<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_27_0342251</id>
	<title>Will ACTA Be Found Unconstitutional?</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1269692220000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>DustyShadow writes <i>"Harvard's Jack Goldsmith and Lawrence Lessig have an interesting op-ed in Friday's Washington Post, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/25/AR2010032502403.html">arguing that it would be constitutionally dubious</a> for President Obama to adopt the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) as an executive agreement.  '[T]he Obama administration has suggested it will adopt the pact as a "sole executive agreement" that requires only the president's approval. ...  Joining ACTA by sole executive agreement would far exceed these precedents. The president has no independent constitutional authority over intellectual property or communications policy, and there is no long historical practice of making sole executive agreements in this area. To the contrary, the Constitution gives primary authority over these matters to Congress, which is charged with making laws that regulate foreign commerce and intellectual property.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>DustyShadow writes " Harvard 's Jack Goldsmith and Lawrence Lessig have an interesting op-ed in Friday 's Washington Post , arguing that it would be constitutionally dubious for President Obama to adopt the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement ( ACTA ) as an executive agreement .
' [ T ] he Obama administration has suggested it will adopt the pact as a " sole executive agreement " that requires only the president 's approval .
... Joining ACTA by sole executive agreement would far exceed these precedents .
The president has no independent constitutional authority over intellectual property or communications policy , and there is no long historical practice of making sole executive agreements in this area .
To the contrary , the Constitution gives primary authority over these matters to Congress , which is charged with making laws that regulate foreign commerce and intellectual property .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DustyShadow writes "Harvard's Jack Goldsmith and Lawrence Lessig have an interesting op-ed in Friday's Washington Post, arguing that it would be constitutionally dubious for President Obama to adopt the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) as an executive agreement.
'[T]he Obama administration has suggested it will adopt the pact as a "sole executive agreement" that requires only the president's approval.
...  Joining ACTA by sole executive agreement would far exceed these precedents.
The president has no independent constitutional authority over intellectual property or communications policy, and there is no long historical practice of making sole executive agreements in this area.
To the contrary, the Constitution gives primary authority over these matters to Congress, which is charged with making laws that regulate foreign commerce and intellectual property.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638690</id>
	<title>Re:The people's will</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269697320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Obama won the election and represents the will of the people. He can do what he wants. That's democracy."<br> <br>

No, that is not how American government works.  The president is elected to oversee the implementation of bills passed by Congress, that is all -- presidents do not create laws, nor do they unilaterally decide that the US should sign a treaty.  What Obama is doing is sidestepping America's democracy, so that Biden's friends in Hollywood can get what they want.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Obama won the election and represents the will of the people .
He can do what he wants .
That 's democracy .
" No , that is not how American government works .
The president is elected to oversee the implementation of bills passed by Congress , that is all -- presidents do not create laws , nor do they unilaterally decide that the US should sign a treaty .
What Obama is doing is sidestepping America 's democracy , so that Biden 's friends in Hollywood can get what they want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Obama won the election and represents the will of the people.
He can do what he wants.
That's democracy.
" 

No, that is not how American government works.
The president is elected to oversee the implementation of bills passed by Congress, that is all -- presidents do not create laws, nor do they unilaterally decide that the US should sign a treaty.
What Obama is doing is sidestepping America's democracy, so that Biden's friends in Hollywood can get what they want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31640232</id>
	<title>Re:The Living Constitution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269710760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> If FDR had wanted to make the US into a socialist state he would have done nothing, waited for the economic climate to bottom out, then blame all the Wall Street fat cats, order their imprisonment, seize their assets, and nationalize them. Poof. Now we're a socialist state, and it didn't take all that sneaking around!</p></div><p>Ironically, that would be far away from making the US a socialist state. In fact, letting the failed companies to collapse would much more in line with the ideas of a free market and the seizure of assets would follow automatically from the ensuing criminal and bankruptcy trials, and settlements. The government would not be the only entity to seek to obtain the remaining assets of the failed banks and "fat cats" in that situation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If FDR had wanted to make the US into a socialist state he would have done nothing , waited for the economic climate to bottom out , then blame all the Wall Street fat cats , order their imprisonment , seize their assets , and nationalize them .
Poof. Now we 're a socialist state , and it did n't take all that sneaking around ! Ironically , that would be far away from making the US a socialist state .
In fact , letting the failed companies to collapse would much more in line with the ideas of a free market and the seizure of assets would follow automatically from the ensuing criminal and bankruptcy trials , and settlements .
The government would not be the only entity to seek to obtain the remaining assets of the failed banks and " fat cats " in that situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> If FDR had wanted to make the US into a socialist state he would have done nothing, waited for the economic climate to bottom out, then blame all the Wall Street fat cats, order their imprisonment, seize their assets, and nationalize them.
Poof. Now we're a socialist state, and it didn't take all that sneaking around!Ironically, that would be far away from making the US a socialist state.
In fact, letting the failed companies to collapse would much more in line with the ideas of a free market and the seizure of assets would follow automatically from the ensuing criminal and bankruptcy trials, and settlements.
The government would not be the only entity to seek to obtain the remaining assets of the failed banks and "fat cats" in that situation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638794</id>
	<title>Re:The people's will</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269698460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And here we have a typical Obamabot.</p><p>What is sad is that a large majority of Slashdotters will agree with this guy because regardless of age, they are essentially still the ignorant, mouth breathing, annoying, know it all 14 yo that lives in the basement and whacks off to the underwear advertisements in the Sunday newspaper.</p><p>And the ignorance on display here is astounding. But then again, it's the ignorance that got Obama elected. How many people are now waiting for their Free Heath Care card to arrive in the mail? Many, many more than anyone is willing to admit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And here we have a typical Obamabot.What is sad is that a large majority of Slashdotters will agree with this guy because regardless of age , they are essentially still the ignorant , mouth breathing , annoying , know it all 14 yo that lives in the basement and whacks off to the underwear advertisements in the Sunday newspaper.And the ignorance on display here is astounding .
But then again , it 's the ignorance that got Obama elected .
How many people are now waiting for their Free Heath Care card to arrive in the mail ?
Many , many more than anyone is willing to admit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And here we have a typical Obamabot.What is sad is that a large majority of Slashdotters will agree with this guy because regardless of age, they are essentially still the ignorant, mouth breathing, annoying, know it all 14 yo that lives in the basement and whacks off to the underwear advertisements in the Sunday newspaper.And the ignorance on display here is astounding.
But then again, it's the ignorance that got Obama elected.
How many people are now waiting for their Free Heath Care card to arrive in the mail?
Many, many more than anyone is willing to admit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639650</id>
	<title>Short answer ...</title>
	<author>ScrewMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1269706740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Will ACTA Be Found Unconstitutional?</p></div><p>Yes.
<br> <br>
Will Obama sign it anyway?
<br> <br>
Yes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will ACTA Be Found Unconstitutional ? Yes .
Will Obama sign it anyway ?
Yes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will ACTA Be Found Unconstitutional?Yes.
Will Obama sign it anyway?
Yes.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31642870</id>
	<title>Re:The Living Constitution</title>
	<author>Buelldozer</author>
	<datestamp>1269686400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's all well good and but I still don't find anything in law to support the Federal Government forcing me into a relationship with a private company for the privilege of existing. It was an EXTREMELY foolhardy action to take.</p><p>They should have gone with a public option and been done with it.</p><p>Also, we didn't get "Health Care Reform" no matter what liar it is that told you that. What we got was "Health Insurance Company bailout". If you owned a company wouldn't you love it if the Federal Government would, with the stroke of it's pen, force another 33 million customers into your arms?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's all well good and but I still do n't find anything in law to support the Federal Government forcing me into a relationship with a private company for the privilege of existing .
It was an EXTREMELY foolhardy action to take.They should have gone with a public option and been done with it.Also , we did n't get " Health Care Reform " no matter what liar it is that told you that .
What we got was " Health Insurance Company bailout " .
If you owned a company would n't you love it if the Federal Government would , with the stroke of it 's pen , force another 33 million customers into your arms ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's all well good and but I still don't find anything in law to support the Federal Government forcing me into a relationship with a private company for the privilege of existing.
It was an EXTREMELY foolhardy action to take.They should have gone with a public option and been done with it.Also, we didn't get "Health Care Reform" no matter what liar it is that told you that.
What we got was "Health Insurance Company bailout".
If you owned a company wouldn't you love it if the Federal Government would, with the stroke of it's pen, force another 33 million customers into your arms?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31646854</id>
	<title>Re:The people's will</title>
	<author>lsatenstein</author>
	<datestamp>1269787260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought the role of a president is to insure that a majority house in both congress and senate does not do something to undermine the rights of the minority, where majority and minority are the citizens of the USA.  He is a safeguard, who could defer a bill or return it for reconsideration.  But then he can suggest new laws, and leave it to congress and the senate to evaluate and if warranted, introduce them.

If you ask most Canadians, I believe that they would say, USA democracy is going down the tubes. It is no longer government by the people for the people, but government by big business for big business.

Its time to wake up, peasants, and become proactive in the running of your lives by your "lobbyists".</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought the role of a president is to insure that a majority house in both congress and senate does not do something to undermine the rights of the minority , where majority and minority are the citizens of the USA .
He is a safeguard , who could defer a bill or return it for reconsideration .
But then he can suggest new laws , and leave it to congress and the senate to evaluate and if warranted , introduce them .
If you ask most Canadians , I believe that they would say , USA democracy is going down the tubes .
It is no longer government by the people for the people , but government by big business for big business .
Its time to wake up , peasants , and become proactive in the running of your lives by your " lobbyists " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought the role of a president is to insure that a majority house in both congress and senate does not do something to undermine the rights of the minority, where majority and minority are the citizens of the USA.
He is a safeguard, who could defer a bill or return it for reconsideration.
But then he can suggest new laws, and leave it to congress and the senate to evaluate and if warranted, introduce them.
If you ask most Canadians, I believe that they would say, USA democracy is going down the tubes.
It is no longer government by the people for the people, but government by big business for big business.
Its time to wake up, peasants, and become proactive in the running of your lives by your "lobbyists".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638610</id>
	<title>It's all part of the plan</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269696300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Kenyan's plan is to lead America into socialism and fascism and to do that he will not balk at using any means possible, legal or illegal, constitutional of unconstitutional.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Kenyan 's plan is to lead America into socialism and fascism and to do that he will not balk at using any means possible , legal or illegal , constitutional of unconstitutional .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Kenyan's plan is to lead America into socialism and fascism and to do that he will not balk at using any means possible, legal or illegal, constitutional of unconstitutional.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638864</id>
	<title>..corruption...</title>
	<author>kirthn</author>
	<datestamp>1269699180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it could be considered corruption if Obama would be signing this executive agreement just for the sake of business/dollars....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it could be considered corruption if Obama would be signing this executive agreement just for the sake of business/dollars... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it could be considered corruption if Obama would be signing this executive agreement just for the sake of business/dollars....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31643486</id>
	<title>Re:The people's will</title>
	<author>Alcemenes</author>
	<datestamp>1269692700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not how the government is supposed to work according to the Constitution but Obama doesn't seem to care.  He seems more interested in making marks in future history books than following the oath he took when he was sworn into office.  I can't say his predecessor was any different.  Too many politicians and not enough legislators.  The sad thing is, I'm not sure we can fix it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not how the government is supposed to work according to the Constitution but Obama does n't seem to care .
He seems more interested in making marks in future history books than following the oath he took when he was sworn into office .
I ca n't say his predecessor was any different .
Too many politicians and not enough legislators .
The sad thing is , I 'm not sure we can fix it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not how the government is supposed to work according to the Constitution but Obama doesn't seem to care.
He seems more interested in making marks in future history books than following the oath he took when he was sworn into office.
I can't say his predecessor was any different.
Too many politicians and not enough legislators.
The sad thing is, I'm not sure we can fix it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639004</id>
	<title>Re:The Constitution</title>
	<author>bhagwad</author>
	<datestamp>1269700320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Make that "living and breathing" document!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Make that " living and breathing " document !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Make that "living and breathing" document!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638910</id>
	<title>Yeah, right</title>
	<author>smchris</author>
	<datestamp>1269699600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can NAFTA be next?  And all the other IMF treaties?  It's a little late in the game to start worrying about the rule of law now, isn't it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can NAFTA be next ?
And all the other IMF treaties ?
It 's a little late in the game to start worrying about the rule of law now , is n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can NAFTA be next?
And all the other IMF treaties?
It's a little late in the game to start worrying about the rule of law now, isn't it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638666</id>
	<title>Re:The people's will</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269697020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Go back to school, do not pass go, do not collect grant money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go back to school , do not pass go , do not collect grant money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go back to school, do not pass go, do not collect grant money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31647928</id>
	<title>I obviously missed something</title>
	<author>DZComposer</author>
	<datestamp>1269796740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <b>US Constitution, Article 2, Section 2, paragraph 2:</b> <br>
<i>"He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur..."</i> </p><p>This seems pretty explicit to me. I do not understand what the administration's argument is here. And none of the critical articles I have read mention this clause. It's as if this isn't the standing issue here. Can someone explain to me how the President can legally sign a treaty without a senate vote?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>US Constitution , Article 2 , Section 2 , paragraph 2 : " He shall have power , by and with the advice and consent of the Senate , to make treaties , provided two thirds of the Senators present concur... " This seems pretty explicit to me .
I do not understand what the administration 's argument is here .
And none of the critical articles I have read mention this clause .
It 's as if this is n't the standing issue here .
Can someone explain to me how the President can legally sign a treaty without a senate vote ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> US Constitution, Article 2, Section 2, paragraph 2: 
"He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur..." This seems pretty explicit to me.
I do not understand what the administration's argument is here.
And none of the critical articles I have read mention this clause.
It's as if this isn't the standing issue here.
Can someone explain to me how the President can legally sign a treaty without a senate vote?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638656</id>
	<title>More proof</title>
	<author>Schraegstrichpunkt</author>
	<datestamp>1269696840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>This just goes to show that ACTA is really all about policy laundering.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This just goes to show that ACTA is really all about policy laundering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This just goes to show that ACTA is really all about policy laundering.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639050</id>
	<title>The Living Constitution</title>
	<author>Coolhand2120</author>
	<datestamp>1269700980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Didn't we just pass legislation that for the first time forces private citizens to buy a product from a select set of other private citizens.  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living\_Constitution" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">The constitution is no longer relevant to the party in control of our government.</a> [wikipedia.org] They have deemed it something that can be reinterpreted to mean whatever they need it to mean at the time.  All they need to do is redefine what words mean and suddenly the constitution means all sorts of things!<br> <br>Here's a few examples:<br> <br>

