've ever dealt with the maze of paperwork between hospitals , doctors , health insurers .
now THAT 'S a bloated bureaucracy .
not that the feds wo n't indulge in odious amounts of waste , but it might actually be an improvement , since there are currently so many entities in the game throwing reams of paper at each other .
and it would COST less , since there is no profit motive to run 900 tests on you every time you have a chest pain , while completely ignoring things like preventative medicine because its not profitable .
instead , forcing uninsured diabetics to sit in expensive emergency rooms because they ca n't afford a doctor .
which you pay for , and its more expensive .
patheticno one says universal socialized healthcare is perfect .
i advocate for it , and openly admit it would suck in many waysthe point is it would suck WAY LESS than the bullshit system we have noso i accept admit and endorse every criticism of universal socialized healthcare you can imagineand then challenge you to defend our current bullshit system as remotely better in any waywake the fuck up</tokentext>
<sentencetext>who care more about delivering value to stockholders, than delivering you lifethe idea that there will be government death panels is hilarious, since we currently have corporate death panels: ex-nurses in cubicles looking at your list of CPT codes purposefully working hard to make sure you don't cost so much as you diebesides, i wonder if you've ever dealt with the maze of paperwork between hospitals, doctors, health insurers.
now THAT'S a bloated bureaucracy.
not that the feds won't indulge in odious amounts of waste, but it might actually be an improvement, since there are currently so many entities in the game throwing reams of paper at each other.
and it would COST less, since there is no profit motive to run 900 tests on you every time you have a chest pain, while completely ignoring things like preventative medicine because its not profitable.
instead, forcing uninsured diabetics to sit in expensive emergency rooms because they can't afford a doctor.
which you pay for, and its more expensive.
patheticno one says universal socialized healthcare is perfect.
i advocate for it, and openly admit it would suck in many waysthe point is it would suck WAY LESS than the bullshit system we have noso i accept admit and endorse every criticism of universal socialized healthcare you can imagineand then challenge you to defend our current bullshit system as remotely better in any waywake the fuck up</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31203842</id>
	<title>All of them are "Throw Guns"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266572880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know the kind, if you don't participate more than mere "cooperation" in an investigation of dispute, then why do they have evidence of you stalking those officers and where did you rob this Dep. H.S. gun from?</p><p>Did you find it just recently sir and want to return it to us out of concern for national security, and maybe do a little more than the statutory "cooperation" in regards to this?</p><p>sir, confesss!</p><p>PS: those missing Guns always show-up on dead bodies, just like in Los Angeles and Jew York.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know the kind , if you do n't participate more than mere " cooperation " in an investigation of dispute , then why do they have evidence of you stalking those officers and where did you rob this Dep .
H.S. gun from ? Did you find it just recently sir and want to return it to us out of concern for national security , and maybe do a little more than the statutory " cooperation " in regards to this ? sir , confesss ! PS : those missing Guns always show-up on dead bodies , just like in Los Angeles and Jew York .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know the kind, if you don't participate more than mere "cooperation" in an investigation of dispute, then why do they have evidence of you stalking those officers and where did you rob this Dep.
H.S. gun from?Did you find it just recently sir and want to return it to us out of concern for national security, and maybe do a little more than the statutory "cooperation" in regards to this?sir, confesss!PS: those missing Guns always show-up on dead bodies, just like in Los Angeles and Jew York.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31201990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31203060</id>
	<title>Re:Too big to fail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266570060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...because the alternative is a ravenous beast that feeds on the sick to generate monstrous profits. Socialized medicine has been shown to work* in countries all over the world. I (a non-American) don't have to worry that changing jobs will mean a loss of health insurance, nor that a catastrophic illness/injury will make my family paupers.</p><p>*work in the sense that decent healthcare is enjoyed by all residents of a country, instead of having superb care for the rich, generally adequate for the middle class, little or none for the working poor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...because the alternative is a ravenous beast that feeds on the sick to generate monstrous profits .
Socialized medicine has been shown to work * in countries all over the world .
I ( a non-American ) do n't have to worry that changing jobs will mean a loss of health insurance , nor that a catastrophic illness/injury will make my family paupers .
* work in the sense that decent healthcare is enjoyed by all residents of a country , instead of having superb care for the rich , generally adequate for the middle class , little or none for the working poor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...because the alternative is a ravenous beast that feeds on the sick to generate monstrous profits.
Socialized medicine has been shown to work* in countries all over the world.
I (a non-American) don't have to worry that changing jobs will mean a loss of health insurance, nor that a catastrophic illness/injury will make my family paupers.
*work in the sense that decent healthcare is enjoyed by all residents of a country, instead of having superb care for the rich, generally adequate for the middle class, little or none for the working poor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31204484</id>
	<title>Re:Statistics</title>
	<author>blueZ3</author>
	<datestamp>1266575700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think they're intentionally misleading you with their statistics. There are only around 200,000 <b>employees</b> in DHS and the vast majority are paper pushers. I'd be surprised if over 10\% are actually "agents" in the gun-toting ATF, Border Patrol sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think they 're intentionally misleading you with their statistics .
There are only around 200,000 employees in DHS and the vast majority are paper pushers .
I 'd be surprised if over 10 \ % are actually " agents " in the gun-toting ATF , Border Patrol sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think they're intentionally misleading you with their statistics.
There are only around 200,000 employees in DHS and the vast majority are paper pushers.
I'd be surprised if over 10\% are actually "agents" in the gun-toting ATF, Border Patrol sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202702</id>
	<title>It's quite simple</title>
	<author>SterlingSylver</author>
	<datestamp>1266611640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only America has famous athletes (Look at David Beckham--came to the US to become famous). Only the US Goverment can make mistakes this hillariously collosal. Thus, only famous athletes' government (the US) can do this.</p><p>QED</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only America has famous athletes ( Look at David Beckham--came to the US to become famous ) .
Only the US Goverment can make mistakes this hillariously collosal .
Thus , only famous athletes ' government ( the US ) can do this.QED</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only America has famous athletes (Look at David Beckham--came to the US to become famous).
Only the US Goverment can make mistakes this hillariously collosal.
Thus, only famous athletes' government (the US) can do this.QED</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31203056</id>
	<title>Re:grammer nazi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266570060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <b>grammer</b> nazi</p></div><p>That would be <b>diction</b>, son.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>grammer naziThat would be diction , son .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> grammer naziThat would be diction, son.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31204880</id>
	<title>Re:Report shows people are still human</title>
	<author>guruevi</author>
	<datestamp>1266577080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the other hand, the more responsible population generally has/wants better jobs than being a cop and the institutions themselves filter out any outliers (too smart, too expensive) leaving only those that have no viable other choices (because they're undereducated or underperforming) or those that like the power trips (because they've been repressed at school or home or because they're sociopaths).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , the more responsible population generally has/wants better jobs than being a cop and the institutions themselves filter out any outliers ( too smart , too expensive ) leaving only those that have no viable other choices ( because they 're undereducated or underperforming ) or those that like the power trips ( because they 've been repressed at school or home or because they 're sociopaths ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand, the more responsible population generally has/wants better jobs than being a cop and the institutions themselves filter out any outliers (too smart, too expensive) leaving only those that have no viable other choices (because they're undereducated or underperforming) or those that like the power trips (because they've been repressed at school or home or because they're sociopaths).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31203986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31204820</id>
	<title>Re:More Proof of Government Incompetence</title>
	<author>geekmux</author>
	<datestamp>1266576840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You'll have to explain to me how losing a statistically insiginficant number of weapons constitutes proof of government incompetence. Not that I necessarily assume the government is competent, mind you, but losing 250 out of a total number of guns that must be in the hundreds of thousands doesn't constitute 'proof' of anything.</p></div><p>OK, bounce the DHS ratio of lost weapons vs. issued against any other major police agency and see if it's even close.  An average of one gun "lost" every 4 days is pretty damn bad if you ask me, especially when talking about "trained" personnel.</p><p>Still think they're not THAT bad?  Try and think about the number of manpack-sized nuclear devices that are "misplaced" out there.  Yeah, seems we have a few of those we can't really put our hands on...</p><p>Incompetence is incompetence, and I cannot help but to hold the fucking department of HOMELAND SECURITY to a higher level.  Learn how to secure your weapon.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'll have to explain to me how losing a statistically insiginficant number of weapons constitutes proof of government incompetence .