1895: Wage is now the same as income!  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth\_Amendment\_to\_the\_United\_States\_Constitution" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Democrats begin their long march towards socialism!</a> [wikipedia.org]  With the help of the Socialist Labor Party of the 1890's, they pass an amendment so they can now collect income tax from everyone!  The sucking noise begins.<br> <br>
1935: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social\_Security\_(United\_States)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Now retirement and health care are a RIGHT</a> [wikipedia.org] and the government is required to provide for the "happiness" of the people by collecting money from one group of people and giving it to another.   Democrats, unhappy with the difficulty of getting constitutional amendments, so they decide to craft laws that skirt the letter of the constitution, arguing that social security/medicare is an retirement benefit to the people, while arguing to the SCOTUS that it is a tax.  When the SCOTUS rules the initial law unconstitutional, democrat FDR runs personal smear campaigns against SCOTUS justices and has them replaced with justices that are willing to interpret the constitution the way he needs it.  And thus begins the largest <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi\_scheme" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">ponzi scheme in world history!</a> [wikipedia.org].  <br> <br>

begin rant:<br> The government then took from the ponzi err. social security fund as frequently as pleased to and for whatever reason it deemed important enough to do so.  Which was of course any reason.  Now, were this a REAL business, at this point the CFO would be thrown in jail, but this is the U.S. government!  They buy the jails!  Social security has been bankrupt for decades, the debt is around 17 trillion.  But this week, for the first time, even on paper, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/business/economy/25social.html?hp" title="nytimes.com" rel="nofollow">the government is giving out more money in social security than it is taking in.</a> [nytimes.com].<br> <br>I ask you, if the government can force you to buy something from someone, is there anything there anything the government can't force you to buy?  And if the government can arbitrarily come in and tell me what I must buy, what I can buy, and what I can't buy, can we truly say we live in a free society?<br> <br>And for you fools in control.  What makes you think the next generation is going to pay any attention to the laws you so haphazardly pass when you completely ignore the laws of the previous generations? That's anarchy!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:end rant<br> <br>
I would be remiss to point out that Thomas Jefferson was like a fricking Nostradamus in predicting what would happen in this country.  And how can I possibly follow the words of Jefferson with my pathetic waxing?  So adieu!<br> <br>
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.<br>
-Thomas Jefferson<br> <br>
Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.<br>
-Thomas Jefferson<br> <br>
Great innovations should not be forced on slender majorities.<br>
-Thomas Jefferson<br> <br>
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.<br>-Thomas Jefferson<br> <br>

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of the</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't we just pass legislation that for the first time forces private citizens to buy a product from a select set of other private citizens .
The constitution is no longer relevant to the party in control of our government .
[ wikipedia.org ] They have deemed it something that can be reinterpreted to mean whatever they need it to mean at the time .
All they need to do is redefine what words mean and suddenly the constitution means all sorts of things !
Here 's a few examples : 1895 : Wage is now the same as income !
Democrats begin their long march towards socialism !
[ wikipedia.org ] With the help of the Socialist Labor Party of the 1890 's , they pass an amendment so they can now collect income tax from everyone !
The sucking noise begins .
1935 : Now retirement and health care are a RIGHT [ wikipedia.org ] and the government is required to provide for the " happiness " of the people by collecting money from one group of people and giving it to another .
Democrats , unhappy with the difficulty of getting constitutional amendments , so they decide to craft laws that skirt the letter of the constitution , arguing that social security/medicare is an retirement benefit to the people , while arguing to the SCOTUS that it is a tax .
When the SCOTUS rules the initial law unconstitutional , democrat FDR runs personal smear campaigns against SCOTUS justices and has them replaced with justices that are willing to interpret the constitution the way he needs it .
And thus begins the largest ponzi scheme in world history !
[ wikipedia.org ] . begin rant : The government then took from the ponzi err .
social security fund as frequently as pleased to and for whatever reason it deemed important enough to do so .
Which was of course any reason .
Now , were this a REAL business , at this point the CFO would be thrown in jail , but this is the U.S. government ! They buy the jails !
Social security has been bankrupt for decades , the debt is around 17 trillion .
But this week , for the first time , even on paper , the government is giving out more money in social security than it is taking in .
[ nytimes.com ] . I ask you , if the government can force you to buy something from someone , is there anything there anything the government ca n't force you to buy ?
And if the government can arbitrarily come in and tell me what I must buy , what I can buy , and what I ca n't buy , can we truly say we live in a free society ?
And for you fools in control .
What makes you think the next generation is going to pay any attention to the laws you so haphazardly pass when you completely ignore the laws of the previous generations ?
That 's anarchy !
: end rant I would be remiss to point out that Thomas Jefferson was like a fricking Nostradamus in predicting what would happen in this country .
And how can I possibly follow the words of Jefferson with my pathetic waxing ?
So adieu !
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not .
-Thomas Jefferson Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself .
Can he , then be trusted with the government of others ?
Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him ?
Let history answer this question .
-Thomas Jefferson Great innovations should not be forced on slender majorities .
-Thomas Jefferson Experience hath shewn , that even under the best forms [ of government ] those entrusted with power have , in time , and by slow operations , perverted it into tyranny.-Thomas Jefferson I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of the</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't we just pass legislation that for the first time forces private citizens to buy a product from a select set of other private citizens.
The constitution is no longer relevant to the party in control of our government.
[wikipedia.org] They have deemed it something that can be reinterpreted to mean whatever they need it to mean at the time.
All they need to do is redefine what words mean and suddenly the constitution means all sorts of things!
Here's a few examples: 

1895: Wage is now the same as income!
Democrats begin their long march towards socialism!
[wikipedia.org]  With the help of the Socialist Labor Party of the 1890's, they pass an amendment so they can now collect income tax from everyone!
The sucking noise begins.
1935: Now retirement and health care are a RIGHT [wikipedia.org] and the government is required to provide for the "happiness" of the people by collecting money from one group of people and giving it to another.
Democrats, unhappy with the difficulty of getting constitutional amendments, so they decide to craft laws that skirt the letter of the constitution, arguing that social security/medicare is an retirement benefit to the people, while arguing to the SCOTUS that it is a tax.
When the SCOTUS rules the initial law unconstitutional, democrat FDR runs personal smear campaigns against SCOTUS justices and has them replaced with justices that are willing to interpret the constitution the way he needs it.
And thus begins the largest ponzi scheme in world history!
[wikipedia.org].   

begin rant: The government then took from the ponzi err.
social security fund as frequently as pleased to and for whatever reason it deemed important enough to do so.
Which was of course any reason.
Now, were this a REAL business, at this point the CFO would be thrown in jail, but this is the U.S. government!  They buy the jails!
Social security has been bankrupt for decades, the debt is around 17 trillion.
But this week, for the first time, even on paper, the government is giving out more money in social security than it is taking in.
[nytimes.com]. I ask you, if the government can force you to buy something from someone, is there anything there anything the government can't force you to buy?
And if the government can arbitrarily come in and tell me what I must buy, what I can buy, and what I can't buy, can we truly say we live in a free society?
And for you fools in control.
What makes you think the next generation is going to pay any attention to the laws you so haphazardly pass when you completely ignore the laws of the previous generations?
That's anarchy!
:end rant 
I would be remiss to point out that Thomas Jefferson was like a fricking Nostradamus in predicting what would happen in this country.
And how can I possibly follow the words of Jefferson with my pathetic waxing?
So adieu!
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
-Thomas Jefferson 
Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself.
Can he, then be trusted with the government of others?
Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him?
Let history answer this question.
-Thomas Jefferson 
Great innovations should not be forced on slender majorities.
-Thomas Jefferson 
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.-Thomas Jefferson 

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of the</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638782</id>
	<title>It will be against many Constitutions</title>
	<author>prefec2</author>
	<datestamp>1269698340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We really do not know what is really discussed in the ACTA context. But the few things which leaked are not compatible with the German and the French constitution. It is against rules in the European human rights agreement and the Lisbon-Treaty (which made the EU a little bit more democratic). The European Parliament has expressed their concern that ACTA is not discussed in the public, which is not very democratic, but big companies especially US-companies can have treaty documents. So a elected parliament is kept in the dark while the money jerks are directly involved. In short the parliament is pissed. And they will dismiss it, just they did with the SWIFT-spying treaty between the EU and the USA. When do executive politicians learn that we life in a democracy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We really do not know what is really discussed in the ACTA context .
But the few things which leaked are not compatible with the German and the French constitution .
It is against rules in the European human rights agreement and the Lisbon-Treaty ( which made the EU a little bit more democratic ) .
The European Parliament has expressed their concern that ACTA is not discussed in the public , which is not very democratic , but big companies especially US-companies can have treaty documents .
So a elected parliament is kept in the dark while the money jerks are directly involved .
In short the parliament is pissed .
And they will dismiss it , just they did with the SWIFT-spying treaty between the EU and the USA .
When do executive politicians learn that we life in a democracy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We really do not know what is really discussed in the ACTA context.
But the few things which leaked are not compatible with the German and the French constitution.
It is against rules in the European human rights agreement and the Lisbon-Treaty (which made the EU a little bit more democratic).
The European Parliament has expressed their concern that ACTA is not discussed in the public, which is not very democratic, but big companies especially US-companies can have treaty documents.
So a elected parliament is kept in the dark while the money jerks are directly involved.
In short the parliament is pissed.
And they will dismiss it, just they did with the SWIFT-spying treaty between the EU and the USA.
When do executive politicians learn that we life in a democracy?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638958</id>
	<title>Re:Uh, isn't that covered in the constitution alre</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269700020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you, uh, read that at all before you pasted it?</p><p>He [the president] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, PROVIDED TWO THIRDS OF THE SENATORS PRESENT AGREE.</p><p>This article is about him signing this as something that requires only his signature, with no senators needed. Thanks for playing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you , uh , read that at all before you pasted it ? He [ the president ] shall have Power , by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate , to make Treaties , PROVIDED TWO THIRDS OF THE SENATORS PRESENT AGREE.This article is about him signing this as something that requires only his signature , with no senators needed .
Thanks for playing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you, uh, read that at all before you pasted it?He [the president] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, PROVIDED TWO THIRDS OF THE SENATORS PRESENT AGREE.This article is about him signing this as something that requires only his signature, with no senators needed.
Thanks for playing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639308</id>
	<title>Re:Uh, isn't that covered in the constitution alre</title>
	<author>I\_Voter</author>
	<datestamp>1269703920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>RE: Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution: The Supremacy Clause<br> <br>

The fact that fully ratified treaties have constitutional authority, became more significant to me when I discovered that President George H.W. Bush had signed something called The Copenhagen Document.<br> <br>

The Copenhagen Document of the Helsinki Accords states in part:<br>
(7.6) - respect the right of individuals and groups to establish, in full freedom, their own political parties or other political organizations and provide such political parties and organizations with the necessary legal guarantees to enable them to compete with each other on a basis of equal treatment before the law and by the authorities;..<br> <br>

I would love to have the Senate ratify it, and have that treaty become Constitutional law.<br>

See: Copenhagen Document<br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot\_access" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot\_access</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>RE : Article II , Section 2 of the US Constitution : The Supremacy Clause The fact that fully ratified treaties have constitutional authority , became more significant to me when I discovered that President George H.W .
Bush had signed something called The Copenhagen Document .
The Copenhagen Document of the Helsinki Accords states in part : ( 7.6 ) - respect the right of individuals and groups to establish , in full freedom , their own political parties or other political organizations and provide such political parties and organizations with the necessary legal guarantees to enable them to compete with each other on a basis of equal treatment before the law and by the authorities ; . . I would love to have the Senate ratify it , and have that treaty become Constitutional law .
See : Copenhagen Document http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot \ _access [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RE: Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution: The Supremacy Clause 

The fact that fully ratified treaties have constitutional authority, became more significant to me when I discovered that President George H.W.
Bush had signed something called The Copenhagen Document.
The Copenhagen Document of the Helsinki Accords states in part:
(7.6) - respect the right of individuals and groups to establish, in full freedom, their own political parties or other political organizations and provide such political parties and organizations with the necessary legal guarantees to enable them to compete with each other on a basis of equal treatment before the law and by the authorities;.. 

I would love to have the Senate ratify it, and have that treaty become Constitutional law.
See: Copenhagen Document
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot\_access [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639866</id>
	<title>acta</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269708420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny where were all these people when bush was using signing statements on all kind of shit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny where were all these people when bush was using signing statements on all kind of shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny where were all these people when bush was using signing statements on all kind of shit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638684</id>
	<title>Re:Uh, isn't that covered in the constitution alre</title>
	<author>MindlessAutomata</author>
	<datestamp>1269697260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is a "police action" (a la Vietnam) not a war?  Hairsplitting and semantic quibblings go far in the world of politics.  After all, nobody is more powerful than the politicians and courts themselves to challenge them, and so long as they give themselves the appearance of expertise and authority political consensus can do whatever the hell it wants.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is a " police action " ( a la Vietnam ) not a war ?
Hairsplitting and semantic quibblings go far in the world of politics .
After all , nobody is more powerful than the politicians and courts themselves to challenge them , and so long as they give themselves the appearance of expertise and authority political consensus can do whatever the hell it wants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is a "police action" (a la Vietnam) not a war?
Hairsplitting and semantic quibblings go far in the world of politics.
After all, nobody is more powerful than the politicians and courts themselves to challenge them, and so long as they give themselves the appearance of expertise and authority political consensus can do whatever the hell it wants.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638884</id>
	<title>Re:The Constitution</title>
	<author>DoofusOfDeath</author>
	<datestamp>1269699360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The sheer amount of 5-4 decisions on the court should indicate that the court makes political decisions, and not merely informed, unbiased interpretations of law.</p></div></blockquote><p>There's other evidence for that conclusion as well.  On NPR a few weeks ago, there was an interview with some guy who studies the SCOTUS.  He claimed that there have been numerous times that a Chief Justice bribed other Justices, who were on the fence, to rule the way he wanted them to, by offering to them the privilege of authoring the majority opinion in the ruling.</p><p>I that's true, I for one would like to see all Justices who engage in such a transaction hanged for treason.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The sheer amount of 5-4 decisions on the court should indicate that the court makes political decisions , and not merely informed , unbiased interpretations of law.There 's other evidence for that conclusion as well .
On NPR a few weeks ago , there was an interview with some guy who studies the SCOTUS .
He claimed that there have been numerous times that a Chief Justice bribed other Justices , who were on the fence , to rule the way he wanted them to , by offering to them the privilege of authoring the majority opinion in the ruling.I that 's true , I for one would like to see all Justices who engage in such a transaction hanged for treason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The sheer amount of 5-4 decisions on the court should indicate that the court makes political decisions, and not merely informed, unbiased interpretations of law.There's other evidence for that conclusion as well.
On NPR a few weeks ago, there was an interview with some guy who studies the SCOTUS.
He claimed that there have been numerous times that a Chief Justice bribed other Justices, who were on the fence, to rule the way he wanted them to, by offering to them the privilege of authoring the majority opinion in the ruling.I that's true, I for one would like to see all Justices who engage in such a transaction hanged for treason.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31640650</id>
	<title>So you think Congress will save us?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269712860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If ACTA passes as it is today, we are all going to be screwed. Keep up the pressure on your elected representatives.</p></div><p>Oh, and which party do you think is going to object to a stilted treaty that puts the desires of one of America's few export industries over the needs of petty citizens?  Democrats and Republicans are overwhelmingly in favor of stronger copyright.  No previous extension of the reach of copyright has faced major opposition.</p><p>Here's what will happen.  You'll get the bill before Congress.  Someone will motion for a voice vote.  With their hands washed clean, the bill will pass without any record to let us hold the people who voted for it responsible.  No muss, no fuss, and the only people who lose out are us little people.</p><p>That's how the Sonny Bono Act was passed.  That's how the DMCA was passed.  That's how this monstrosity will pass if it ever gets before Congress.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If ACTA passes as it is today , we are all going to be screwed .
Keep up the pressure on your elected representatives.Oh , and which party do you think is going to object to a stilted treaty that puts the desires of one of America 's few export industries over the needs of petty citizens ?
Democrats and Republicans are overwhelmingly in favor of stronger copyright .
No previous extension of the reach of copyright has faced major opposition.Here 's what will happen .
You 'll get the bill before Congress .
Someone will motion for a voice vote .
With their hands washed clean , the bill will pass without any record to let us hold the people who voted for it responsible .
No muss , no fuss , and the only people who lose out are us little people.That 's how the Sonny Bono Act was passed .
That 's how the DMCA was passed .
That 's how this monstrosity will pass if it ever gets before Congress .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If ACTA passes as it is today, we are all going to be screwed.
Keep up the pressure on your elected representatives.Oh, and which party do you think is going to object to a stilted treaty that puts the desires of one of America's few export industries over the needs of petty citizens?
Democrats and Republicans are overwhelmingly in favor of stronger copyright.
No previous extension of the reach of copyright has faced major opposition.Here's what will happen.
You'll get the bill before Congress.
Someone will motion for a voice vote.
With their hands washed clean, the bill will pass without any record to let us hold the people who voted for it responsible.
No muss, no fuss, and the only people who lose out are us little people.That's how the Sonny Bono Act was passed.
That's how the DMCA was passed.
That's how this monstrosity will pass if it ever gets before Congress.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31640664</id>
	<title>Re:So, who did you vote for again?</title>
	<author>Black Gold Alchemist</author>
	<datestamp>1269712920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hillary Clinton!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hillary Clinton ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hillary Clinton!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31642270</id>
	<title>Re:The people's will</title>
	<author>Garrett Fox</author>
	<datestamp>1269681600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Constitution is not the effective law of the land in the US anymore. Our leaders have stated that they have what Ms. Pelosi calls "essentially unlimited" power, and they express shock when asked what constitutional authority they have for their actions. <i>They do not believe themselves bound in any important way by the Constitution.</i> Maybe they think they can't outright kill citizens, but they do think they can take anything they want anytime they want. The government's actions make more sense if you read them that way.<br> <br>
The question is whether the Supreme Court is still willing to strike down blatantly illegal acts, or whether it's now owned by the "living Constitution" crowd that thinks the document is meaningless. (Based on recent case law, they're split about 4.5-4.5 on that point.) We're going to see that by 2014 or sooner because of the illegal, unprecedented federal health care mandate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Constitution is not the effective law of the land in the US anymore .
Our leaders have stated that they have what Ms. Pelosi calls " essentially unlimited " power , and they express shock when asked what constitutional authority they have for their actions .
They do not believe themselves bound in any important way by the Constitution .
Maybe they think they ca n't outright kill citizens , but they do think they can take anything they want anytime they want .
The government 's actions make more sense if you read them that way .
The question is whether the Supreme Court is still willing to strike down blatantly illegal acts , or whether it 's now owned by the " living Constitution " crowd that thinks the document is meaningless .
( Based on recent case law , they 're split about 4.5-4.5 on that point .
) We 're going to see that by 2014 or sooner because of the illegal , unprecedented federal health care mandate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Constitution is not the effective law of the land in the US anymore.
Our leaders have stated that they have what Ms. Pelosi calls "essentially unlimited" power, and they express shock when asked what constitutional authority they have for their actions.
They do not believe themselves bound in any important way by the Constitution.
Maybe they think they can't outright kill citizens, but they do think they can take anything they want anytime they want.
The government's actions make more sense if you read them that way.
The question is whether the Supreme Court is still willing to strike down blatantly illegal acts, or whether it's now owned by the "living Constitution" crowd that thinks the document is meaningless.
(Based on recent case law, they're split about 4.5-4.5 on that point.
) We're going to see that by 2014 or sooner because of the illegal, unprecedented federal health care mandate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638664</id>
	<title>The Constitution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269697020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Appeals to the Constitution are not necessary.  Modern political thought is wishy-washy on the Constitution--it's something to trot out as a convenience if it agrees with you, but also safely ignored if the Constitution runs contrary to your agenda.  And, hell, whose to say you can't just reinterpret it through a postmodern perspective (as a "living document")?</p><p>The sheer amount of 5-4 decisions on the court should indicate that the court makes political decisions, and not merely informed, unbiased interpretations of law.  The fears, wants, desires, and agendas of the judges affect constitution rules moreso than whatever the constitution itself says.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Appeals to the Constitution are not necessary .
Modern political thought is wishy-washy on the Constitution--it 's something to trot out as a convenience if it agrees with you , but also safely ignored if the Constitution runs contrary to your agenda .
And , hell , whose to say you ca n't just reinterpret it through a postmodern perspective ( as a " living document " ) ? The sheer amount of 5-4 decisions on the court should indicate that the court makes political decisions , and not merely informed , unbiased interpretations of law .
The fears , wants , desires , and agendas of the judges affect constitution rules moreso than whatever the constitution itself says .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Appeals to the Constitution are not necessary.
Modern political thought is wishy-washy on the Constitution--it's something to trot out as a convenience if it agrees with you, but also safely ignored if the Constitution runs contrary to your agenda.
And, hell, whose to say you can't just reinterpret it through a postmodern perspective (as a "living document")?The sheer amount of 5-4 decisions on the court should indicate that the court makes political decisions, and not merely informed, unbiased interpretations of law.
The fears, wants, desires, and agendas of the judges affect constitution rules moreso than whatever the constitution itself says.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31655318</id>
	<title>Re:It will be against many Constitutions</title>
	<author>rdnetto</author>
	<datestamp>1269867180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sadly, it would be against the Australian constitution. Few people know this (outside of law circles), but we actually don't have an equivalent of the Bill of Rights. Each state has a charter of sorts, but it's on the same level as a statute so it's easily overridden. There's been talk of putting a Bill of Rights into the constitution, but I don't see it happening in time to save us for ACTA<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly , it would be against the Australian constitution .
Few people know this ( outside of law circles ) , but we actually do n't have an equivalent of the Bill of Rights .
Each state has a charter of sorts , but it 's on the same level as a statute so it 's easily overridden .
There 's been talk of putting a Bill of Rights into the constitution , but I do n't see it happening in time to save us for ACTA : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly, it would be against the Australian constitution.
Few people know this (outside of law circles), but we actually don't have an equivalent of the Bill of Rights.
Each state has a charter of sorts, but it's on the same level as a statute so it's easily overridden.
There's been talk of putting a Bill of Rights into the constitution, but I don't see it happening in time to save us for ACTA :(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638678</id>
	<title>Rule by proclaimation?</title>
	<author>mrmeval</author>
	<datestamp>1269697080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do we need a new revolution?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do we need a new revolution ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do we need a new revolution?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638654</id>
	<title>Uh, isn't that covered in the constitution already</title>
	<author>Rich0</author>
	<datestamp>1269696720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, let's read Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution:</p><blockquote><div><p>He [the president] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;</p></div></blockquote><p>So, how is a trade agreement not a treaty?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , let 's read Article II , Section 2 of the US Constitution : He [ the president ] shall have Power , by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate , to make Treaties , provided two thirds of the Senators present concur ; So , how is a trade agreement not a treaty ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, let's read Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution:He [the president] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;So, how is a trade agreement not a treaty?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639638</id>
	<title>The more I see of Obama...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269706620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The more I see of Obama, the more I want him impeached.<br>I feel like I made a BIG MISTAKE voting for the guy.</p><p>Like many people, I laughed at the right wing hysterics as mindless wharrgarbl, but this guy seems to be taking it upon himself to trample the constitution even more than Bush did. And while the Bush administration might have lied and cheated their way through getting Congress and the UN to back the Iraq war, at least they followed protocol and used proper channels.</p><p>The fact that Obama's health care plan took his promise for single payer universal coverage and turned it into a socialized cash-cow for insurance corporations with a unique provision forcing us to buy coverage or pay a "tax-penalty" and seeing him now trying to claim some sort of dictatorial power to force ACTA down our throats is startling. This is the second time he's taken a decidedly pro-corporate and potentially anti-consumer stance.</p><p>What next? Declaring we will get lower media prices and be allowed to use P2P freely without persecution, but must buy x-amount of MP3s, CDs and DVDs a month or pay a "tax" penalty? While it remains to be seen, I think the HCR Bill will prove to be the first of many attempts to socialize industry while forcing citizens to buy from or otherwise subsidize those industries with their non-taxed dollars.</p><p>Frankly, I think this direction he's taken towards establishing a socialized corporate state is alarming and a serious threat to our civil liberties.<br>It could quite literally end up making US citizen's indentured servants to corporations by levying "mandates" to force us to spend our non-taxed dollars on corporate goods and services. And while this may sound unprecedented and extreme, so have been the actions of Obama in regards to the HCR BIll and ACTA.</p><p>At the minimum, I think Obama needs to stand up and make his intentions clear. Why is he so adamant about ACTA? How can he declare victory with the HCR when it seems all he did was take away the socialist system he promised the PEOPLE and gave it to the corporations who have an obvious conflict of interest and have been little more than foxes guarding the henhouse? Obama's been great when it comes to grandstanding with photo ops and buzzwords. But what about a truly informative statement about his intentions with these brazenly pro-corporate endeavors?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The more I see of Obama , the more I want him impeached.I feel like I made a BIG MISTAKE voting for the guy.Like many people , I laughed at the right wing hysterics as mindless wharrgarbl , but this guy seems to be taking it upon himself to trample the constitution even more than Bush did .
And while the Bush administration might have lied and cheated their way through getting Congress and the UN to back the Iraq war , at least they followed protocol and used proper channels.The fact that Obama 's health care plan took his promise for single payer universal coverage and turned it into a socialized cash-cow for insurance corporations with a unique provision forcing us to buy coverage or pay a " tax-penalty " and seeing him now trying to claim some sort of dictatorial power to force ACTA down our throats is startling .
This is the second time he 's taken a decidedly pro-corporate and potentially anti-consumer stance.What next ?
Declaring we will get lower media prices and be allowed to use P2P freely without persecution , but must buy x-amount of MP3s , CDs and DVDs a month or pay a " tax " penalty ?
While it remains to be seen , I think the HCR Bill will prove to be the first of many attempts to socialize industry while forcing citizens to buy from or otherwise subsidize those industries with their non-taxed dollars.Frankly , I think this direction he 's taken towards establishing a socialized corporate state is alarming and a serious threat to our civil liberties.It could quite literally end up making US citizen 's indentured servants to corporations by levying " mandates " to force us to spend our non-taxed dollars on corporate goods and services .
And while this may sound unprecedented and extreme , so have been the actions of Obama in regards to the HCR BIll and ACTA.At the minimum , I think Obama needs to stand up and make his intentions clear .
Why is he so adamant about ACTA ?
How can he declare victory with the HCR when it seems all he did was take away the socialist system he promised the PEOPLE and gave it to the corporations who have an obvious conflict of interest and have been little more than foxes guarding the henhouse ?
Obama 's been great when it comes to grandstanding with photo ops and buzzwords .
But what about a truly informative statement about his intentions with these brazenly pro-corporate endeavors ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The more I see of Obama, the more I want him impeached.I feel like I made a BIG MISTAKE voting for the guy.Like many people, I laughed at the right wing hysterics as mindless wharrgarbl, but this guy seems to be taking it upon himself to trample the constitution even more than Bush did.
And while the Bush administration might have lied and cheated their way through getting Congress and the UN to back the Iraq war, at least they followed protocol and used proper channels.The fact that Obama's health care plan took his promise for single payer universal coverage and turned it into a socialized cash-cow for insurance corporations with a unique provision forcing us to buy coverage or pay a "tax-penalty" and seeing him now trying to claim some sort of dictatorial power to force ACTA down our throats is startling.
This is the second time he's taken a decidedly pro-corporate and potentially anti-consumer stance.What next?
Declaring we will get lower media prices and be allowed to use P2P freely without persecution, but must buy x-amount of MP3s, CDs and DVDs a month or pay a "tax" penalty?
While it remains to be seen, I think the HCR Bill will prove to be the first of many attempts to socialize industry while forcing citizens to buy from or otherwise subsidize those industries with their non-taxed dollars.Frankly, I think this direction he's taken towards establishing a socialized corporate state is alarming and a serious threat to our civil liberties.It could quite literally end up making US citizen's indentured servants to corporations by levying "mandates" to force us to spend our non-taxed dollars on corporate goods and services.
And while this may sound unprecedented and extreme, so have been the actions of Obama in regards to the HCR BIll and ACTA.At the minimum, I think Obama needs to stand up and make his intentions clear.
Why is he so adamant about ACTA?
How can he declare victory with the HCR when it seems all he did was take away the socialist system he promised the PEOPLE and gave it to the corporations who have an obvious conflict of interest and have been little more than foxes guarding the henhouse?
Obama's been great when it comes to grandstanding with photo ops and buzzwords.
But what about a truly informative statement about his intentions with these brazenly pro-corporate endeavors?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639348</id>
	<title>Re:The Living Constitution</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1269704100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I sure hope you were bitching this much when the Patriot Act was instituted, Guantanamo was opened and the President was handing out Executive Orders like they were candy.</p><p>Any document is a living document, because the use of language changes. It is absolutely impossible to interpret any document in the same exact that a completely different group of people interpreted it 200 years ago. Heck, we can't even agree on what documents exactly say that were written 2 weeks ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I sure hope you were bitching this much when the Patriot Act was instituted , Guantanamo was opened and the President was handing out Executive Orders like they were candy.Any document is a living document , because the use of language changes .
It is absolutely impossible to interpret any document in the same exact that a completely different group of people interpreted it 200 years ago .
Heck , we ca n't even agree on what documents exactly say that were written 2 weeks ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I sure hope you were bitching this much when the Patriot Act was instituted, Guantanamo was opened and the President was handing out Executive Orders like they were candy.Any document is a living document, because the use of language changes.
It is absolutely impossible to interpret any document in the same exact that a completely different group of people interpreted it 200 years ago.
Heck, we can't even agree on what documents exactly say that were written 2 weeks ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638726</id>
	<title>Change is Coming?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269697800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not a surprise at all. Conservatives were more than willing to cheer as their rights "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" were destroyed by the Patriot act as long as the party in power had the right letter in parenthesis as they talked about it.<p>
Liberals are dancing in joy about a law that confiscates wealth from all citizens to give to the insurance companies as long as we call them evil as will fill their pockets. I suspect no complaints from them about this attack on the Constitution because it is 'their guy' doing the attacking.
</p><p>
The answer is certainly not moderates who a are pretty much happy to give up any right as long as you do it slowly.</p><p>