Not that I necessarily assume the government is competent , mind you , but losing 250 out of a total number of guns that must be in the hundreds of thousands does n't constitute 'proof ' of anything.OK , bounce the DHS ratio of lost weapons vs. issued against any other major police agency and see if it 's even close .
An average of one gun " lost " every 4 days is pretty damn bad if you ask me , especially when talking about " trained " personnel.Still think they 're not THAT bad ?
Try and think about the number of manpack-sized nuclear devices that are " misplaced " out there .
Yeah , seems we have a few of those we ca n't really put our hands on...Incompetence is incompetence , and I can not help but to hold the fucking department of HOMELAND SECURITY to a higher level .
Learn how to secure your weapon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'll have to explain to me how losing a statistically insiginficant number of weapons constitutes proof of government incompetence.
Not that I necessarily assume the government is competent, mind you, but losing 250 out of a total number of guns that must be in the hundreds of thousands doesn't constitute 'proof' of anything.OK, bounce the DHS ratio of lost weapons vs. issued against any other major police agency and see if it's even close.
An average of one gun "lost" every 4 days is pretty damn bad if you ask me, especially when talking about "trained" personnel.Still think they're not THAT bad?
Try and think about the number of manpack-sized nuclear devices that are "misplaced" out there.
Yeah, seems we have a few of those we can't really put our hands on...Incompetence is incompetence, and I cannot help but to hold the fucking department of HOMELAND SECURITY to a higher level.
Learn how to secure your weapon.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31203986</id>
	<title>Re:Report shows people are still human</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1266573360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Oh, but when it comes to a cop, they better be more than perfect.</i></p><p>Yes.  Exactly.</p><p>We're talking about *cops*.  We entrust them with our lives, and give them power over us, so yes, I think it's reasonable to expect them to be a little less careless than the average slashbot such as yourself.  If they can't handle those expections, they should #gtfo, because they don't deserve the responsibility they've been given.</p><p>We're also not talking about a set of keys, here.  We're talking about a *firearm*.  Last I checked, most people aren't dumb enough to lose their 38 special between the seat cushions of their couch.</p><p>Frankly, I'm shocked this even surprises you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , but when it comes to a cop , they better be more than perfect.Yes .
Exactly.We 're talking about * cops * .
We entrust them with our lives , and give them power over us , so yes , I think it 's reasonable to expect them to be a little less careless than the average slashbot such as yourself .
If they ca n't handle those expections , they should # gtfo , because they do n't deserve the responsibility they 've been given.We 're also not talking about a set of keys , here .
We 're talking about a * firearm * .
Last I checked , most people are n't dumb enough to lose their 38 special between the seat cushions of their couch.Frankly , I 'm shocked this even surprises you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, but when it comes to a cop, they better be more than perfect.Yes.
Exactly.We're talking about *cops*.
We entrust them with our lives, and give them power over us, so yes, I think it's reasonable to expect them to be a little less careless than the average slashbot such as yourself.
If they can't handle those expections, they should #gtfo, because they don't deserve the responsibility they've been given.We're also not talking about a set of keys, here.
We're talking about a *firearm*.
Last I checked, most people aren't dumb enough to lose their 38 special between the seat cushions of their couch.Frankly, I'm shocked this even surprises you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31204308</id>
	<title>That is the wrong statistic. Here is the correct 1</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266574920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The correct statistic would be to compare this with how many DHS agent there is. If 0.09\% is the number of weapon lost by DHS agent in average anmd there are 185K total lsot by all enforcement agency , civilian etc... Then we can then see if DHS agent are in average MORE careless than the population, or less careless. Since tehre are obviously less than 0.09\% DHS agent in the U (
300 000 000 * 0.0009 = 270 000) then we can assume DHS agent are more careless. Therefore they are incompetent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The correct statistic would be to compare this with how many DHS agent there is .
If 0.09 \ % is the number of weapon lost by DHS agent in average anmd there are 185K total lsot by all enforcement agency , civilian etc... Then we can then see if DHS agent are in average MORE careless than the population , or less careless .
Since tehre are obviously less than 0.09 \ % DHS agent in the U ( 300 000 000 * 0.0009 = 270 000 ) then we can assume DHS agent are more careless .
Therefore they are incompetent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The correct statistic would be to compare this with how many DHS agent there is.
If 0.09\% is the number of weapon lost by DHS agent in average anmd there are 185K total lsot by all enforcement agency , civilian etc... Then we can then see if DHS agent are in average MORE careless than the population, or less careless.
Since tehre are obviously less than 0.09\% DHS agent in the U (
300 000 000 * 0.0009 = 270 000) then we can assume DHS agent are more careless.
Therefore they are incompetent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31207904</id>
	<title>Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266601920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Affirmative Action: The basic cause of police departments' quality decay in the 20th century.</p><p>Hiring the Best Cops has taken back seat to fulfilling the quota, it's just that simple. This is compounded by CPB (Border Patrol) and ICE, whose employees are heavily slanted to the Hispanic race, undoubtedly as a natural result of their (language) skills--i.e. relating to the people they're expected to deal with. Case in point: a recent border patrol memo said that about <b>49\% of the employees of these agencies</b> are themselves Hispanic, constituting a strong majority.</p><p>I don't have a real problem with this, at a basic level it's sound: it's strongly likely a niche is being filled (particularly in the language department)... And I honestly don't care about the race issue--even though it does occur to me that there could be a real instance of <i>"the fox guarding the hen's house"</i> going on here.</p><p>Anyway, my point: An officer's overall dutifulness should be paramount among their expected qualifications when they are hired, but it's rarely the case today. When a police force *HAS* to choose an officer who's lazy, inattentive, or even only passingly familiar with their weapons--versus an officer of some other race, who really can demonstrate dutifulness and proficiency in his job... You get situations just like this in greater numbers when you take quality out of the mix.</p><p>And believe me, if you've seen some things I've seen my fellow cops do with their weapons--if you weren't in favor of civilians being armed (perhaps because they're supposedly not trained well enough), you should know that many of my fellow officers are only fleetingly capable with their sidearms. I have no doubt that the average citizen with a concealed weapon, even while not having the benefit of formal training is probably a better shot, and handles their weapons more safely than some of my compatriots.</p><p>Usually, when I see something stupid, it's either done by a Latino or a woman (who's probably also Latino). Not being a supremacist douche bag, I just calls it as I sees it. Frankly, it's disturbing. It's utterly surprising that more officers aren't wounded and/or killed by their own, and that they don't (negligently) lose their weapons more frequently.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Affirmative Action : The basic cause of police departments ' quality decay in the 20th century.Hiring the Best Cops has taken back seat to fulfilling the quota , it 's just that simple .
This is compounded by CPB ( Border Patrol ) and ICE , whose employees are heavily slanted to the Hispanic race , undoubtedly as a natural result of their ( language ) skills--i.e .
relating to the people they 're expected to deal with .
Case in point : a recent border patrol memo said that about 49 \ % of the employees of these agencies are themselves Hispanic , constituting a strong majority.I do n't have a real problem with this , at a basic level it 's sound : it 's strongly likely a niche is being filled ( particularly in the language department ) ... And I honestly do n't care about the race issue--even though it does occur to me that there could be a real instance of " the fox guarding the hen 's house " going on here.Anyway , my point : An officer 's overall dutifulness should be paramount among their expected qualifications when they are hired , but it 's rarely the case today .