Enjoy the scenery on the road to serfdom because when we get there, I think we will find that the collectivist paradise promised by the political elite will leave us wishing were we are the promised land of the "South of the Border" tourist trap. Hopefully we will at least get a nice bumper sticker out of the deal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not a surprise at all .
Conservatives were more than willing to cheer as their rights " to be secure in their persons , houses , papers , and effects , against unreasonable searches and seizures " were destroyed by the Patriot act as long as the party in power had the right letter in parenthesis as they talked about it .
Liberals are dancing in joy about a law that confiscates wealth from all citizens to give to the insurance companies as long as we call them evil as will fill their pockets .
I suspect no complaints from them about this attack on the Constitution because it is 'their guy ' doing the attacking .
The answer is certainly not moderates who a are pretty much happy to give up any right as long as you do it slowly .
Enjoy the scenery on the road to serfdom because when we get there , I think we will find that the collectivist paradise promised by the political elite will leave us wishing were we are the promised land of the " South of the Border " tourist trap .
Hopefully we will at least get a nice bumper sticker out of the deal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not a surprise at all.
Conservatives were more than willing to cheer as their rights "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" were destroyed by the Patriot act as long as the party in power had the right letter in parenthesis as they talked about it.
Liberals are dancing in joy about a law that confiscates wealth from all citizens to give to the insurance companies as long as we call them evil as will fill their pockets.
I suspect no complaints from them about this attack on the Constitution because it is 'their guy' doing the attacking.
The answer is certainly not moderates who a are pretty much happy to give up any right as long as you do it slowly.
Enjoy the scenery on the road to serfdom because when we get there, I think we will find that the collectivist paradise promised by the political elite will leave us wishing were we are the promised land of the "South of the Border" tourist trap.
Hopefully we will at least get a nice bumper sticker out of the deal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31646888</id>
	<title>Dictatorship</title>
	<author>psyph3r</author>
	<datestamp>1269787560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apparently the president is dictating that America should sign a treaty that directly violates the constitution. Checks and balances would normally kick in....but no. There is something fundamentally wrong with our society(US) at the moment. I just hope we snap out of it before we go over the falls. I fear I might already feel that moment when you adjust to the sensation of gravity fading away.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently the president is dictating that America should sign a treaty that directly violates the constitution .
Checks and balances would normally kick in....but no .
There is something fundamentally wrong with our society ( US ) at the moment .
I just hope we snap out of it before we go over the falls .
I fear I might already feel that moment when you adjust to the sensation of gravity fading away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently the president is dictating that America should sign a treaty that directly violates the constitution.
Checks and balances would normally kick in....but no.
There is something fundamentally wrong with our society(US) at the moment.
I just hope we snap out of it before we go over the falls.
I fear I might already feel that moment when you adjust to the sensation of gravity fading away.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31642040</id>
	<title>It IS unconstitutional.</title>
	<author>crhylove</author>
	<datestamp>1269722940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Freedom of Speech should be limited for no reason.  Even screaming fire in a theater should be allowed.  Of course that theater may choose to ban that patron, and that should also be a freedom that we the people possess.  ACTA is clearly just large corporations continually attempting to subvert all human liberty, again.  It is disgusting.  Obama et al are no better than any of the puss bags we've "elected" since they shot JFK in the face:</p><p>Corporate whore,<br>Liar,<br>Charlatan,<br>Anti-Liberty,<br>Anti-Free market (pro monopoly!),<br>Anti-Privacy (Warrantless Wiretapping, Patriot Act).....</p><p>I could go on and on, but Obama lied about EVERY campaign promise, just like every president has since JFK got shot in the face.  Troops out of Afghanistan?  Nope.  Troops out of Iraq?  Nope.  Repeal Patriot Act.  Nope, Extend!! End warrantless wiretapping?  Nope, even make it impossible to prosecute any of the guilty parties!</p><p>Fuck Obama.  Fuck him and every other politician that acts in the interests in the corporations, not the people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Freedom of Speech should be limited for no reason .
Even screaming fire in a theater should be allowed .
Of course that theater may choose to ban that patron , and that should also be a freedom that we the people possess .
ACTA is clearly just large corporations continually attempting to subvert all human liberty , again .
It is disgusting .
Obama et al are no better than any of the puss bags we 've " elected " since they shot JFK in the face : Corporate whore,Liar,Charlatan,Anti-Liberty,Anti-Free market ( pro monopoly !
) ,Anti-Privacy ( Warrantless Wiretapping , Patriot Act ) .....I could go on and on , but Obama lied about EVERY campaign promise , just like every president has since JFK got shot in the face .
Troops out of Afghanistan ?
Nope. Troops out of Iraq ?
Nope. Repeal Patriot Act .
Nope , Extend ! !
End warrantless wiretapping ?
Nope , even make it impossible to prosecute any of the guilty parties ! Fuck Obama .
Fuck him and every other politician that acts in the interests in the corporations , not the people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Freedom of Speech should be limited for no reason.
Even screaming fire in a theater should be allowed.
Of course that theater may choose to ban that patron, and that should also be a freedom that we the people possess.
ACTA is clearly just large corporations continually attempting to subvert all human liberty, again.
It is disgusting.
Obama et al are no better than any of the puss bags we've "elected" since they shot JFK in the face:Corporate whore,Liar,Charlatan,Anti-Liberty,Anti-Free market (pro monopoly!
),Anti-Privacy (Warrantless Wiretapping, Patriot Act).....I could go on and on, but Obama lied about EVERY campaign promise, just like every president has since JFK got shot in the face.
Troops out of Afghanistan?
Nope.  Troops out of Iraq?
Nope.  Repeal Patriot Act.
Nope, Extend!!
End warrantless wiretapping?
Nope, even make it impossible to prosecute any of the guilty parties!Fuck Obama.
Fuck him and every other politician that acts in the interests in the corporations, not the people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639850</id>
	<title>i say...</title>
	<author>hitmark</author>
	<datestamp>1269708300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that USA is the nation with the least to worry about from ACTA. Mostly because its various "piracy" additions come from USA in the first place, and is mostly about exporting DMCA to other nations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that USA is the nation with the least to worry about from ACTA .
Mostly because its various " piracy " additions come from USA in the first place , and is mostly about exporting DMCA to other nations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that USA is the nation with the least to worry about from ACTA.
Mostly because its various "piracy" additions come from USA in the first place, and is mostly about exporting DMCA to other nations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638748</id>
	<title>So,,,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269697980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't stop him and his puppets from passing the unconstitutional HCR bill.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't stop him and his puppets from passing the unconstitutional HCR bill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't stop him and his puppets from passing the unconstitutional HCR bill.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31641336</id>
	<title>Re:So, who did you vote for again?</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1269717540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mp&gt;That's not really fair. The kind of stuff that Obama promised to deliver, which was within his power to do so, he's doing. Like healthcare legislation.
<p>Back during the last campaign season, there was a petition going around asking Obama \_NOT\_ to grant telecoms immunity for their handling of warrantless data requests. He gave it to them in spite of the desires of his constituency. And now, he's likely going to sign ACTA into law, executive decree, or whatever.
</p><p>Both of the above are examples of lawmaking under pressure from some very influential interest groups. Obama granted the telecoms immunity, but there were no candidates who would not have done so. And ACTA will be implemented regardless of who is sitting in the White House or Congress. Both of these initiatives have a lot more at stake than healthcare does. And they have some very wealthy backers that threaten to wreak havoc on any or all politicians' careers who don't give them what they want. That's pressure that no politician can resist.
</p><p>Interestingly enough, as with telecom immunity, ACTA is quietly being backed by interests that are trying to stay out of court (or maybe even jail). Not just the motion picture and recording industry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mp &gt; That 's not really fair .
The kind of stuff that Obama promised to deliver , which was within his power to do so , he 's doing .
Like healthcare legislation .
Back during the last campaign season , there was a petition going around asking Obama \ _NOT \ _ to grant telecoms immunity for their handling of warrantless data requests .
He gave it to them in spite of the desires of his constituency .
And now , he 's likely going to sign ACTA into law , executive decree , or whatever .
Both of the above are examples of lawmaking under pressure from some very influential interest groups .
Obama granted the telecoms immunity , but there were no candidates who would not have done so .
And ACTA will be implemented regardless of who is sitting in the White House or Congress .
Both of these initiatives have a lot more at stake than healthcare does .
And they have some very wealthy backers that threaten to wreak havoc on any or all politicians ' careers who do n't give them what they want .
That 's pressure that no politician can resist .
Interestingly enough , as with telecom immunity , ACTA is quietly being backed by interests that are trying to stay out of court ( or maybe even jail ) .
Not just the motion picture and recording industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mp&gt;That's not really fair.
The kind of stuff that Obama promised to deliver, which was within his power to do so, he's doing.
Like healthcare legislation.
Back during the last campaign season, there was a petition going around asking Obama \_NOT\_ to grant telecoms immunity for their handling of warrantless data requests.
He gave it to them in spite of the desires of his constituency.
And now, he's likely going to sign ACTA into law, executive decree, or whatever.
Both of the above are examples of lawmaking under pressure from some very influential interest groups.
Obama granted the telecoms immunity, but there were no candidates who would not have done so.
And ACTA will be implemented regardless of who is sitting in the White House or Congress.
Both of these initiatives have a lot more at stake than healthcare does.
And they have some very wealthy backers that threaten to wreak havoc on any or all politicians' careers who don't give them what they want.
That's pressure that no politician can resist.
Interestingly enough, as with telecom immunity, ACTA is quietly being backed by interests that are trying to stay out of court (or maybe even jail).
Not just the motion picture and recording industry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638760</id>
	<title>To paraphrase the Obamanator himself...</title>
	<author>zarmanto</author>
	<datestamp>1269698100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So what we're saying here is that this is <i>above his paygrade...</i> right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So what we 're saying here is that this is above his paygrade... right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what we're saying here is that this is above his paygrade... right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638604</id>
	<title>The people's will</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269696120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obama won the election and represents the will of the people. He can do what he wants. That's democracy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama won the election and represents the will of the people .
He can do what he wants .
That 's democracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama won the election and represents the will of the people.
He can do what he wants.
That's democracy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31642760</id>
	<title>Civil War</title>
	<author>headkase</author>
	<datestamp>1269685380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You Americans have the beginnings of civil war on your hands...  I'm not kidding: the raping and pillaging of your nation is beginning to bite even ordinary people in the ass.  When that happens all it will take is for some kook to fire a potshot at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination\_of\_Archduke\_Franz\_Ferdinand\_of\_Austria" title="wikipedia.org">Ferdinand</a> [wikipedia.org] and watch it snowball from there.  This'll be interesting, first time of a civil war with a nation that has nuclear weapons.  Perhaps your military should just sequester them?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You Americans have the beginnings of civil war on your hands... I 'm not kidding : the raping and pillaging of your nation is beginning to bite even ordinary people in the ass .
When that happens all it will take is for some kook to fire a potshot at Ferdinand [ wikipedia.org ] and watch it snowball from there .
This 'll be interesting , first time of a civil war with a nation that has nuclear weapons .
Perhaps your military should just sequester them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You Americans have the beginnings of civil war on your hands...  I'm not kidding: the raping and pillaging of your nation is beginning to bite even ordinary people in the ass.
When that happens all it will take is for some kook to fire a potshot at Ferdinand [wikipedia.org] and watch it snowball from there.
This'll be interesting, first time of a civil war with a nation that has nuclear weapons.
Perhaps your military should just sequester them?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639140</id>
	<title>Re:So, who did you vote for again?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269701940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If one were to take a time machine back to October 2008 and show them an article dated 2010 labeled "President claims power to implement agreement by executive fiat" or some such thing, you'd think that obviously McCain won, right?</p><p>Just more evidence that Obama = Bush.</p></div><p>With all due respect, and with as much restraint from trolling you as possible... I have a simple question for you:</p><p>Do you honestly believe that any of the presidential candidates (not counting the libertarian ones) would act in a significantly different manner on this issue? In other words, do you believe that members of the Republican or Democrat parties won't bow before the pressure of large, copyright-vested companies?</p><p>Waiting for your honest reply.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If one were to take a time machine back to October 2008 and show them an article dated 2010 labeled " President claims power to implement agreement by executive fiat " or some such thing , you 'd think that obviously McCain won , right ? Just more evidence that Obama = Bush.With all due respect , and with as much restraint from trolling you as possible... I have a simple question for you : Do you honestly believe that any of the presidential candidates ( not counting the libertarian ones ) would act in a significantly different manner on this issue ?
In other words , do you believe that members of the Republican or Democrat parties wo n't bow before the pressure of large , copyright-vested companies ? Waiting for your honest reply .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If one were to take a time machine back to October 2008 and show them an article dated 2010 labeled "President claims power to implement agreement by executive fiat" or some such thing, you'd think that obviously McCain won, right?Just more evidence that Obama = Bush.With all due respect, and with as much restraint from trolling you as possible... I have a simple question for you:Do you honestly believe that any of the presidential candidates (not counting the libertarian ones) would act in a significantly different manner on this issue?
In other words, do you believe that members of the Republican or Democrat parties won't bow before the pressure of large, copyright-vested companies?Waiting for your honest reply.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639520</id>
	<title>Bad idea</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1269705540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mr. President, do you *want* to drive geeks to joining the teabagger Republicans?</p><p>There's enough crap on the internet about your <em>imaginary</em> violations of the Constitution that you should probably avoid actually violating it.</p><p>Sign ACTA and I'll de-friend you on Facebook. No, really.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mr. President , do you * want * to drive geeks to joining the teabagger Republicans ? There 's enough crap on the internet about your imaginary violations of the Constitution that you should probably avoid actually violating it.Sign ACTA and I 'll de-friend you on Facebook .
No , really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mr. President, do you *want* to drive geeks to joining the teabagger Republicans?There's enough crap on the internet about your imaginary violations of the Constitution that you should probably avoid actually violating it.Sign ACTA and I'll de-friend you on Facebook.
No, really.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638808</id>
	<title>So, who did you vote for again?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269698640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If one were to take a time machine back to October 2008 and show them an article dated 2010 labeled "President claims power to implement agreement by executive fiat" or some such thing, you'd think that obviously McCain won, right?</p><p>Just more evidence that Obama = Bush.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If one were to take a time machine back to October 2008 and show them an article dated 2010 labeled " President claims power to implement agreement by executive fiat " or some such thing , you 'd think that obviously McCain won , right ? Just more evidence that Obama = Bush .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If one were to take a time machine back to October 2008 and show them an article dated 2010 labeled "President claims power to implement agreement by executive fiat" or some such thing, you'd think that obviously McCain won, right?Just more evidence that Obama = Bush.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31641332</id>
	<title>American Democracy Prime:</title>
	<author>Upaut</author>
	<datestamp>1269717480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>A few people seem to have forgotten how Democracy works in this country, as is lined out by our constitution:<br> <br>
First we have the Soap Box (The right to peaceably assemble, freedom of speech, etc.)<br> <br>Then we have the Mail Box (The protection of out letters, as well as the ability to write to our representatives in the government and tell them our views.) <br> <br> Then we have the Ballot Box (The electoral college, voting in senators and representatives that agree with your ideals, etc, in case the previous representatives did not work to your needs.)<br> <br>Then we have the Jury Box, (Where we can vote that a law or enforcement of a law is unjust. You do not have to vote guilty if a law is broken, you can vote towards nullification... True the courts are trying to ignore this right whenever possible, but we still have it. If you have jury duty, and think cannabis should be legal, and you are sitting in a trial for a non-violent offense of a guy growing pot for his friends and not receiving cash -as example, easier to convince the rest of them with this one- then remind the rest of the jurors that here and now you can work to end the prosecution of cannabis, and work to end the laws.... If you vote together, then he goes free despite being guilty of that law. There will be appeals, and the law will be reinforced by a jury of judges, but if that happens "every" time, the law will eventually be removed.)<br> <br>And then we have our right of last resort: The Ammo Box.... (The second amendment is not your right to go deer hunting with a rocket launcher, it is your right to not only bear arms, but to be trained in militias to use them. Until recently, many people would keep weapons from the war in their garage, thinking nothing else of them.... Someone on the block maintained his cannon from the war in his garage, just in case he was called again. But the second amendment as viewed by the author of it, George Mason, was to protect us from the threat of an overreaching government that no longer listens, or works for, the People. -"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."  Now, if you really want to be patriotic, gather every able bodied friend you have, and organize a militia. Train together, express your desire to protect your town if those damn Canadians invade, or the British come back.... Or anything really. And, worst case, should America turn against Americans, you now have the last line of defense to bring the power back to the people. But at that point, its not about letters anymore. Its about being willing to die for your fellow American. Because there are good chances you will. You will die for your beliefs, and kill other Americans, the soldiers and such, before you fall. You better have noble reasons in your heart, and know that true, because your group will either be a rallying point for all others, or you will be wiped out, vilified by all, and forgotten. <br> <br> Then we have the Dirt Box (Re-hash of the Freedom of speech and press. The government does not have the right to hush out and kill an idea, and it gets harder all the time. Did we use these boxes in full in our lives? Will our actions and causes be remembered? Did we print and write and spread our thoughts like seeds into the wind, or was the most we did in life amount to a few +5 posts on Slashdot? Or did we manage to stop the corporatocracy, and bring back the Democratic Republic that we hold dear? Did we put a few extra term limits on each level of government, so that we will not just become a plutocracy in most things again? Where rick lawyers can no longer "retire" into a lifetime of politics- preserving the institutions that make lawyers rich in the first place? If you want to have a better system of health care, stop electing politicians that are former malpractice lawyers.... Lawyers will always make sure lawyers are needed in the future. If you don't like ambulance chasers, don't think he will do better running you local governmental institution.....<br> <br>And thats our government in a nutshell. If you don't like something, write down what you want to happen, start collecting signatures; even if it means missing the new episode of House you want to watch.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A few people seem to have forgotten how Democracy works in this country , as is lined out by our constitution : First we have the Soap Box ( The right to peaceably assemble , freedom of speech , etc .
) Then we have the Mail Box ( The protection of out letters , as well as the ability to write to our representatives in the government and tell them our views .
) Then we have the Ballot Box ( The electoral college , voting in senators and representatives that agree with your ideals , etc , in case the previous representatives did not work to your needs .
) Then we have the Jury Box , ( Where we can vote that a law or enforcement of a law is unjust .
You do not have to vote guilty if a law is broken , you can vote towards nullification... True the courts are trying to ignore this right whenever possible , but we still have it .
If you have jury duty , and think cannabis should be legal , and you are sitting in a trial for a non-violent offense of a guy growing pot for his friends and not receiving cash -as example , easier to convince the rest of them with this one- then remind the rest of the jurors that here and now you can work to end the prosecution of cannabis , and work to end the laws.... If you vote together , then he goes free despite being guilty of that law .
There will be appeals , and the law will be reinforced by a jury of judges , but if that happens " every " time , the law will eventually be removed .
) And then we have our right of last resort : The Ammo Box.... ( The second amendment is not your right to go deer hunting with a rocket launcher , it is your right to not only bear arms , but to be trained in militias to use them .
Until recently , many people would keep weapons from the war in their garage , thinking nothing else of them.... Someone on the block maintained his cannon from the war in his garage , just in case he was called again .
But the second amendment as viewed by the author of it , George Mason , was to protect us from the threat of an overreaching government that no longer listens , or works for , the People .
- " I ask , Sir , what is the militia ?
It is the whole people .
To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them .
" Now , if you really want to be patriotic , gather every able bodied friend you have , and organize a militia .
Train together , express your desire to protect your town if those damn Canadians invade , or the British come back.... Or anything really .
And , worst case , should America turn against Americans , you now have the last line of defense to bring the power back to the people .
But at that point , its not about letters anymore .
Its about being willing to die for your fellow American .
Because there are good chances you will .
You will die for your beliefs , and kill other Americans , the soldiers and such , before you fall .
You better have noble reasons in your heart , and know that true , because your group will either be a rallying point for all others , or you will be wiped out , vilified by all , and forgotten .
Then we have the Dirt Box ( Re-hash of the Freedom of speech and press .
The government does not have the right to hush out and kill an idea , and it gets harder all the time .
Did we use these boxes in full in our lives ?
Will our actions and causes be remembered ?
Did we print and write and spread our thoughts like seeds into the wind , or was the most we did in life amount to a few + 5 posts on Slashdot ?
Or did we manage to stop the corporatocracy , and bring back the Democratic Republic that we hold dear ?
Did we put a few extra term limits on each level of government , so that we will not just become a plutocracy in most things again ?
Where rick lawyers can no longer " retire " into a lifetime of politics- preserving the institutions that make lawyers rich in the first place ?
If you want to have a better system of health care , stop electing politicians that are former malpractice lawyers.... Lawyers will always make sure lawyers are needed in the future .
If you do n't like ambulance chasers , do n't think he will do better running you local governmental institution..... And thats our government in a nutshell .
If you do n't like something , write down what you want to happen , start collecting signatures ; even if it means missing the new episode of House you want to watch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A few people seem to have forgotten how Democracy works in this country, as is lined out by our constitution: 
First we have the Soap Box (The right to peaceably assemble, freedom of speech, etc.
) Then we have the Mail Box (The protection of out letters, as well as the ability to write to our representatives in the government and tell them our views.
)   Then we have the Ballot Box (The electoral college, voting in senators and representatives that agree with your ideals, etc, in case the previous representatives did not work to your needs.
) Then we have the Jury Box, (Where we can vote that a law or enforcement of a law is unjust.
You do not have to vote guilty if a law is broken, you can vote towards nullification... True the courts are trying to ignore this right whenever possible, but we still have it.
If you have jury duty, and think cannabis should be legal, and you are sitting in a trial for a non-violent offense of a guy growing pot for his friends and not receiving cash -as example, easier to convince the rest of them with this one- then remind the rest of the jurors that here and now you can work to end the prosecution of cannabis, and work to end the laws.... If you vote together, then he goes free despite being guilty of that law.
There will be appeals, and the law will be reinforced by a jury of judges, but if that happens "every" time, the law will eventually be removed.
) And then we have our right of last resort: The Ammo Box.... (The second amendment is not your right to go deer hunting with a rocket launcher, it is your right to not only bear arms, but to be trained in militias to use them.
Until recently, many people would keep weapons from the war in their garage, thinking nothing else of them.... Someone on the block maintained his cannon from the war in his garage, just in case he was called again.
But the second amendment as viewed by the author of it, George Mason, was to protect us from the threat of an overreaching government that no longer listens, or works for, the People.
-"I ask, Sir, what is the militia?
It is the whole people.
To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.
"  Now, if you really want to be patriotic, gather every able bodied friend you have, and organize a militia.
Train together, express your desire to protect your town if those damn Canadians invade, or the British come back.... Or anything really.
And, worst case, should America turn against Americans, you now have the last line of defense to bring the power back to the people.
But at that point, its not about letters anymore.
Its about being willing to die for your fellow American.
Because there are good chances you will.
You will die for your beliefs, and kill other Americans, the soldiers and such, before you fall.
You better have noble reasons in your heart, and know that true, because your group will either be a rallying point for all others, or you will be wiped out, vilified by all, and forgotten.
Then we have the Dirt Box (Re-hash of the Freedom of speech and press.
The government does not have the right to hush out and kill an idea, and it gets harder all the time.
Did we use these boxes in full in our lives?
Will our actions and causes be remembered?
Did we print and write and spread our thoughts like seeds into the wind, or was the most we did in life amount to a few +5 posts on Slashdot?
Or did we manage to stop the corporatocracy, and bring back the Democratic Republic that we hold dear?
Did we put a few extra term limits on each level of government, so that we will not just become a plutocracy in most things again?
Where rick lawyers can no longer "retire" into a lifetime of politics- preserving the institutions that make lawyers rich in the first place?
If you want to have a better system of health care, stop electing politicians that are former malpractice lawyers.... Lawyers will always make sure lawyers are needed in the future.
If you don't like ambulance chasers, don't think he will do better running you local governmental institution..... And thats our government in a nutshell.
If you don't like something, write down what you want to happen, start collecting signatures; even if it means missing the new episode of House you want to watch.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31644152</id>
	<title>Re:The Living Constitution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269699960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>#1 is thought to have been a paraphrase on this:</p><p>This exact quotation has not been found in any of the writings of Thomas Jefferson. It bears a very vague resemblance to Jefferson's comment in a prospectus for his translation of Destutt de Tracy's Treatise on Political Economy: "To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, &lsquo;the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, &amp; the fruits acquired by it."</p><p>http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/The\_democracy\_will\_cease\_to\_exist</p><p>FDR did horrible things to the Constitution and "progressives" haven't stopped since. He was going to try and change the SCOTUS "pack the court" because they were against his plans. In the end, the SCOTUS sided with FDR but one quote from a justice at time is very telling and I am paraphrasing myself here "We voted today against the constitution to save the court". They should never have had to do that.</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_switch\_in\_time\_that\_saved\_nine</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext># 1 is thought to have been a paraphrase on this : This exact quotation has not been found in any of the writings of Thomas Jefferson .
It bears a very vague resemblance to Jefferson 's comment in a prospectus for his translation of Destutt de Tracy 's Treatise on Political Economy : " To take from one , because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much , in order to spare to others , who , or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill , is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association ,    the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry , &amp; the fruits acquired by it .
" http : //wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/The \ _democracy \ _will \ _cease \ _to \ _existFDR did horrible things to the Constitution and " progressives " have n't stopped since .
He was going to try and change the SCOTUS " pack the court " because they were against his plans .
In the end , the SCOTUS sided with FDR but one quote from a justice at time is very telling and I am paraphrasing myself here " We voted today against the constitution to save the court " .
They should never have had to do that.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The \ _switch \ _in \ _time \ _that \ _saved \ _nine</tokentext>
<sentencetext>#1 is thought to have been a paraphrase on this:This exact quotation has not been found in any of the writings of Thomas Jefferson.
It bears a very vague resemblance to Jefferson's comment in a prospectus for his translation of Destutt de Tracy's Treatise on Political Economy: "To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, ‘the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, &amp; the fruits acquired by it.
"http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/The\_democracy\_will\_cease\_to\_existFDR did horrible things to the Constitution and "progressives" haven't stopped since.
He was going to try and change the SCOTUS "pack the court" because they were against his plans.
In the end, the SCOTUS sided with FDR but one quote from a justice at time is very telling and I am paraphrasing myself here "We voted today against the constitution to save the court".
They should never have had to do that.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_switch\_in\_time\_that\_saved\_nine
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639538</id>
	<title>Re:The people's will</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269705720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Better to wait for a Free Health Care card than the Men In Black swooping in and shooting up your whole family because your neighbors reported you for...anything - 2001-2009.  McCartyism Part II</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Better to wait for a Free Health Care card than the Men In Black swooping in and shooting up your whole family because your neighbors reported you for...anything - 2001-2009 .
McCartyism Part II</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Better to wait for a Free Health Care card than the Men In Black swooping in and shooting up your whole family because your neighbors reported you for...anything - 2001-2009.
McCartyism Part II</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639514</id>
	<title>Re:Uh, isn't that covered in the constitution alre</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1269705540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because the new Executive Agreement effectively does this to the People's Constitution: <b>"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties</b> (strikethrough) provided two thirds of the Senators present concur (/strikethrough)"</p><p>I wonder if this EA idea also applied to the EU?  Would their new president have the power to ratify treaties without the concurrence of the Parliament?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because the new Executive Agreement effectively does this to the People 's Constitution : " He shall have Power , by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate , to make Treaties ( strikethrough ) provided two thirds of the Senators present concur ( /strikethrough ) " I wonder if this EA idea also applied to the EU ?
Would their new president have the power to ratify treaties without the concurrence of the Parliament ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because the new Executive Agreement effectively does this to the People's Constitution: "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties (strikethrough) provided two thirds of the Senators present concur (/strikethrough)"I wonder if this EA idea also applied to the EU?
Would their new president have the power to ratify treaties without the concurrence of the Parliament?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639060</id>
	<title>Re:Uh, isn't that covered in the constitution alre</title>
	<author>Thiez</author>
	<datestamp>1269701040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; He [the president] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;</p><p>The key is not to have any Senators present, or just 1 who supports ACTA<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; He [ the president ] shall have Power , by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate , to make Treaties , provided two thirds of the Senators present concur ; The key is not to have any Senators present , or just 1 who supports ACTA ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; He [the president] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;The key is not to have any Senators present, or just 1 who supports ACTA ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31640608</id>
	<title>Re:The people's will</title>
	<author>hduff</author>
	<datestamp>1269712680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Obama won the election and represents the will of the people. He can do what he wants. That's democracy."</p></div><p>The USA is a constitutional republic. It has never been a democracy.</p><p>The US Constitution defines and limits the powers of each branch of the government (legislative, judicial and administrative).</p><p>The person who made the quoted statement is simply wrong and sadly ignorant of the facts.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Obama won the election and represents the will of the people .
He can do what he wants .
That 's democracy .
" The USA is a constitutional republic .
It has never been a democracy.The US Constitution defines and limits the powers of each branch of the government ( legislative , judicial and administrative ) .The person who made the quoted statement is simply wrong and sadly ignorant of the facts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Obama won the election and represents the will of the people.
He can do what he wants.
That's democracy.
"The USA is a constitutional republic.
It has never been a democracy.The US Constitution defines and limits the powers of each branch of the government (legislative, judicial and administrative).The person who made the quoted statement is simply wrong and sadly ignorant of the facts.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639494</id>
	<title>Re:So, who did you vote for again?</title>
	<author>will\_die</author>
	<datestamp>1269705360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can we just stop all of this!<br>
There is no reason to keep insulting Bush by everyone doing this comparison.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we just stop all of this !
There is no reason to keep insulting Bush by everyone doing this comparison .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we just stop all of this!
There is no reason to keep insulting Bush by everyone doing this comparison.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639826</id>
	<title>What else did you expect?</title>
	<author>fotbr</author>
	<datestamp>1269708060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously. What. Else. Did. You. Expect.</p><p>Obama has shown over and over than he has no concern for what the people want. In his mind, he was elected king, and will do anything he wants, the people and the constitution be damned. He may not be as stupid as Bush was to call the constitution "just a god-damned piece of paper" around cameras but he certainly doesn't have any more respect for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously .
What. Else .
Did. You .
Expect.Obama has shown over and over than he has no concern for what the people want .
In his mind , he was elected king , and will do anything he wants , the people and the constitution be damned .
He may not be as stupid as Bush was to call the constitution " just a god-damned piece of paper " around cameras but he certainly does n't have any more respect for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously.
What. Else.
Did. You.
Expect.Obama has shown over and over than he has no concern for what the people want.
In his mind, he was elected king, and will do anything he wants, the people and the constitution be damned.
He may not be as stupid as Bush was to call the constitution "just a god-damned piece of paper" around cameras but he certainly doesn't have any more respect for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639766</id>
	<title>Individualism died</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269707640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Civil War killed States rights (I agree completely that slavery needed to end, but the Civil War was not about slavery, read some history). Over the decades since, the federal government, through the IRS, SSA, Medicare, Medicaid, Land various subsidies and other Federal programs has quickly eroded the concept for individualism and personal responsibility. You have a right under the Constitution to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness. Your right to liberty and pursuit of happiness is being seized from you by the federal government. You have no right to Prosperity, it must be earned. They are undermining your economy and telling you that you need to be saved by them. THEY CANNOT SAVE YOU. THEY ARE NOT MAGIC. YOU DO NOT NEED TO BE SAVED BY THEM.</p><p>Your future, your life, your dreams have always been your responsibility and your gift to the world. Through taxes, subsidies, and federal programs, they are trying to control what you eat, where you live, the kind of car you drive, whether your spouse has a job, who cares for your child, whether you use a tanning booth, how much you drive your car, ad nauseum. They have do not have the right to manipulate our lives this way. They are NOT qualified to manipulate our lives this way. We do NOT need them to manipulate our lives this way.</p><p>Change the tax laws, take away their money and power! There was no personal income tax prior to the civil war and the country was better for it. They do not need that kind of power over you, that are not authorized that kind of power, and it is literally killing our country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Civil War killed States rights ( I agree completely that slavery needed to end , but the Civil War was not about slavery , read some history ) .
Over the decades since , the federal government , through the IRS , SSA , Medicare , Medicaid , Land various subsidies and other Federal programs has quickly eroded the concept for individualism and personal responsibility .
You have a right under the Constitution to Life , Liberty , and the Pursuit of happiness .
Your right to liberty and pursuit of happiness is being seized from you by the federal government .
You have no right to Prosperity , it must be earned .
They are undermining your economy and telling you that you need to be saved by them .
THEY CAN NOT SAVE YOU .
THEY ARE NOT MAGIC .
YOU DO NOT NEED TO BE SAVED BY THEM.Your future , your life , your dreams have always been your responsibility and your gift to the world .
Through taxes , subsidies , and federal programs , they are trying to control what you eat , where you live , the kind of car you drive , whether your spouse has a job , who cares for your child , whether you use a tanning booth , how much you drive your car , ad nauseum .
They have do not have the right to manipulate our lives this way .
They are NOT qualified to manipulate our lives this way .
We do NOT need them to manipulate our lives this way.Change the tax laws , take away their money and power !
There was no personal income tax prior to the civil war and the country was better for it .
They do not need that kind of power over you , that are not authorized that kind of power , and it is literally killing our country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Civil War killed States rights (I agree completely that slavery needed to end, but the Civil War was not about slavery, read some history).
Over the decades since, the federal government, through the IRS, SSA, Medicare, Medicaid, Land various subsidies and other Federal programs has quickly eroded the concept for individualism and personal responsibility.
You have a right under the Constitution to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness.
Your right to liberty and pursuit of happiness is being seized from you by the federal government.
You have no right to Prosperity, it must be earned.
They are undermining your economy and telling you that you need to be saved by them.
THEY CANNOT SAVE YOU.
THEY ARE NOT MAGIC.
YOU DO NOT NEED TO BE SAVED BY THEM.Your future, your life, your dreams have always been your responsibility and your gift to the world.
Through taxes, subsidies, and federal programs, they are trying to control what you eat, where you live, the kind of car you drive, whether your spouse has a job, who cares for your child, whether you use a tanning booth, how much you drive your car, ad nauseum.
They have do not have the right to manipulate our lives this way.
They are NOT qualified to manipulate our lives this way.
We do NOT need them to manipulate our lives this way.Change the tax laws, take away their money and power!
There was no personal income tax prior to the civil war and the country was better for it.
They do not need that kind of power over you, that are not authorized that kind of power, and it is literally killing our country.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639190</id>
	<title>NAFTA also isn't a treaty.</title>
	<author>Oxford\_Comma\_Lover</author>
	<datestamp>1269702900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IIRC, NAFTA also isn't a treaty.</p><p><i>&gt; How is a trade agreement not a treaty?</i></p><p>Treaties are more complicated than one line in the Constitution.  Not only is there international law regarding what constitutes a treaty and how a treaty's to be interpreted (See the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, for example), but most countries, including the United States, have their own jurisprudence on what constitutes a treaty and what legal effect it has.</p><p>Regarding sole executive agreements, the President can make them because he is "the sole organ" of the nation in matters of state, which basically just means he's the head of state and speaks for the country.  He doesn't have treaty power there, but he has a certain limited power, particularly in areas where executive agreements are historically useful.</p><p>For example, unfreezing the contested assets of a foreign country in the United States as part of a diplomatic arrangement.  (IIRC, Reagan did this with Iran, unfreezing contested assets to send them to an adjudication process both countries had agreed on.)</p><p>Consider, also, that US Law differentiates between self-executing and non-self-executing treaties; the latter require domestic legislation to implement.  Sometimes that means states have to implement treaties, and sometimes they don't.  For example, Texas doesn't comply with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (Medellin v. Texas, and if I'm remembering the right treaty--it's been a while).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IIRC , NAFTA also is n't a treaty. &gt; How is a trade agreement not a treaty ? Treaties are more complicated than one line in the Constitution .
Not only is there international law regarding what constitutes a treaty and how a treaty 's to be interpreted ( See the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties , for example ) , but most countries , including the United States , have their own jurisprudence on what constitutes a treaty and what legal effect it has.Regarding sole executive agreements , the President can make them because he is " the sole organ " of the nation in matters of state , which basically just means he 's the head of state and speaks for the country .
He does n't have treaty power there , but he has a certain limited power , particularly in areas where executive agreements are historically useful.For example , unfreezing the contested assets of a foreign country in the United States as part of a diplomatic arrangement .