When a police force * HAS * to choose an officer who 's lazy , inattentive , or even only passingly familiar with their weapons--versus an officer of some other race , who really can demonstrate dutifulness and proficiency in his job... You get situations just like this in greater numbers when you take quality out of the mix.And believe me , if you 've seen some things I 've seen my fellow cops do with their weapons--if you were n't in favor of civilians being armed ( perhaps because they 're supposedly not trained well enough ) , you should know that many of my fellow officers are only fleetingly capable with their sidearms .
I have no doubt that the average citizen with a concealed weapon , even while not having the benefit of formal training is probably a better shot , and handles their weapons more safely than some of my compatriots.Usually , when I see something stupid , it 's either done by a Latino or a woman ( who 's probably also Latino ) .
Not being a supremacist douche bag , I just calls it as I sees it .
Frankly , it 's disturbing .
It 's utterly surprising that more officers are n't wounded and/or killed by their own , and that they do n't ( negligently ) lose their weapons more frequently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Affirmative Action: The basic cause of police departments' quality decay in the 20th century.Hiring the Best Cops has taken back seat to fulfilling the quota, it's just that simple.
This is compounded by CPB (Border Patrol) and ICE, whose employees are heavily slanted to the Hispanic race, undoubtedly as a natural result of their (language) skills--i.e.
relating to the people they're expected to deal with.
Case in point: a recent border patrol memo said that about 49\% of the employees of these agencies are themselves Hispanic, constituting a strong majority.I don't have a real problem with this, at a basic level it's sound: it's strongly likely a niche is being filled (particularly in the language department)... And I honestly don't care about the race issue--even though it does occur to me that there could be a real instance of "the fox guarding the hen's house" going on here.Anyway, my point: An officer's overall dutifulness should be paramount among their expected qualifications when they are hired, but it's rarely the case today.
When a police force *HAS* to choose an officer who's lazy, inattentive, or even only passingly familiar with their weapons--versus an officer of some other race, who really can demonstrate dutifulness and proficiency in his job... You get situations just like this in greater numbers when you take quality out of the mix.And believe me, if you've seen some things I've seen my fellow cops do with their weapons--if you weren't in favor of civilians being armed (perhaps because they're supposedly not trained well enough), you should know that many of my fellow officers are only fleetingly capable with their sidearms.
I have no doubt that the average citizen with a concealed weapon, even while not having the benefit of formal training is probably a better shot, and handles their weapons more safely than some of my compatriots.Usually, when I see something stupid, it's either done by a Latino or a woman (who's probably also Latino).
Not being a supremacist douche bag, I just calls it as I sees it.
Frankly, it's disturbing.
It's utterly surprising that more officers aren't wounded and/or killed by their own, and that they don't (negligently) lose their weapons more frequently.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31203986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31204838</id>
	<title>Hypocrites!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266576900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These days practically ever gun comes with a (sometimes cheap) trigger lock, we're bombarded with "think of the children, lock up your guns" advertisements, some states/cities even have specific laws criminalizing not having your guns under lock and key.  And yet hear we are, guns left in running cars, guns left out in the open, guns forgotten in yards, all by LEO's who spend a lot of their time chastising the rest of us for being irresponsible.  Kinda reminds me of the whole "don't talk on your mobile phone while driving" campaign going around, despite the fact that several times a month I see officers driving 35-45MPH in a 25 zone while talking on one of the things.  And they wonder why a lot of people don't trust them.</p><p>Note: I know some of this rant doesn't apply specifically to Federal but I kinda doubt it really matters</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These days practically ever gun comes with a ( sometimes cheap ) trigger lock , we 're bombarded with " think of the children , lock up your guns " advertisements , some states/cities even have specific laws criminalizing not having your guns under lock and key .
And yet hear we are , guns left in running cars , guns left out in the open , guns forgotten in yards , all by LEO 's who spend a lot of their time chastising the rest of us for being irresponsible .
Kinda reminds me of the whole " do n't talk on your mobile phone while driving " campaign going around , despite the fact that several times a month I see officers driving 35-45MPH in a 25 zone while talking on one of the things .
And they wonder why a lot of people do n't trust them.Note : I know some of this rant does n't apply specifically to Federal but I kinda doubt it really matters</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These days practically ever gun comes with a (sometimes cheap) trigger lock, we're bombarded with "think of the children, lock up your guns" advertisements, some states/cities even have specific laws criminalizing not having your guns under lock and key.
And yet hear we are, guns left in running cars, guns left out in the open, guns forgotten in yards, all by LEO's who spend a lot of their time chastising the rest of us for being irresponsible.
Kinda reminds me of the whole "don't talk on your mobile phone while driving" campaign going around, despite the fact that several times a month I see officers driving 35-45MPH in a 25 zone while talking on one of the things.
And they wonder why a lot of people don't trust them.Note: I know some of this rant doesn't apply specifically to Federal but I kinda doubt it really matters</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202350</id>
	<title>More Proof of Government Incompetence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266610080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is yet more proof, as if any more was needed, of government incompetence and stupidity. How can people continue to believe that the government would do a good job running health care, or indeed anything else, in the face of repeated demonstrations to the contrary? For another example, take the stimulus (which btw has largely failed to create jobs). Are we supposed to be happy that 20 new jobs were created in New Jersey, which received 99 million in stimulus dollars, at a cost of approximately 5 million per job? The best defense that our intrepid leaders can muster is, "well, it would have been much worse if we hadn't done anything". Does anyone here honestly believe that the next three years are going to be any better? The Obama administration has failed and we are paying for their failure. The Dems don't understand business and the private sector; they don't understand what actually generates wealth in this country because they themselves are destroyers, not creators, of wealth. The best that can be hopped for is that the people learn a hard lesson these next three years and don't make the mistake of trusting the likes of Nancy Pelosi, who has almost zero business experience, ever again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is yet more proof , as if any more was needed , of government incompetence and stupidity .
How can people continue to believe that the government would do a good job running health care , or indeed anything else , in the face of repeated demonstrations to the contrary ?
For another example , take the stimulus ( which btw has largely failed to create jobs ) .
Are we supposed to be happy that 20 new jobs were created in New Jersey , which received 99 million in stimulus dollars , at a cost of approximately 5 million per job ?
The best defense that our intrepid leaders can muster is , " well , it would have been much worse if we had n't done anything " .
Does anyone here honestly believe that the next three years are going to be any better ?
The Obama administration has failed and we are paying for their failure .
The Dems do n't understand business and the private sector ; they do n't understand what actually generates wealth in this country because they themselves are destroyers , not creators , of wealth .
The best that can be hopped for is that the people learn a hard lesson these next three years and do n't make the mistake of trusting the likes of Nancy Pelosi , who has almost zero business experience , ever again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is yet more proof, as if any more was needed, of government incompetence and stupidity.
How can people continue to believe that the government would do a good job running health care, or indeed anything else, in the face of repeated demonstrations to the contrary?
For another example, take the stimulus (which btw has largely failed to create jobs).
Are we supposed to be happy that 20 new jobs were created in New Jersey, which received 99 million in stimulus dollars, at a cost of approximately 5 million per job?
The best defense that our intrepid leaders can muster is, "well, it would have been much worse if we hadn't done anything".
Does anyone here honestly believe that the next three years are going to be any better?
The Obama administration has failed and we are paying for their failure.
The Dems don't understand business and the private sector; they don't understand what actually generates wealth in this country because they themselves are destroyers, not creators, of wealth.
The best that can be hopped for is that the people learn a hard lesson these next three years and don't make the mistake of trusting the likes of Nancy Pelosi, who has almost zero business experience, ever again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202642</id>
	<title>Re:More Proof of Government Incompetence</title>
	<author>qzak</author>
	<datestamp>1266611460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>You'll have to explain to me how losing a statistically insiginficant number of weapons constitutes proof of government incompetence. Not that I necessarily assume the government is competent, mind you, but losing 250 out of a total number of guns that must be in the hundreds of thousands doesn't constitute 'proof' of anything.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'll have to explain to me how losing a statistically insiginficant number of weapons constitutes proof of government incompetence .
Not that I necessarily assume the government is competent , mind you , but losing 250 out of a total number of guns that must be in the hundreds of thousands does n't constitute 'proof ' of anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'll have to explain to me how losing a statistically insiginficant number of weapons constitutes proof of government incompetence.
Not that I necessarily assume the government is competent, mind you, but losing 250 out of a total number of guns that must be in the hundreds of thousands doesn't constitute 'proof' of anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31203690</id>
	<title>Lost?</title>
	<author>Eggbloke</author>
	<datestamp>1266572280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did they check behind the sofa?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did they check behind the sofa ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did they check behind the sofa?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31207070</id>
	<title>Re:Too big to fail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266593220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah that little side-note there, it's missing quite a bit.</p><p>Various healthcare systems in some places around the world do an adequate job providing health services.  Some do not.  Many of the ones that do run at severe deficits.  That's mandatory charity beyond our existing social services.  Maybe it's worth it, I don't know.</p><p>Point is, it really is more complicated than, "I'd feel really warm and fuzzy if everyone got free everything!"  Of course we all would, but this is the real world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah that little side-note there , it 's missing quite a bit.Various healthcare systems in some places around the world do an adequate job providing health services .
Some do not .
Many of the ones that do run at severe deficits .
That 's mandatory charity beyond our existing social services .
Maybe it 's worth it , I do n't know.Point is , it really is more complicated than , " I 'd feel really warm and fuzzy if everyone got free everything !
" Of course we all would , but this is the real world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah that little side-note there, it's missing quite a bit.Various healthcare systems in some places around the world do an adequate job providing health services.
Some do not.
Many of the ones that do run at severe deficits.
That's mandatory charity beyond our existing social services.
Maybe it's worth it, I don't know.Point is, it really is more complicated than, "I'd feel really warm and fuzzy if everyone got free everything!
"  Of course we all would, but this is the real world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31203060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31205466</id>
	<title>A fair trade</title>
	<author>MrShaggy</author>
	<datestamp>1266580020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The border guards can have my laptop if I get their gun?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The border guards can have my laptop if I get their gun ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The border guards can have my laptop if I get their gun?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31207182</id>
	<title>Re:Statistics</title>
	<author>indiechild</author>
	<datestamp>1266594180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a small number in the big picture, but the importance of losing a firearm should not be underestimated. It should be grounds for instant dismissal and punishment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a small number in the big picture , but the importance of losing a firearm should not be underestimated .
It should be grounds for instant dismissal and punishment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a small number in the big picture, but the importance of losing a firearm should not be underestimated.
It should be grounds for instant dismissal and punishment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31203610</id>
	<title>Re:Statistics</title>
	<author>ceejayoz</author>
	<datestamp>1266571980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bingo. If this were Fark.com, this'd have been [NEWS FLASH] People lose and steal shit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bingo .
If this were Fark.com , this 'd have been [ NEWS FLASH ] People lose and steal shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bingo.
If this were Fark.com, this'd have been [NEWS FLASH] People lose and steal shit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31203484</id>
	<title>Re:Too big to fail</title>
	<author>Lithdren</author>
	<datestamp>1266571620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>...Because a 0.09\% rate of failure isn't as bad as you make it out to be.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...Because a 0.09 \ % rate of failure is n't as bad as you make it out to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...Because a 0.09\% rate of failure isn't as bad as you make it out to be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31205554</id>
	<title>Not a big deal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266580680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That number looks big but that's out of hundreds of thousands of weapons. It just shows that a) they are victims of theft themselves on occasion and b) they loose shit occasionally just like everyone else does.</p><p>Sure it would be great if the number of lost weapons were zero but<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Not<br>A<br>Big<br>Fucking<br>Deal</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That number looks big but that 's out of hundreds of thousands of weapons .
It just shows that a ) they are victims of theft themselves on occasion and b ) they loose shit occasionally just like everyone else does.Sure it would be great if the number of lost weapons were zero but ...NotABigFuckingDeal</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That number looks big but that's out of hundreds of thousands of weapons.
It just shows that a) they are victims of theft themselves on occasion and b) they loose shit occasionally just like everyone else does.Sure it would be great if the number of lost weapons were zero but ...NotABigFuckingDeal</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31205980</id>
	<title>Re:Too big to fail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266583020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>care to provide the population of your country vs. America?  I'd love to know what fraction of 300 million it is, and point out to you that that lower population might be a reason why the government can more easily provide healthcare.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>care to provide the population of your country vs. America ? I 'd love to know what fraction of 300 million it is , and point out to you that that lower population might be a reason why the government can more easily provide healthcare .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>care to provide the population of your country vs. America?  I'd love to know what fraction of 300 million it is, and point out to you that that lower population might be a reason why the government can more easily provide healthcare.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31203060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202438</id>
	<title>While the officer was inside?</title>
	<author>MoxCamel</author>
	<datestamp>1266610500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The vehicle was stolen while the officer was inside.</i>
<p>
Worse.  Law enforcement Officer.  EVAR.
</p><p>
(Ohhhh, wait, nm I see wut u did there...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The vehicle was stolen while the officer was inside .
Worse. Law enforcement Officer .
EVAR . ( Ohhhh , wait , nm I see wut u did there... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The vehicle was stolen while the officer was inside.
Worse.  Law enforcement Officer.
EVAR.

(Ohhhh, wait, nm I see wut u did there...)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202414</id>
	<title>Re:Uh.. what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266610380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was a typo... it now reads: by the government or a famous athlete</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was a typo... it now reads : by the government or a famous athlete</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was a typo... it now reads: by the government or a famous athlete</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202812</id>
	<title>Re:Statistics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266612120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about looking at personal responsibility and labeling the individual as at fault.  If you do that, your statistics will mean more.  One officer was issued two weapons and lost one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about looking at personal responsibility and labeling the individual as at fault .
If you do that , your statistics will mean more .
One officer was issued two weapons and lost one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about looking at personal responsibility and labeling the individual as at fault.
If you do that, your statistics will mean more.
One officer was issued two weapons and lost one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31201990</id>
	<title>Hooray!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266607620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some members of an organisation we don't like did something that is bad and which looks to work opposite to their general mission which makes them look stupid and hypocritical!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some members of an organisation we do n't like did something that is bad and which looks to work opposite to their general mission which makes them look stupid and hypocritical !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some members of an organisation we don't like did something that is bad and which looks to work opposite to their general mission which makes them look stupid and hypocritical!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31205714</id>
	<title>Are you pondering what I'm pondering, Pinky?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1266581580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. Buy cheap gloves und wear them.<br>2. Steal HS gun.<br>3. Shoot Cheney.<br>4. Put HS gun back.<br>5. Burn gloves<br>6. Give the media a anonymous tip.<br>7. Rinse, and repeat (with another real douche)<br>8. Watch them beat the shit out of each other with accusations.<br>9. Be quick, before they can react with new rules.<br>10. PROFIT.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Buy cheap gloves und wear them.2 .
Steal HS gun.3 .
Shoot Cheney.4 .
Put HS gun back.5 .
Burn gloves6 .
Give the media a anonymous tip.7 .
Rinse , and repeat ( with another real douche ) 8 .
Watch them beat the shit out of each other with accusations.9 .
Be quick , before they can react with new rules.10 .