( IIRC , Reagan did this with Iran , unfreezing contested assets to send them to an adjudication process both countries had agreed on .
) Consider , also , that US Law differentiates between self-executing and non-self-executing treaties ; the latter require domestic legislation to implement .
Sometimes that means states have to implement treaties , and sometimes they do n't .
For example , Texas does n't comply with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations ( Medellin v. Texas , and if I 'm remembering the right treaty--it 's been a while ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IIRC, NAFTA also isn't a treaty.&gt; How is a trade agreement not a treaty?Treaties are more complicated than one line in the Constitution.
Not only is there international law regarding what constitutes a treaty and how a treaty's to be interpreted (See the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, for example), but most countries, including the United States, have their own jurisprudence on what constitutes a treaty and what legal effect it has.Regarding sole executive agreements, the President can make them because he is "the sole organ" of the nation in matters of state, which basically just means he's the head of state and speaks for the country.
He doesn't have treaty power there, but he has a certain limited power, particularly in areas where executive agreements are historically useful.For example, unfreezing the contested assets of a foreign country in the United States as part of a diplomatic arrangement.
(IIRC, Reagan did this with Iran, unfreezing contested assets to send them to an adjudication process both countries had agreed on.
)Consider, also, that US Law differentiates between self-executing and non-self-executing treaties; the latter require domestic legislation to implement.
Sometimes that means states have to implement treaties, and sometimes they don't.
For example, Texas doesn't comply with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (Medellin v. Texas, and if I'm remembering the right treaty--it's been a while).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639966</id>
	<title>Re:The Constitution</title>
	<author>feepness</author>
	<datestamp>1269709140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>After all, it's just a godamn piece of paper.</htmltext>
<tokenext>After all , it 's just a godamn piece of paper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After all, it's just a godamn piece of paper.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638870</id>
	<title>Now you guys care about the constitution?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269699240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where were you when Congress passed a law that requires you to buy a consumer product (insurance) just to live in this country?</p><p>Land of the free my ass.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where were you when Congress passed a law that requires you to buy a consumer product ( insurance ) just to live in this country ? Land of the free my ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where were you when Congress passed a law that requires you to buy a consumer product (insurance) just to live in this country?Land of the free my ass.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31642244</id>
	<title>Re:It's all part of the plan</title>
	<author>dryeo</author>
	<datestamp>1269681420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How the hell can you have both Socialist (people owning the means of production) and Fascist (corporations owning the means of production) in the same sentence. They are opposites and the fascists hate the socialists and the socialists hate the fascists.<br>Personally I like socialist ideas like co-ops, credit unions and small businesses, ideally working in a capitalist manner.<br>I don't like fascist ideas like huge business that is not answerable to anyone, owns the government and does its best to remove freedoms like the freedom to deal with who you like in a capitalist manner.<br>Capitalism works best with a lot of small players instead of a couple of large players who usually own the government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How the hell can you have both Socialist ( people owning the means of production ) and Fascist ( corporations owning the means of production ) in the same sentence .
They are opposites and the fascists hate the socialists and the socialists hate the fascists.Personally I like socialist ideas like co-ops , credit unions and small businesses , ideally working in a capitalist manner.I do n't like fascist ideas like huge business that is not answerable to anyone , owns the government and does its best to remove freedoms like the freedom to deal with who you like in a capitalist manner.Capitalism works best with a lot of small players instead of a couple of large players who usually own the government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How the hell can you have both Socialist (people owning the means of production) and Fascist (corporations owning the means of production) in the same sentence.
They are opposites and the fascists hate the socialists and the socialists hate the fascists.Personally I like socialist ideas like co-ops, credit unions and small businesses, ideally working in a capitalist manner.I don't like fascist ideas like huge business that is not answerable to anyone, owns the government and does its best to remove freedoms like the freedom to deal with who you like in a capitalist manner.Capitalism works best with a lot of small players instead of a couple of large players who usually own the government.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31641928</id>
	<title>Re:So, who did you vote for again?</title>
	<author>libertytrek</author>
	<datestamp>1269722280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Two words: Ron Paul.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Two words : Ron Paul .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two words: Ron Paul.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31641886</id>
	<title>What does the constitution mean now anyhow?</title>
	<author>kimvette</author>
	<datestamp>1269721860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"Harvard's Jack Goldsmith and Lawrence Lessig have an interesting op-ed in Friday's Washington Post, arguing that it would be constitutionally dubious for President Obama to adopt the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) as an executive agreement.</p></div> </blockquote><p>It is unconstitutional to vote on <i>changes to a bill</i> and deem that vote as the bill in entirety having passed, and then sign that into law, and yet it happened this week.   Where house leaders and the President have stated many times they don't care about rules and process, but about getting things done, don't expect ACTA to have to require 2/3 senatorial approval. Under the current admnistration, executive order will be deemed sufficient, Constitution be damned.</p><p>Besides, how much has the Constitution mattered under any of the current and previous three administrations anyhow?</p><p>We have the power to change things: stop reelecting the same douchebags into congress, and stop electing presidents based on looks or skin color.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Harvard 's Jack Goldsmith and Lawrence Lessig have an interesting op-ed in Friday 's Washington Post , arguing that it would be constitutionally dubious for President Obama to adopt the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement ( ACTA ) as an executive agreement .
It is unconstitutional to vote on changes to a bill and deem that vote as the bill in entirety having passed , and then sign that into law , and yet it happened this week .
Where house leaders and the President have stated many times they do n't care about rules and process , but about getting things done , do n't expect ACTA to have to require 2/3 senatorial approval .
Under the current admnistration , executive order will be deemed sufficient , Constitution be damned.Besides , how much has the Constitution mattered under any of the current and previous three administrations anyhow ? We have the power to change things : stop reelecting the same douchebags into congress , and stop electing presidents based on looks or skin color .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Harvard's Jack Goldsmith and Lawrence Lessig have an interesting op-ed in Friday's Washington Post, arguing that it would be constitutionally dubious for President Obama to adopt the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) as an executive agreement.
It is unconstitutional to vote on changes to a bill and deem that vote as the bill in entirety having passed, and then sign that into law, and yet it happened this week.
Where house leaders and the President have stated many times they don't care about rules and process, but about getting things done, don't expect ACTA to have to require 2/3 senatorial approval.
Under the current admnistration, executive order will be deemed sufficient, Constitution be damned.Besides, how much has the Constitution mattered under any of the current and previous three administrations anyhow?We have the power to change things: stop reelecting the same douchebags into congress, and stop electing presidents based on looks or skin color.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639890</id>
	<title>Re:The people's will</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269708540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"No, that is not how American government works."</p><p>What does the American government have to do with democracy ?</p><p>That's like stating that the People's Republic of China is a communist state.</p><p>Maybe in name, but not in practice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" No , that is not how American government works .
" What does the American government have to do with democracy ? That 's like stating that the People 's Republic of China is a communist state.Maybe in name , but not in practice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"No, that is not how American government works.
"What does the American government have to do with democracy ?That's like stating that the People's Republic of China is a communist state.Maybe in name, but not in practice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639008</id>
	<title>Dubious ?</title>
	<author>Hymer</author>
	<datestamp>1269700440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>ACTA violates constitution in almost all free, democratic countries.
ACTA would fit nicely in the former Soviet Union, German Democratic Republic, North Korea or Peoples Republic of China.
Politicians accepting ACTA do not represent neither freedom nor democracy, they are totalitarians in need of control of the population.</htmltext>
<tokenext>ACTA violates constitution in almost all free , democratic countries .
ACTA would fit nicely in the former Soviet Union , German Democratic Republic , North Korea or Peoples Republic of China .
Politicians accepting ACTA do not represent neither freedom nor democracy , they are totalitarians in need of control of the population .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ACTA violates constitution in almost all free, democratic countries.
ACTA would fit nicely in the former Soviet Union, German Democratic Republic, North Korea or Peoples Republic of China.
Politicians accepting ACTA do not represent neither freedom nor democracy, they are totalitarians in need of control of the population.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31641736</id>
	<title>Re:The Living Constitution</title>
	<author>Omestes</author>
	<datestamp>1269720480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> Democrats begin their long march towards socialism! [wikipedia.org]</i></p><p>You really don't know the definition of socialism, or how that term doesn't apply to Obama in the slightest, right?  The healthcare bill was about as far from socialism as one can get.  Its fascist, or purely corporatist, not socialist.  If it was single payer and universal it would have been socialist, if it had the so-called "public option" it would have had socialist aspects.  We got neither, therefore we did not get socialism.  Obama is a very slightly left leaning centrist, in the grand scheme of things, who buys pretty much the Reagan trickle down line (which, IMO, is nothing but a post-hoc rationalization for corruption).  Kuchinich is socialist, Feinstein is a socialist, Obama is not.</p><p>The actual left in America is pretty much non-existent, compared to the rest of the world.  Obama would be a conservative in pretty much any other developed country, and our conservatives would be the lunatic fringe.</p><p><i>Now retirement and health care are a RIGHT [wikipedia.org] and the government is required to provide for the "happiness" of the people by collecting money from one group of people and giving it to another. </i></p><p>You realize that the Constitution points out that our Government, in part, exists to "promote the general welfare" of the people, right?</p><p>Further:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States...</p></div><p>Means that taxation for the good of the People is NOT a bad thing, or a sin, or whatnot.  I would consider trying to make the people "happy" is a good thing, and very well within the line of "general welfare".  Its either that or a government that tries to make people unhappy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Democrats begin their long march towards socialism !
[ wikipedia.org ] You really do n't know the definition of socialism , or how that term does n't apply to Obama in the slightest , right ?
The healthcare bill was about as far from socialism as one can get .
Its fascist , or purely corporatist , not socialist .
If it was single payer and universal it would have been socialist , if it had the so-called " public option " it would have had socialist aspects .
We got neither , therefore we did not get socialism .
Obama is a very slightly left leaning centrist , in the grand scheme of things , who buys pretty much the Reagan trickle down line ( which , IMO , is nothing but a post-hoc rationalization for corruption ) .
Kuchinich is socialist , Feinstein is a socialist , Obama is not.The actual left in America is pretty much non-existent , compared to the rest of the world .
Obama would be a conservative in pretty much any other developed country , and our conservatives would be the lunatic fringe.Now retirement and health care are a RIGHT [ wikipedia.org ] and the government is required to provide for the " happiness " of the people by collecting money from one group of people and giving it to another .
You realize that the Constitution points out that our Government , in part , exists to " promote the general welfare " of the people , right ? Further : " The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes , Duties , Imposts and Excises , to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States...Means that taxation for the good of the People is NOT a bad thing , or a sin , or whatnot .
I would consider trying to make the people " happy " is a good thing , and very well within the line of " general welfare " .
Its either that or a government that tries to make people unhappy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Democrats begin their long march towards socialism!
[wikipedia.org]You really don't know the definition of socialism, or how that term doesn't apply to Obama in the slightest, right?
The healthcare bill was about as far from socialism as one can get.
Its fascist, or purely corporatist, not socialist.
If it was single payer and universal it would have been socialist, if it had the so-called "public option" it would have had socialist aspects.
We got neither, therefore we did not get socialism.
Obama is a very slightly left leaning centrist, in the grand scheme of things, who buys pretty much the Reagan trickle down line (which, IMO, is nothing but a post-hoc rationalization for corruption).
Kuchinich is socialist, Feinstein is a socialist, Obama is not.The actual left in America is pretty much non-existent, compared to the rest of the world.
Obama would be a conservative in pretty much any other developed country, and our conservatives would be the lunatic fringe.Now retirement and health care are a RIGHT [wikipedia.org] and the government is required to provide for the "happiness" of the people by collecting money from one group of people and giving it to another.
You realize that the Constitution points out that our Government, in part, exists to "promote the general welfare" of the people, right?Further:"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States...Means that taxation for the good of the People is NOT a bad thing, or a sin, or whatnot.
I would consider trying to make the people "happy" is a good thing, and very well within the line of "general welfare".
Its either that or a government that tries to make people unhappy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31641158</id>
	<title>HA HA!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269716340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Miss me yet? We'll be back.. cuz you dumbasses don't know how to vote for anyone else. Fuckers.. - GWB</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Miss me yet ?
We 'll be back.. cuz you dumbasses do n't know how to vote for anyone else .
Fuckers.. - GWB</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Miss me yet?
We'll be back.. cuz you dumbasses don't know how to vote for anyone else.
Fuckers.. - GWB</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638600</id>
	<title>I hope so.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269696120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This isn't just piracy anymore.<br>
It's Big Brother. And it's all linked together, you're always locked to BB.<br>
Screw it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't just piracy anymore .
It 's Big Brother .
And it 's all linked together , you 're always locked to BB .
Screw it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't just piracy anymore.
It's Big Brother.
And it's all linked together, you're always locked to BB.
Screw it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638646</id>
	<title>Only hope has passed...</title>
	<author>cbope</author>
	<datestamp>1269696600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe the only hope in passing ACTA was to keep it secret. The cat's out of the bag with the leaked and commented document. Yes, I've read it and yes it's very scary. Much of it goes way beyond countering counterfeiting and piracy.</p><p>Now that the public has access to the leaked document, hopefully a lot of people will read it, make their own conclusions, and let their representatives know how they feel about it. That's the way to defeat this. At least here in the EU, our MEP's have said wait a minute, let's take a deeper look into this.</p><p>If ACTA passes as it is today, we are all going to be screwed. Keep up the pressure on your elected representatives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe the only hope in passing ACTA was to keep it secret .
The cat 's out of the bag with the leaked and commented document .
Yes , I 've read it and yes it 's very scary .
Much of it goes way beyond countering counterfeiting and piracy.Now that the public has access to the leaked document , hopefully a lot of people will read it , make their own conclusions , and let their representatives know how they feel about it .
That 's the way to defeat this .
At least here in the EU , our MEP 's have said wait a minute , let 's take a deeper look into this.If ACTA passes as it is today , we are all going to be screwed .
Keep up the pressure on your elected representatives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe the only hope in passing ACTA was to keep it secret.
The cat's out of the bag with the leaked and commented document.
Yes, I've read it and yes it's very scary.
Much of it goes way beyond countering counterfeiting and piracy.Now that the public has access to the leaked document, hopefully a lot of people will read it, make their own conclusions, and let their representatives know how they feel about it.
That's the way to defeat this.
At least here in the EU, our MEP's have said wait a minute, let's take a deeper look into this.If ACTA passes as it is today, we are all going to be screwed.
Keep up the pressure on your elected representatives.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639456</id>
	<title>Re:I hope so.</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1269705000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes.</p><p>But if I say something like "This is why I don't like Obama.  He's just a continuation of Bush's anti-liberty/anti-individual rights policies," I'll get modded down.</p><p>Watch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes.But if I say something like " This is why I do n't like Obama .
He 's just a continuation of Bush 's anti-liberty/anti-individual rights policies , " I 'll get modded down.Watch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.But if I say something like "This is why I don't like Obama.
He's just a continuation of Bush's anti-liberty/anti-individual rights policies," I'll get modded down.Watch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31643090</id>
	<title>"Unconstitutional"?  How quaint</title>
	<author>Eternal Vigilance</author>
	<datestamp>1269688440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>More likely the Constitution will be found to be anti-ACTA.</htmltext>
<tokenext>More likely the Constitution will be found to be anti-ACTA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More likely the Constitution will be found to be anti-ACTA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639080</id>
	<title>Re:It will be against many Constitutions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269701220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We don't live in a democracy; we live in a Republic.<br>Executive politicians will never learn their place as long as the masses are uninformed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We do n't live in a democracy ; we live in a Republic.Executive politicians will never learn their place as long as the masses are uninformed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We don't live in a democracy; we live in a Republic.Executive politicians will never learn their place as long as the masses are uninformed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639366</id>
	<title>Re:The Constitution</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1269704340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you listened more carefully to the broadcast, you'd have noticed that they explicitly said that it is a very, very subtle and very, very faint way of trying to convince somebody. I.e., you're not going to convince somebody who has some legal objections to a law. But you might get to sway somebody who is really on the fence over it... in which case it is similar to "If you vote with us, you'll get to go home tonight instead of continue to sit in this jury box."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you listened more carefully to the broadcast , you 'd have noticed that they explicitly said that it is a very , very subtle and very , very faint way of trying to convince somebody .
I.e. , you 're not going to convince somebody who has some legal objections to a law .
But you might get to sway somebody who is really on the fence over it... in which case it is similar to " If you vote with us , you 'll get to go home tonight instead of continue to sit in this jury box .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you listened more carefully to the broadcast, you'd have noticed that they explicitly said that it is a very, very subtle and very, very faint way of trying to convince somebody.
I.e., you're not going to convince somebody who has some legal objections to a law.
But you might get to sway somebody who is really on the fence over it... in which case it is similar to "If you vote with us, you'll get to go home tonight instead of continue to sit in this jury box.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638884</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31640154</id>
	<title>Re: The Constitution</title>
	<author>Black Parrot</author>
	<datestamp>1269710280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The sheer amount of 5-4 decisions on the court should indicate that the court makes political decisions, and not merely informed, unbiased interpretations of law.</p></div><p>And with five dedicated to ruling for the benefit of the largest corporations, ACTA is a shew-in.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The sheer amount of 5-4 decisions on the court should indicate that the court makes political decisions , and not merely informed , unbiased interpretations of law.And with five dedicated to ruling for the benefit of the largest corporations , ACTA is a shew-in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The sheer amount of 5-4 decisions on the court should indicate that the court makes political decisions, and not merely informed, unbiased interpretations of law.And with five dedicated to ruling for the benefit of the largest corporations, ACTA is a shew-in.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639632</id>