PROFIT. ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Buy cheap gloves und wear them.2.
Steal HS gun.3.
Shoot Cheney.4.
Put HS gun back.5.
Burn gloves6.
Give the media a anonymous tip.7.
Rinse, and repeat (with another real douche)8.
Watch them beat the shit out of each other with accusations.9.
Be quick, before they can react with new rules.10.
PROFIT. ;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31205704</id>
	<title>Re:More Proof of Government Incompetence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266581460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you're excluding a middle here - the possibility that it is both incompetent *and* malicious.</p><p>Consider an example:  An officer Tasers a man to death for not obeying instantly.  This is both malicious ("tortured a citizen to death", which cannot reasonably be considered a "non-malicious" action) and incompetent ("did not do job as 'officer of the peace', did not preserve public life and safety, did not increase the welfare of the citizenry by his actions").</p><p>Most government actions are "malicious" (usually in the 'anti-social' sense) and "incompetent" (in that they do not achieve their stated goals, and frequently do not even efficiently achieve most posited clandestine goals).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 're excluding a middle here - the possibility that it is both incompetent * and * malicious.Consider an example : An officer Tasers a man to death for not obeying instantly .
This is both malicious ( " tortured a citizen to death " , which can not reasonably be considered a " non-malicious " action ) and incompetent ( " did not do job as 'officer of the peace ' , did not preserve public life and safety , did not increase the welfare of the citizenry by his actions " ) .Most government actions are " malicious " ( usually in the 'anti-social ' sense ) and " incompetent " ( in that they do not achieve their stated goals , and frequently do not even efficiently achieve most posited clandestine goals ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you're excluding a middle here - the possibility that it is both incompetent *and* malicious.Consider an example:  An officer Tasers a man to death for not obeying instantly.
This is both malicious ("tortured a citizen to death", which cannot reasonably be considered a "non-malicious" action) and incompetent ("did not do job as 'officer of the peace', did not preserve public life and safety, did not increase the welfare of the citizenry by his actions").Most government actions are "malicious" (usually in the 'anti-social' sense) and "incompetent" (in that they do not achieve their stated goals, and frequently do not even efficiently achieve most posited clandestine goals).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31203254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31204314</id>
	<title>Re:More Proof of Government Incompetence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266574920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>81\% of U.S. firms lost laptops with sensitive data in the past year (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9002493/Survey\_81\_of\_U.S.\_firms\_lost\_laptops\_with\_sensitive\_data\_in\_the\_past\_year).  This is yet more proof, as if any more was needed, of business incompetence and stupidity.  How can people continue to believe that private businesses would do a good job of running healthcare, or indeed anything else, in the face of repeated demonstrations to the contrary.</p><p>As far as jobs created by the stimulus, if I spend a billion dollars to build a road with a crew of 100 people, it's true that you could say the cost was a 10 million dollars per job.  But at the end I also have a road!  If the goal of the stimulus were to make the $/jobs ratio as high as possible, we could just take 800 billion dollars and give 20k to 40 million people - woo hoo, 40 million jobs created!  Except we'd have to do it every year.  I think I prefer using the money to fix infrastructure and have people do other productive things that, as a side effect, create jobs.  And incidentally, those jobs mean people are now making income that they pay taxes on which goes back into the system to build more roads, hire more teachers, police officers, etc.</p><p>But I guess since the government is incompentent and 81\% of business are incompetent (not counting all the mistakes made by the other 19\%), we should all just fly our non-tax-deductible personal aircraft into buildings to teach everyone a lesson.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>81 \ % of U.S. firms lost laptops with sensitive data in the past year ( http : //www.computerworld.com/s/article/9002493/Survey \ _81 \ _of \ _U.S. \ _firms \ _lost \ _laptops \ _with \ _sensitive \ _data \ _in \ _the \ _past \ _year ) .
This is yet more proof , as if any more was needed , of business incompetence and stupidity .
How can people continue to believe that private businesses would do a good job of running healthcare , or indeed anything else , in the face of repeated demonstrations to the contrary.As far as jobs created by the stimulus , if I spend a billion dollars to build a road with a crew of 100 people , it 's true that you could say the cost was a 10 million dollars per job .
But at the end I also have a road !
If the goal of the stimulus were to make the $ /jobs ratio as high as possible , we could just take 800 billion dollars and give 20k to 40 million people - woo hoo , 40 million jobs created !
Except we 'd have to do it every year .
I think I prefer using the money to fix infrastructure and have people do other productive things that , as a side effect , create jobs .
And incidentally , those jobs mean people are now making income that they pay taxes on which goes back into the system to build more roads , hire more teachers , police officers , etc.But I guess since the government is incompentent and 81 \ % of business are incompetent ( not counting all the mistakes made by the other 19 \ % ) , we should all just fly our non-tax-deductible personal aircraft into buildings to teach everyone a lesson .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>81\% of U.S. firms lost laptops with sensitive data in the past year (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9002493/Survey\_81\_of\_U.S.\_firms\_lost\_laptops\_with\_sensitive\_data\_in\_the\_past\_year).
This is yet more proof, as if any more was needed, of business incompetence and stupidity.
How can people continue to believe that private businesses would do a good job of running healthcare, or indeed anything else, in the face of repeated demonstrations to the contrary.As far as jobs created by the stimulus, if I spend a billion dollars to build a road with a crew of 100 people, it's true that you could say the cost was a 10 million dollars per job.
But at the end I also have a road!
If the goal of the stimulus were to make the $/jobs ratio as high as possible, we could just take 800 billion dollars and give 20k to 40 million people - woo hoo, 40 million jobs created!
Except we'd have to do it every year.
I think I prefer using the money to fix infrastructure and have people do other productive things that, as a side effect, create jobs.
And incidentally, those jobs mean people are now making income that they pay taxes on which goes back into the system to build more roads, hire more teachers, police officers, etc.But I guess since the government is incompentent and 81\% of business are incompetent (not counting all the mistakes made by the other 19\%), we should all just fly our non-tax-deductible personal aircraft into buildings to teach everyone a lesson.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202960</id>
	<title>Re:More Proof of Government Incompetence</title>
	<author>Garble Snarky</author>
	<datestamp>1266612900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>People are incompetent. The government is composed of people. Can you present a solution to social and economic issues that involves NO human oversight and control? If not, your complaint is totally invalid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>People are incompetent .
The government is composed of people .
Can you present a solution to social and economic issues that involves NO human oversight and control ?
If not , your complaint is totally invalid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People are incompetent.
The government is composed of people.
Can you present a solution to social and economic issues that involves NO human oversight and control?
If not, your complaint is totally invalid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31203482</id>
	<title>This is YRO how, again?</title>
	<author>CleverDan</author>
	<datestamp>1266571620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yet another off-topic article. Or maybe<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. has entirely become off-topic?<br> <br>No, I didn't RTFA, but the summary doesn't even try to explain how this is affecting my rights, online or otherwise.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet another off-topic article .
Or maybe / .
has entirely become off-topic ?
No , I did n't RTFA , but the summary does n't even try to explain how this is affecting my rights , online or otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet another off-topic article.
Or maybe /.
has entirely become off-topic?
No, I didn't RTFA, but the summary doesn't even try to explain how this is affecting my rights, online or otherwise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202390</id>
	<title>Report shows people are still human</title>
	<author>jhoegl</author>
	<datestamp>1266610320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yup, we all do stupid things. Lose our car keys, forget to lock up our guns, dont wear a condom...<br>
<br>
Oh, but when it comes to a cop, they better be more than perfect.<br>
<br>
Just the other day a 3 year old shot themselves while attempting to get a gun from under their grandmothers couch.<br>
So... yeah.  If anything this just shows they need better weapons handling training. What? You think this was the first time someone did something stupid with a gun?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup , we all do stupid things .
Lose our car keys , forget to lock up our guns , dont wear a condom.. . Oh , but when it comes to a cop , they better be more than perfect .
Just the other day a 3 year old shot themselves while attempting to get a gun from under their grandmothers couch .
So... yeah .
If anything this just shows they need better weapons handling training .
What ? You think this was the first time someone did something stupid with a gun ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup, we all do stupid things.
Lose our car keys, forget to lock up our guns, dont wear a condom...

Oh, but when it comes to a cop, they better be more than perfect.
Just the other day a 3 year old shot themselves while attempting to get a gun from under their grandmothers couch.
So... yeah.
If anything this just shows they need better weapons handling training.
What? You think this was the first time someone did something stupid with a gun?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31206634</id>
	<title>Re:More Proof of Government Incompetence</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1266588060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>You'll have to explain to me how losing a statistically insiginficant number of weapons constitutes proof of government incompetence.</i></p><p>It might not be that.  I have the same handgun as the first batch that DHS got.  The trigger is pretty bad, I don't really enjoy shooting it.  Maybe they were microwaving their iPhones, so to speak.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'll have to explain to me how losing a statistically insiginficant number of weapons constitutes proof of government incompetence.It might not be that .
I have the same handgun as the first batch that DHS got .
The trigger is pretty bad , I do n't really enjoy shooting it .
Maybe they were microwaving their iPhones , so to speak .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'll have to explain to me how losing a statistically insiginficant number of weapons constitutes proof of government incompetence.It might not be that.
I have the same handgun as the first batch that DHS got.
The trigger is pretty bad, I don't really enjoy shooting it.
Maybe they were microwaving their iPhones, so to speak.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31204756</id>
	<title>Re:Uh.. what?</title>
	<author>bennomatic</author>
	<datestamp>1266576600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The summary says "or", not "of".</htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary says " or " , not " of " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary says "or", not "of".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31203874</id>
	<title>They're just doing their part...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266572940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... in turning the criminal underground into a polite, well-armed society.</p><p>Isn't that what the anti-control lobby is arguing for?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... in turning the criminal underground into a polite , well-armed society.Is n't that what the anti-control lobby is arguing for ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... in turning the criminal underground into a polite, well-armed society.Isn't that what the anti-control lobby is arguing for?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31208102</id>
	<title>Re:More Proof of Government Incompetence</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1266604800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>To understand power in the United States, don't follow government. Follow the money.</p></div><p>and where does all of that money lead? It says "federal reserve note" right on each bill. The government ultimately controls the money supply and the fact that Wall Street went to Washington for their bailouts demonstrates that the government is still master of the money supply; the source from which all credit flows.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To understand power in the United States , do n't follow government .
Follow the money.and where does all of that money lead ?
It says " federal reserve note " right on each bill .
The government ultimately controls the money supply and the fact that Wall Street went to Washington for their bailouts demonstrates that the government is still master of the money supply ; the source from which all credit flows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To understand power in the United States, don't follow government.
Follow the money.and where does all of that money lead?
It says "federal reserve note" right on each bill.
The government ultimately controls the money supply and the fact that Wall Street went to Washington for their bailouts demonstrates that the government is still master of the money supply; the source from which all credit flows.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31203438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31206376</id>
	<title>happens all the time</title>
	<author>cstacy</author>
	<datestamp>1266585840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The government and police lose guns (including machine guns) all the time.  It hrdly ever makes the news, it's just a well-known dirty little secret.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The government and police lose guns ( including machine guns ) all the time .
It hrdly ever makes the news , it 's just a well-known dirty little secret .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government and police lose guns (including machine guns) all the time.
It hrdly ever makes the news, it's just a well-known dirty little secret.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202240</id>
	<title>Uh.. what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266609120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>by the government of a famous athlete</i></p><p>I'm sure you had a joke in there that you were dying to get out, but this makes less than no sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>by the government of a famous athleteI 'm sure you had a joke in there that you were dying to get out , but this makes less than no sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>by the government of a famous athleteI'm sure you had a joke in there that you were dying to get out, but this makes less than no sense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31217230</id>
	<title>Re:More Proof of Government Incompetence</title>
	<author>Nyder</author>
	<datestamp>1266748980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You'll have to explain to me how losing a statistically insiginficant number of weapons constitutes proof of government incompetence. Not that I necessarily assume the government is competent, mind you, but losing 250 out of a total number of guns that must be in the hundreds of thousands doesn't constitute 'proof' of anything.</p></div><p>Actually, it does.</p><p>The fact that they lost guns at all shows incompetence.   I don't care if they had 32 million guns and only lost 250.   They are here to protect us, supposedly, and yet they can't even keep their firearms secure.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'll have to explain to me how losing a statistically insiginficant number of weapons constitutes proof of government incompetence .
Not that I necessarily assume the government is competent , mind you , but losing 250 out of a total number of guns that must be in the hundreds of thousands does n't constitute 'proof ' of anything.Actually , it does.The fact that they lost guns at all shows incompetence .
I do n't care if they had 32 million guns and only lost 250 .
They are here to protect us , supposedly , and yet they ca n't even keep their firearms secure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'll have to explain to me how losing a statistically insiginficant number of weapons constitutes proof of government incompetence.
Not that I necessarily assume the government is competent, mind you, but losing 250 out of a total number of guns that must be in the hundreds of thousands doesn't constitute 'proof' of anything.Actually, it does.The fact that they lost guns at all shows incompetence.
I don't care if they had 32 million guns and only lost 250.
They are here to protect us, supposedly, and yet they can't even keep their firearms secure.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31203430</id>
	<title>Re:Report shows people are still human</title>
	<author>TheCarp</author>
	<datestamp>1266571440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, we all also do illegal things, but you best be extra perfect in front of a cop. All you need to do is one illegal thing in front of a cop, and he will gladly do his job and process you into the system for punishment. Why should hey get a break when he gets caught slipping?</p><p>-Steve</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , we all also do illegal things , but you best be extra perfect in front of a cop .
All you need to do is one illegal thing in front of a cop , and he will gladly do his job and process you into the system for punishment .
Why should hey get a break when he gets caught slipping ? -Steve</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, we all also do illegal things, but you best be extra perfect in front of a cop.
All you need to do is one illegal thing in front of a cop, and he will gladly do his job and process you into the system for punishment.