	<title>Re:The people's will</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1269706560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, it seems that the US government doesn't really work the way you think.  There doesn't seem to be anything clearly illegal about a president "making law" by signing treaties unilaterally.  The article says it's even fairly routine in some situations.</p><p>Perhaps your constitution needs a bit of a clean up.  Such as requiring that treaties be ratified by your legislative branch before becoming law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , it seems that the US government does n't really work the way you think .
There does n't seem to be anything clearly illegal about a president " making law " by signing treaties unilaterally .
The article says it 's even fairly routine in some situations.Perhaps your constitution needs a bit of a clean up .
Such as requiring that treaties be ratified by your legislative branch before becoming law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, it seems that the US government doesn't really work the way you think.
There doesn't seem to be anything clearly illegal about a president "making law" by signing treaties unilaterally.
The article says it's even fairly routine in some situations.Perhaps your constitution needs a bit of a clean up.
Such as requiring that treaties be ratified by your legislative branch before becoming law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31640216</id>
	<title>Re:The people's will</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1269710700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why is this a troll?  This is <i>exactly</i> what Bush's supporters were saying about all of his actions.  See also comments about his being the Commander In Chief and The Decider.  It seems that people are now learning that if you award powers to a political office then it's hard to remove them when someone you don't like is in power.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is this a troll ?
This is exactly what Bush 's supporters were saying about all of his actions .
See also comments about his being the Commander In Chief and The Decider .
It seems that people are now learning that if you award powers to a political office then it 's hard to remove them when someone you do n't like is in power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is this a troll?
This is exactly what Bush's supporters were saying about all of his actions.
See also comments about his being the Commander In Chief and The Decider.
It seems that people are now learning that if you award powers to a political office then it's hard to remove them when someone you don't like is in power.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639206</id>
	<title>You voted for this guy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269703080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is scary is that this is the guy you put in power (I'm speaking to the majority of slashdotters who think conservatives are evil and democrats are the only sane choice - whether you were able to vote or not).</p><p>He has been proven to not care about the constitution if it gets in the way of what he wants.</p><p>Larry Lessig - live in the bed you made. You've chosen the party that is all about coercion and not freedom.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is scary is that this is the guy you put in power ( I 'm speaking to the majority of slashdotters who think conservatives are evil and democrats are the only sane choice - whether you were able to vote or not ) .He has been proven to not care about the constitution if it gets in the way of what he wants.Larry Lessig - live in the bed you made .
You 've chosen the party that is all about coercion and not freedom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is scary is that this is the guy you put in power (I'm speaking to the majority of slashdotters who think conservatives are evil and democrats are the only sane choice - whether you were able to vote or not).He has been proven to not care about the constitution if it gets in the way of what he wants.Larry Lessig - live in the bed you made.
You've chosen the party that is all about coercion and not freedom.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639310</id>
	<title>Re:So, who did you vote for again?</title>
	<author>insufflate10mg</author>
	<datestamp>1269703920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Arr1 = {a,b,c,d};<br>
Arr2 = {e,f,g,h};<br>
 if (b==f) {printf "ZOMG MOAR EVDENSE ARR1 == ARR2!";}</htmltext>
<tokenext>Arr1 = { a,b,c,d } ; Arr2 = { e,f,g,h } ; if ( b = = f ) { printf " ZOMG MOAR EVDENSE ARR1 = = ARR2 !
" ; }</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Arr1 = {a,b,c,d};
Arr2 = {e,f,g,h};
 if (b==f) {printf "ZOMG MOAR EVDENSE ARR1 == ARR2!
";}</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31648668</id>
	<title>Re:The Living Constitution</title>
	<author>magus\_melchior</author>
	<datestamp>1269802020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Didn't we just pass legislation that for the first time forces private citizens to buy a product from a select set of other private citizens.</p></div></blockquote><p>Poor grammar aside, if you've got a better idea to mitigate the ballooning cost of health care that can pass Congress and its corrupt members (that would negate the public option), as well as be deficit-neutral (which nixes tax cuts to the rich), let's hear it. Otherwise, kindly keep your talking points off your soapbox.</p><p>Re: 16th Amendment. If you're going to lay blame solely on the Democrats for the income tax, you had better include the Republicans who first instituted it to fund the Civil War, and whose President (William Howard Taft-- the very same Republican who ousted the progressive, trust-busting Roosevelt and sent the GOP down a <i>laissez-faire</i> route that culminated in Black Monday, 1929) proposed and enacted the amendment itself-- or, you can admit that you're a dishonest partisan hack. Choice is yours. If you think that blowhard rhetoric alone will negate the facts in the article you cited, you are as delusional as those who think that if they believe a thing ought to be true, it must therefore be true.</p><p>Re: Social Security. What you are arguing is a logical farce: If FDR could not convince the courts to uphold his New Deal legislation (NIRA and others), the courts were correct; however, if the courts upheld Social Security, FDR must have deceived them. In your argument, you do not consider the possibility that this part of the New Deal was constitutional according to the highest court in the country, because your ideology that social assistance of any form is anathema (despite the fact that federal 'transfer' of tax revenues to social services is the norm in every industrialized nation except for those that have failed) trumps intellectual honesty.</p><p>The rest is logical garbage. A huge rant does not an argument make, nor are you John Cleese.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't we just pass legislation that for the first time forces private citizens to buy a product from a select set of other private citizens.Poor grammar aside , if you 've got a better idea to mitigate the ballooning cost of health care that can pass Congress and its corrupt members ( that would negate the public option ) , as well as be deficit-neutral ( which nixes tax cuts to the rich ) , let 's hear it .
Otherwise , kindly keep your talking points off your soapbox.Re : 16th Amendment .
If you 're going to lay blame solely on the Democrats for the income tax , you had better include the Republicans who first instituted it to fund the Civil War , and whose President ( William Howard Taft-- the very same Republican who ousted the progressive , trust-busting Roosevelt and sent the GOP down a laissez-faire route that culminated in Black Monday , 1929 ) proposed and enacted the amendment itself-- or , you can admit that you 're a dishonest partisan hack .
Choice is yours .
If you think that blowhard rhetoric alone will negate the facts in the article you cited , you are as delusional as those who think that if they believe a thing ought to be true , it must therefore be true.Re : Social Security .
What you are arguing is a logical farce : If FDR could not convince the courts to uphold his New Deal legislation ( NIRA and others ) , the courts were correct ; however , if the courts upheld Social Security , FDR must have deceived them .
In your argument , you do not consider the possibility that this part of the New Deal was constitutional according to the highest court in the country , because your ideology that social assistance of any form is anathema ( despite the fact that federal 'transfer ' of tax revenues to social services is the norm in every industrialized nation except for those that have failed ) trumps intellectual honesty.The rest is logical garbage .
A huge rant does not an argument make , nor are you John Cleese .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't we just pass legislation that for the first time forces private citizens to buy a product from a select set of other private citizens.Poor grammar aside, if you've got a better idea to mitigate the ballooning cost of health care that can pass Congress and its corrupt members (that would negate the public option), as well as be deficit-neutral (which nixes tax cuts to the rich), let's hear it.
Otherwise, kindly keep your talking points off your soapbox.Re: 16th Amendment.
If you're going to lay blame solely on the Democrats for the income tax, you had better include the Republicans who first instituted it to fund the Civil War, and whose President (William Howard Taft-- the very same Republican who ousted the progressive, trust-busting Roosevelt and sent the GOP down a laissez-faire route that culminated in Black Monday, 1929) proposed and enacted the amendment itself-- or, you can admit that you're a dishonest partisan hack.
Choice is yours.
If you think that blowhard rhetoric alone will negate the facts in the article you cited, you are as delusional as those who think that if they believe a thing ought to be true, it must therefore be true.Re: Social Security.
What you are arguing is a logical farce: If FDR could not convince the courts to uphold his New Deal legislation (NIRA and others), the courts were correct; however, if the courts upheld Social Security, FDR must have deceived them.
In your argument, you do not consider the possibility that this part of the New Deal was constitutional according to the highest court in the country, because your ideology that social assistance of any form is anathema (despite the fact that federal 'transfer' of tax revenues to social services is the norm in every industrialized nation except for those that have failed) trumps intellectual honesty.The rest is logical garbage.
A huge rant does not an argument make, nor are you John Cleese.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639392</id>
	<title>-1, over lengthy rant</title>
	<author>u38cg</author>
	<datestamp>1269704520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Chill out and have some orange juice.  This is advice from someone who chose not to spend mod points on you<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:p</htmltext>
<tokenext>Chill out and have some orange juice .
This is advice from someone who chose not to spend mod points on you : p</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chill out and have some orange juice.
This is advice from someone who chose not to spend mod points on you :p</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639562</id>
	<title>Re:The Living Constitution</title>
	<author>schmidt349</author>
	<datestamp>1269705960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To start, I checked into your Teddy J quotes and discovered the following:</p><p>#1 is a lie. Jefferson never said that and I challenge you to show me the original publication where he did.</p><p>#2 is found in his First Inaugural Address. It was probably a slap at John Adams' Alien and Sedition Act, a law that looked a lot more like the Patriot Act than the health care bill.</p><p>#3 is from another private letter. It's regularly trotted out during any controversial social legislation. Read Hirschfield (The Power of the presidency: concepts and controversy, 1982, p.311) on how this is a red herring.</p><p>#4 is from a political tract from 1779. You will note that it could just as easily be applied to the Patriot Act, the military-industrial complex, or just about any other Republican-built object of left-wing derision as it can be to social legislation.</p><p>#5 is a paraphrase of a section in a letter from 1802. The true quote reads "If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy." Here is the following quote: "Their finances are now under such a course of application as nothing could derange but war or federalism. The gripe of the latter has shown itself as deadly as the jaws of the former." In other words, he would have winced had he seen the bill for Iraq War II, or read the justifications of the neocons.</p><p>#6 was in a letter shortly before his death about how the federal government was "consolidating power" by, get this, using the power granted to it by the Constitution (namely the commerce clause). The states are not individual republics. We tried that under the Articles of Confederation and it went over like a a lead balloon. Like it or lump it, they are subordinate in power in the regards enumerated in the Constitution to the power of the federal government. If the Fed chooses to wield that power in a heavy-handed way, it's probably stupid and possibly unethical but not unconstitutional.</p><p>The present deficit is a function of the fact that the Republicans by and large write the tax laws whereas the Democrats by and large write the social legislation. The Republicans refuse to raise taxes to pay for the social legislation, and the Democrats refuse to cut spending in the social legislation to match the current tax income. It's being caused by the present political climate of obstructionism, not by your insane theories about the gradual communization of the US. If FDR had wanted to make the US into a socialist state he would have done nothing, waited for the economic climate to bottom out, then blame all the Wall Street fat cats, order their imprisonment, seize their assets, and nationalize them. Poof. Now we're a socialist state, and it didn't take all that sneaking around!</p><p>Do you know why Roosevelt created the social safety net? It was partly to stabilize society so we didn't have happen here what happened in Germany and the Soviet Union, where agitators appealed to the people's suffering to gain their complicity in revolutionary policy. It was partly to expand the number of consumers to encourage a restart in the production economy. But mostly it was because it was the right thing to do, because a lot of average Americans were starving to death, working like slaves, and your beloved "free market" wasn't doing a goddamned thing to help them. FDR's problem was actually that he didn't spend enough -- it took the massive deficit spending associated with the war to finally terminate the crisis.</p><p>The present health care situation is a national crisis on the order of the food and work crisis provoked by the Great Depression. Thousands of people die every year because they can't afford basic medicines like penicillin and Nitrostat, or they can't afford to see a doctor to prescribe these medicines. Health care decisions are being made by bureaucrats whose only concern is protecting the value of the shareholders, and this excuse rubber-stamps their denial of benefits to thousands more Americans who then go bankrupt trying to pay for basic hospital services. It doesn't help that every doctor has to carry umpteen hojillions in malpractice insurance that sometimes costs more than their pay thanks to the ambulance chasers, and we ought to fix that too, but we have to keep our focus on doing the greatest good for the greatest number. That's not communism, but democracy.</p><p>It benefits the nation to guarantee health care to our citizens because it reduces costs related to preventable health emergencies and reducing the risk of disease epidemics. It benefits the nation by preventing extremist agitation that will cause civil strife. But mostly it's the right thing to do.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To start , I checked into your Teddy J quotes and discovered the following : # 1 is a lie .
Jefferson never said that and I challenge you to show me the original publication where he did. # 2 is found in his First Inaugural Address .
It was probably a slap at John Adams ' Alien and Sedition Act , a law that looked a lot more like the Patriot Act than the health care bill. # 3 is from another private letter .
It 's regularly trotted out during any controversial social legislation .
Read Hirschfield ( The Power of the presidency : concepts and controversy , 1982 , p.311 ) on how this is a red herring. # 4 is from a political tract from 1779 .
You will note that it could just as easily be applied to the Patriot Act , the military-industrial complex , or just about any other Republican-built object of left-wing derision as it can be to social legislation. # 5 is a paraphrase of a section in a letter from 1802 .
The true quote reads " If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people , under the pretence of taking care of them , they must become happy .
" Here is the following quote : " Their finances are now under such a course of application as nothing could derange but war or federalism .
The gripe of the latter has shown itself as deadly as the jaws of the former .
" In other words , he would have winced had he seen the bill for Iraq War II , or read the justifications of the neocons. # 6 was in a letter shortly before his death about how the federal government was " consolidating power " by , get this , using the power granted to it by the Constitution ( namely the commerce clause ) .
The states are not individual republics .
We tried that under the Articles of Confederation and it went over like a a lead balloon .
Like it or lump it , they are subordinate in power in the regards enumerated in the Constitution to the power of the federal government .
If the Fed chooses to wield that power in a heavy-handed way , it 's probably stupid and possibly unethical but not unconstitutional.The present deficit is a function of the fact that the Republicans by and large write the tax laws whereas the Democrats by and large write the social legislation .
The Republicans refuse to raise taxes to pay for the social legislation , and the Democrats refuse to cut spending in the social legislation to match the current tax income .
It 's being caused by the present political climate of obstructionism , not by your insane theories about the gradual communization of the US .
If FDR had wanted to make the US into a socialist state he would have done nothing , waited for the economic climate to bottom out , then blame all the Wall Street fat cats , order their imprisonment , seize their assets , and nationalize them .
Poof. Now we 're a socialist state , and it did n't take all that sneaking around ! Do you know why Roosevelt created the social safety net ?
It was partly to stabilize society so we did n't have happen here what happened in Germany and the Soviet Union , where agitators appealed to the people 's suffering to gain their complicity in revolutionary policy .
It was partly to expand the number of consumers to encourage a restart in the production economy .
But mostly it was because it was the right thing to do , because a lot of average Americans were starving to death , working like slaves , and your beloved " free market " was n't doing a goddamned thing to help them .
FDR 's problem was actually that he did n't spend enough -- it took the massive deficit spending associated with the war to finally terminate the crisis.The present health care situation is a national crisis on the order of the food and work crisis provoked by the Great Depression .
Thousands of people die every year because they ca n't afford basic medicines like penicillin and Nitrostat , or they ca n't afford to see a doctor to prescribe these medicines .
Health care decisions are being made by bureaucrats whose only concern is protecting the value of the shareholders , and this excuse rubber-stamps their denial of benefits to thousands more Americans who then go bankrupt trying to pay for basic hospital services .
It does n't help that every doctor has to carry umpteen hojillions in malpractice insurance that sometimes costs more than their pay thanks to the ambulance chasers , and we ought to fix that too , but we have to keep our focus on doing the greatest good for the greatest number .
That 's not communism , but democracy.It benefits the nation to guarantee health care to our citizens because it reduces costs related to preventable health emergencies and reducing the risk of disease epidemics .
It benefits the nation by preventing extremist agitation that will cause civil strife .
But mostly it 's the right thing to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To start, I checked into your Teddy J quotes and discovered the following:#1 is a lie.
Jefferson never said that and I challenge you to show me the original publication where he did.#2 is found in his First Inaugural Address.
It was probably a slap at John Adams' Alien and Sedition Act, a law that looked a lot more like the Patriot Act than the health care bill.#3 is from another private letter.
It's regularly trotted out during any controversial social legislation.
Read Hirschfield (The Power of the presidency: concepts and controversy, 1982, p.311) on how this is a red herring.#4 is from a political tract from 1779.
You will note that it could just as easily be applied to the Patriot Act, the military-industrial complex, or just about any other Republican-built object of left-wing derision as it can be to social legislation.#5 is a paraphrase of a section in a letter from 1802.
The true quote reads "If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy.
" Here is the following quote: "Their finances are now under such a course of application as nothing could derange but war or federalism.
The gripe of the latter has shown itself as deadly as the jaws of the former.
" In other words, he would have winced had he seen the bill for Iraq War II, or read the justifications of the neocons.#6 was in a letter shortly before his death about how the federal government was "consolidating power" by, get this, using the power granted to it by the Constitution (namely the commerce clause).
The states are not individual republics.
We tried that under the Articles of Confederation and it went over like a a lead balloon.
Like it or lump it, they are subordinate in power in the regards enumerated in the Constitution to the power of the federal government.
If the Fed chooses to wield that power in a heavy-handed way, it's probably stupid and possibly unethical but not unconstitutional.The present deficit is a function of the fact that the Republicans by and large write the tax laws whereas the Democrats by and large write the social legislation.
The Republicans refuse to raise taxes to pay for the social legislation, and the Democrats refuse to cut spending in the social legislation to match the current tax income.
It's being caused by the present political climate of obstructionism, not by your insane theories about the gradual communization of the US.
If FDR had wanted to make the US into a socialist state he would have done nothing, waited for the economic climate to bottom out, then blame all the Wall Street fat cats, order their imprisonment, seize their assets, and nationalize them.
Poof. Now we're a socialist state, and it didn't take all that sneaking around!Do you know why Roosevelt created the social safety net?
It was partly to stabilize society so we didn't have happen here what happened in Germany and the Soviet Union, where agitators appealed to the people's suffering to gain their complicity in revolutionary policy.
It was partly to expand the number of consumers to encourage a restart in the production economy.
But mostly it was because it was the right thing to do, because a lot of average Americans were starving to death, working like slaves, and your beloved "free market" wasn't doing a goddamned thing to help them.
FDR's problem was actually that he didn't spend enough -- it took the massive deficit spending associated with the war to finally terminate the crisis.The present health care situation is a national crisis on the order of the food and work crisis provoked by the Great Depression.
Thousands of people die every year because they can't afford basic medicines like penicillin and Nitrostat, or they can't afford to see a doctor to prescribe these medicines.
Health care decisions are being made by bureaucrats whose only concern is protecting the value of the shareholders, and this excuse rubber-stamps their denial of benefits to thousands more Americans who then go bankrupt trying to pay for basic hospital services.
It doesn't help that every doctor has to carry umpteen hojillions in malpractice insurance that sometimes costs more than their pay thanks to the ambulance chasers, and we ought to fix that too, but we have to keep our focus on doing the greatest good for the greatest number.
That's not communism, but democracy.It benefits the nation to guarantee health care to our citizens because it reduces costs related to preventable health emergencies and reducing the risk of disease epidemics.
It benefits the nation by preventing extremist agitation that will cause civil strife.
But mostly it's the right thing to do.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638878</id>
	<title>And they're...</title>
	<author>got2liv4him</author>
	<datestamp>1269699360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...supposed to vote on laws, too...