Why should hey get a break when he gets caught slipping?-Steve</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202576</id>
	<title>grammer nazi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266611100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>... examples of carelessness <b>sites</b> a customs officer...</p></div></blockquote><p>That would be <b>cites</b>, son.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... examples of carelessness sites a customs officer...That would be cites , son .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... examples of carelessness sites a customs officer...That would be cites, son.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202890</id>
	<title>Too big to fail</title>
	<author>interval1066</author>
	<datestamp>1266612480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And we really need this huge, bloated, self-justifying, all-powerful organism to run our health care system because...?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And we really need this huge , bloated , self-justifying , all-powerful organism to run our health care system because... ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And we really need this huge, bloated, self-justifying, all-powerful organism to run our health care system because...?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31205716</id>
	<title>Re:Report shows people are still human</title>
	<author>niko9</author>
	<datestamp>1266581580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>We're talking about *cops*. We entrust them with our lives, and give them power over us, so yes,...</i></p><p>Going off slightly off topic from the main article...</p><p>Who is we? I don't *entrust* my life to any police officer or any other official, and I sure as hell don't give them any "power" over me. This is on of the greatest myths, misconceptions, whatever-you-wanna-call-it that is self perpetrated amongst the American public. You alone are responsible for your own safety.</p><p>Don't get me wrong: I don't have issues with hating law enforcement and such but...</p><p>The police have <b>no responsibility or legal obligation</b> to protect you. Nada, zero, zip. Wanna know why? Because court after court --including the Supreme Court of the United states-- has ruled so.</p><p>Look at these court cases:</p><p>Warren v. District of Columbia: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren\_v.\_District\_of\_Columbia" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren\_v.\_District\_of\_Columbia</a> [wikipedia.org]<br>Castle Rock v. Gonzales: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle\_Rock\_v.\_Gonzales" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle\_Rock\_v.\_Gonzales</a> [wikipedia.org]<br>DeShaney v. Winnebago County: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney\_v.\_Winnebago\_County" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney\_v.\_Winnebago\_County</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>The Warren v. D.C. case is most relevant here. Even if the police, that most people "entrust" their lives to, spectacularly fail at doing their job your have zero legal recourse. But wait, it gets better and stranger!</p><p>Riss v. New York. Link: <a href="http://hematite.com/dragon/policeprot.html" title="hematite.com">http://hematite.com/dragon/policeprot.html</a> [hematite.com]</p><p><i>Consider the case of Linda Riss, in which a young woman telephoned the police and begged for help because her ex-boyfriend had repeatedly threatened "If I can't have you no one else will have you, and when I get through with you, no-one else will want you." The day after she had pleaded for police protection, the ex-boyfriend threw lye in her face, blinding her in one eye, severely damaging the other, and permanently scarring her features. "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand," wrote a dissenting opinion in her tort suit against the City, "is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her." Riss v. New York, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. 1968). [Note: Linda Riss obeyed the law, yet the law prevented her from arming herself in self-defense.] </i></p><p>I live in New York City. See the problem? If I want to take responsibility (and I am willing) for my own safety the City of New York won't let me. I am forced to depend on them. And if they force me to depend on them for me safety and make an utter mess of protecting me, then I have zero legal recourse.</p><p>Something to ponder.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're talking about * cops * .
We entrust them with our lives , and give them power over us , so yes,...Going off slightly off topic from the main article...Who is we ?
I do n't * entrust * my life to any police officer or any other official , and I sure as hell do n't give them any " power " over me .
This is on of the greatest myths , misconceptions , whatever-you-wan na-call-it that is self perpetrated amongst the American public .
You alone are responsible for your own safety.Do n't get me wrong : I do n't have issues with hating law enforcement and such but...The police have no responsibility or legal obligation to protect you .
Nada , zero , zip .
Wan na know why ?
Because court after court --including the Supreme Court of the United states-- has ruled so.Look at these court cases : Warren v. District of Columbia : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren \ _v. \ _District \ _of \ _Columbia [ wikipedia.org ] Castle Rock v. Gonzales : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle \ _Rock \ _v. \ _Gonzales [ wikipedia.org ] DeShaney v. Winnebago County : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney \ _v. \ _Winnebago \ _County [ wikipedia.org ] The Warren v. D.C. case is most relevant here .
Even if the police , that most people " entrust " their lives to , spectacularly fail at doing their job your have zero legal recourse .
But wait , it gets better and stranger ! Riss v. New York .
Link : http : //hematite.com/dragon/policeprot.html [ hematite.com ] Consider the case of Linda Riss , in which a young woman telephoned the police and begged for help because her ex-boyfriend had repeatedly threatened " If I ca n't have you no one else will have you , and when I get through with you , no-one else will want you .
" The day after she had pleaded for police protection , the ex-boyfriend threw lye in her face , blinding her in one eye , severely damaging the other , and permanently scarring her features .
" What makes the City 's position particularly difficult to understand , " wrote a dissenting opinion in her tort suit against the City , " is that , in conformity to the dictates of the law , Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense .
Thus , by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her .
" Riss v. New York , 240 N.E.2d 860 ( N.Y. 1968 ) . [ Note : Linda Riss obeyed the law , yet the law prevented her from arming herself in self-defense .
] I live in New York City .
See the problem ?
If I want to take responsibility ( and I am willing ) for my own safety the City of New York wo n't let me .
I am forced to depend on them .
And if they force me to depend on them for me safety and make an utter mess of protecting me , then I have zero legal recourse.Something to ponder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're talking about *cops*.
We entrust them with our lives, and give them power over us, so yes,...Going off slightly off topic from the main article...Who is we?
I don't *entrust* my life to any police officer or any other official, and I sure as hell don't give them any "power" over me.
This is on of the greatest myths, misconceptions, whatever-you-wanna-call-it that is self perpetrated amongst the American public.
You alone are responsible for your own safety.Don't get me wrong: I don't have issues with hating law enforcement and such but...The police have no responsibility or legal obligation to protect you.
Nada, zero, zip.
Wanna know why?
Because court after court --including the Supreme Court of the United states-- has ruled so.Look at these court cases:Warren v. District of Columbia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren\_v.\_District\_of\_Columbia [wikipedia.org]Castle Rock v. Gonzales: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle\_Rock\_v.\_Gonzales [wikipedia.org]DeShaney v. Winnebago County: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney\_v.\_Winnebago\_County [wikipedia.org]The Warren v. D.C. case is most relevant here.
Even if the police, that most people "entrust" their lives to, spectacularly fail at doing their job your have zero legal recourse.
But wait, it gets better and stranger!Riss v. New York.
Link: http://hematite.com/dragon/policeprot.html [hematite.com]Consider the case of Linda Riss, in which a young woman telephoned the police and begged for help because her ex-boyfriend had repeatedly threatened "If I can't have you no one else will have you, and when I get through with you, no-one else will want you.
" The day after she had pleaded for police protection, the ex-boyfriend threw lye in her face, blinding her in one eye, severely damaging the other, and permanently scarring her features.
"What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand," wrote a dissenting opinion in her tort suit against the City, "is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense.
Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her.
" Riss v. New York, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. 1968). [Note: Linda Riss obeyed the law, yet the law prevented her from arming herself in self-defense.
] I live in New York City.
See the problem?
If I want to take responsibility (and I am willing) for my own safety the City of New York won't let me.
I am forced to depend on them.
And if they force me to depend on them for me safety and make an utter mess of protecting me, then I have zero legal recourse.Something to ponder.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31203986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202608</id>
	<title>Re:More Proof of Government Incompetence</title>
	<author>PoderOmega</author>
	<datestamp>1266611220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I understand your point regarding incompetence, but the only reason we know about this is because this is a government agency.  If it was private company the public would have no idea.  You could make an argument regarding hiring standards between the government and private companies, but based on my experience private companies hire lazy and incompnent employees as well.

Where is the public report from a Health Care company where mistakes cost hundreds of premium paying customers money or time to recoupe money due to sloppiness on the insurance company?  Or worse, where are the reports where people were delayed necessary procedures?  You won't see it because it is a private company.

I agree the government may not do a great job managing heathcare, but this is not a valid example.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I understand your point regarding incompetence , but the only reason we know about this is because this is a government agency .
If it was private company the public would have no idea .
You could make an argument regarding hiring standards between the government and private companies , but based on my experience private companies hire lazy and incompnent employees as well .
Where is the public report from a Health Care company where mistakes cost hundreds of premium paying customers money or time to recoupe money due to sloppiness on the insurance company ?
Or worse , where are the reports where people were delayed necessary procedures ?
You wo n't see it because it is a private company .
I agree the government may not do a great job managing heathcare , but this is not a valid example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I understand your point regarding incompetence, but the only reason we know about this is because this is a government agency.
If it was private company the public would have no idea.
You could make an argument regarding hiring standards between the government and private companies, but based on my experience private companies hire lazy and incompnent employees as well.
Where is the public report from a Health Care company where mistakes cost hundreds of premium paying customers money or time to recoupe money due to sloppiness on the insurance company?
Or worse, where are the reports where people were delayed necessary procedures?
You won't see it because it is a private company.