they know what's best for us, we just need to submit and for get about those pesky laws...</htmltext>
<tokenext>...supposed to vote on laws , too.. . they know what 's best for us , we just need to submit and for get about those pesky laws.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...supposed to vote on laws, too...

they know what's best for us, we just need to submit and for get about those pesky laws...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31640256</id>
	<title>Re:The Living Constitution</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1269710880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with you 100 percent.</p><p>I also realize that I can't do a fucking thing about it with special interests running the show.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you 100 percent.I also realize that I ca n't do a fucking thing about it with special interests running the show .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you 100 percent.I also realize that I can't do a fucking thing about it with special interests running the show.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638940</id>
	<title>Re:..corruption...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269699900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>lobbying=corruption</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>lobbying = corruption</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lobbying=corruption</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31643530</id>
	<title>Re:The Living Constitution</title>
	<author>Conzar</author>
	<datestamp>1269693120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thanks for quoting a man that owned slaves.  The reality is the people who have the money make the rules.  The people who have the money will maintain their money through whatever means necessary.  The people who have the money will divide the people in order for them to maintain their power.  Its pretty simple.  The "founders" did not setup a government for the people.  If so, then Slavery would not be allowed and women would have had rights.  It was setup for rich white land owners FOR rich white land owners.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for quoting a man that owned slaves .
The reality is the people who have the money make the rules .
The people who have the money will maintain their money through whatever means necessary .
The people who have the money will divide the people in order for them to maintain their power .
Its pretty simple .
The " founders " did not setup a government for the people .
If so , then Slavery would not be allowed and women would have had rights .
It was setup for rich white land owners FOR rich white land owners .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for quoting a man that owned slaves.
The reality is the people who have the money make the rules.
The people who have the money will maintain their money through whatever means necessary.
The people who have the money will divide the people in order for them to maintain their power.
Its pretty simple.
The "founders" did not setup a government for the people.
If so, then Slavery would not be allowed and women would have had rights.
It was setup for rich white land owners FOR rich white land owners.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639050</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0342251_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0342251_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0342251_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0342251_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31641736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0342251_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0342251_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31648668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0342251_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31641336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0342251_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31640232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0342251_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0342251_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31643530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0342251_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31642270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0342251_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31640256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0342251_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0342251_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0342251_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31640154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0342251_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0342251_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31642244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0342251_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0342251_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0342251_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0342251_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31641928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0342251_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0342251_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31642870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0342251_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31644152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0342251_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0342251_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31640650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0342251_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31655318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0342251_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0342251_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0342251_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31640216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0342251_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31643486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0342251_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0342251_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0342251_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31640664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0342251_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0342251_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31640608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0342251_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31646854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0342251_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0342251_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_0342251.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639190
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_0342251.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31640650
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_0342251.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639206
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_0342251.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638726
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_0342251.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31655318
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_0342251.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31641886
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_0342251.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31641332
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_0342251.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638656
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_0342251.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31642244
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_0342251.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31642760
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_0342251.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31642040
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_0342251.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639562
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31644152
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31640232
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31642870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31641736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31643530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31648668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31640256
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639392
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_0342251.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639638
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_0342251.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639140
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31641928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31641336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31640664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639494
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_0342251.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638678
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_0342251.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638940
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_0342251.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639650
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_0342251.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638690
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31642270
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31646854
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31643486
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639632
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31640608
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638794
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31640216
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_0342251.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31640154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638884
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639366
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_0342251.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639826
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_0342251.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31638600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0342251.31639456
</commentlist>
</conversation>