I agree the government may not do a great job managing heathcare, but this is not a valid example.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202408</id>
	<title>Statistics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266610380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, over 3 years, 179 / 188,500 weapons went missing, 0.09\%, only slightly higher than the percentage eaten by beavers or flattened by steam rollers.</p><p>What a travesty. How could they have been so careless with our tax dollars. Let's impeach Obama.</p><p>=^P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , over 3 years , 179 / 188,500 weapons went missing , 0.09 \ % , only slightly higher than the percentage eaten by beavers or flattened by steam rollers.What a travesty .
How could they have been so careless with our tax dollars .
Let 's impeach Obama. = ^ P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, over 3 years, 179 / 188,500 weapons went missing, 0.09\%, only slightly higher than the percentage eaten by beavers or flattened by steam rollers.What a travesty.
How could they have been so careless with our tax dollars.
Let's impeach Obama.=^P</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202346</id>
	<title>Hopefully that number also represents ...</title>
	<author>Hohlraum</author>
	<datestamp>1266610020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the number of DHS officers who were fired as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the number of DHS officers who were fired as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the number of DHS officers who were fired as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31205434</id>
	<title>Re:Uh.. what?</title>
	<author>The Moof</author>
	<datestamp>1266579840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think he's referring to <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/03/sportsline/main5208505.shtml" title="cbsnews.com">Plaxico Burris</a> [cbsnews.com] having a concealed weapon and accidentally shooting himself with it, resulting in gun charges against him.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think he 's referring to Plaxico Burris [ cbsnews.com ] having a concealed weapon and accidentally shooting himself with it , resulting in gun charges against him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think he's referring to Plaxico Burris [cbsnews.com] having a concealed weapon and accidentally shooting himself with it, resulting in gun charges against him.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31207388</id>
	<title>Re:More Proof of Government Incompetence</title>
	<author>Wayne247</author>
	<datestamp>1266596280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're fucking GUNS!</p><p>Losing 250 toobelts or phones or pants or metal detector wands, fine whatever. But they're losing guns here! You know, those metal things you point at people and they die? Like, forever?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're fucking GUNS ! Losing 250 toobelts or phones or pants or metal detector wands , fine whatever .
But they 're losing guns here !
You know , those metal things you point at people and they die ?
Like , forever ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're fucking GUNS!Losing 250 toobelts or phones or pants or metal detector wands, fine whatever.
But they're losing guns here!
You know, those metal things you point at people and they die?
Like, forever?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202252</id>
	<title>Sleeping?</title>
	<author>InsertWittyNameHere</author>
	<datestamp>1266609240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The vehicle was stolen while the officer was inside.</p></div><p>Sleeping in the back seat again?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The vehicle was stolen while the officer was inside.Sleeping in the back seat again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The vehicle was stolen while the officer was inside.Sleeping in the back seat again?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31205110</id>
	<title>ultimate troll weapon?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266578220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, the countries where socialized health care works are ones that are racially homogenous.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , the countries where socialized health care works are ones that are racially homogenous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, the countries where socialized health care works are ones that are racially homogenous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31203060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202928</id>
	<title>Re:Uh.. what?</title>
	<author>DeadboltX</author>
	<datestamp>1266612720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>by the government <b>or</b> a famous athlete</i>
<br> <br>

It's still a bad joke that he was dying to get out, but at least it makes slightly more sense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>by the government or a famous athlete It 's still a bad joke that he was dying to get out , but at least it makes slightly more sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>by the government or a famous athlete
 

It's still a bad joke that he was dying to get out, but at least it makes slightly more sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31203254</id>
	<title>Re:More Proof of Government Incompetence</title>
	<author>Unordained</author>
	<datestamp>1266570780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Validity of your rant aside, please be consistent; too often I hear both this rant ("government is incompetent") coupled with conspiratorial, big-brother, black-helicopter rants that assume the government actually is capable of doing something, sometimes, as long as it's something nefarious. I'm not saying they're not capable of such, nor doing such -- I'm just saying<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... please, to all of you, be consistent. Either the government can, or it cannot, get its act together.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Validity of your rant aside , please be consistent ; too often I hear both this rant ( " government is incompetent " ) coupled with conspiratorial , big-brother , black-helicopter rants that assume the government actually is capable of doing something , sometimes , as long as it 's something nefarious .
I 'm not saying they 're not capable of such , nor doing such -- I 'm just saying ... please , to all of you , be consistent .
Either the government can , or it can not , get its act together .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Validity of your rant aside, please be consistent; too often I hear both this rant ("government is incompetent") coupled with conspiratorial, big-brother, black-helicopter rants that assume the government actually is capable of doing something, sometimes, as long as it's something nefarious.
I'm not saying they're not capable of such, nor doing such -- I'm just saying ... please, to all of you, be consistent.
Either the government can, or it cannot, get its act together.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31203498</id>
	<title>Re:Statistics</title>
	<author>mjwalshe</author>
	<datestamp>1266571680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>well you need to compare this to the army and the average loss rate in the general population</htmltext>
<tokenext>well you need to compare this to the army and the average loss rate in the general population</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well you need to compare this to the army and the average loss rate in the general population</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31203438</id>
	<title>Re:More Proof of Government Incompetence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266571440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The Dems don't understand business and the private sector; they don't understand what actually generates wealth in this country because they themselves are destroyers, not creators, of wealth</i> <br>
&nbsp; <br>Interesting idea when you consider the largest destroyers of wealth are in New York City on Wall Street, rather than in Washington DC.  But those of us in the know, know that the Dems and Reps all have their campaigns paid by Goldman Sachs anyway.<br>
&nbsp; <br>To understand power in the United States, don't follow government.  Follow the money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Dems do n't understand business and the private sector ; they do n't understand what actually generates wealth in this country because they themselves are destroyers , not creators , of wealth   Interesting idea when you consider the largest destroyers of wealth are in New York City on Wall Street , rather than in Washington DC .
But those of us in the know , know that the Dems and Reps all have their campaigns paid by Goldman Sachs anyway .
  To understand power in the United States , do n't follow government .
Follow the money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Dems don't understand business and the private sector; they don't understand what actually generates wealth in this country because they themselves are destroyers, not creators, of wealth 
  Interesting idea when you consider the largest destroyers of wealth are in New York City on Wall Street, rather than in Washington DC.
But those of us in the know, know that the Dems and Reps all have their campaigns paid by Goldman Sachs anyway.
  To understand power in the United States, don't follow government.
Follow the money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202350</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1642201_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31205716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31203986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1642201_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31203610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1642201_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31207070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31203060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1642201_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31205434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1642201_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31217230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1642201_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31203430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1642201_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31205704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31203254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1642201_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31206634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1642201_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31204756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1642201_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31204038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1642201_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31203842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31201990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1642201_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1642201_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1642201_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31203618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1642201_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1642201_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1642201_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1642201_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31203498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1642201_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31203056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1642201_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31205980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31203060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1642201_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31203484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1642201_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1642201_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31207182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1642201_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31203816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1642201_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31204314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1642201_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31207904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31203986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1642201_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31204484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1642201_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31204308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1642201_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31204880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31203986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1642201_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31208102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31203438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1642201_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31204820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1642201_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31205110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31203060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1642201_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31207388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_1642201.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31204756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31205434
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_1642201.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202346
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_1642201.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202438
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_1642201.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31203986
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31205716
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31207904
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31204880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31203430
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_1642201.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31203060
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31205980
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31207070
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31205110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31203484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31203816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31203618
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_1642201.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31201990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31203842
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_1642201.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202642
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31204820
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31217230
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31207388
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31206634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31203438
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31208102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31203254
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31205704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31204314
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_1642201.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31203690
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_1642201.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31204038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31204308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31203498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31204484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31207182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31203610
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_1642201.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31202576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1642201.31203056
</commentlist>
</conversation>
