<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_01_1713258</id>
	<title>Nothing To Fear But Fearlessness Itself?</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1257100080000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>theodp writes <i>"In a post last August, Robert X. Cringely voiced fears that Goldman Sachs and others were not so much evil as '<a href="http://www.cringely.com/2009/08/is-technology-evil/">clueless about the implications of their work</a>,' leaving it up to the government to fix any mess they leave behind. 'But what if government runs out of options,' worried Cringely. 'Our economic policy doesn't imagine it, nor does our foreign policy, because superpowers don't acknowledge weakness.' And now his fears are echoed in a WSJ opinion piece by Peggy Noonan titled '<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703363704574503631430926354.html">We're Governed by Callous Children</a>.' She writes, 'We are governed at all levels by America's luckiest children, sons and daughters of the abundance, and they call themselves optimists but they're not optimists &mdash; they're unimaginative. They don't have faith, they've just never been foreclosed on. They are stupid and they are callous, and they don't mind it when people become disheartened. They don't even notice.' With apologies to FDR, do we have nothing to fear but fearlessness itself?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>theodp writes " In a post last August , Robert X. Cringely voiced fears that Goldman Sachs and others were not so much evil as 'clueless about the implications of their work, ' leaving it up to the government to fix any mess they leave behind .
'But what if government runs out of options, ' worried Cringely .
'Our economic policy does n't imagine it , nor does our foreign policy , because superpowers do n't acknowledge weakness .
' And now his fears are echoed in a WSJ opinion piece by Peggy Noonan titled 'We 're Governed by Callous Children .
' She writes , 'We are governed at all levels by America 's luckiest children , sons and daughters of the abundance , and they call themselves optimists but they 're not optimists    they 're unimaginative .
They do n't have faith , they 've just never been foreclosed on .
They are stupid and they are callous , and they do n't mind it when people become disheartened .
They do n't even notice .
' With apologies to FDR , do we have nothing to fear but fearlessness itself ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>theodp writes "In a post last August, Robert X. Cringely voiced fears that Goldman Sachs and others were not so much evil as 'clueless about the implications of their work,' leaving it up to the government to fix any mess they leave behind.
'But what if government runs out of options,' worried Cringely.
'Our economic policy doesn't imagine it, nor does our foreign policy, because superpowers don't acknowledge weakness.
' And now his fears are echoed in a WSJ opinion piece by Peggy Noonan titled 'We're Governed by Callous Children.
' She writes, 'We are governed at all levels by America's luckiest children, sons and daughters of the abundance, and they call themselves optimists but they're not optimists — they're unimaginative.
They don't have faith, they've just never been foreclosed on.
They are stupid and they are callous, and they don't mind it when people become disheartened.
They don't even notice.
' With apologies to FDR, do we have nothing to fear but fearlessness itself?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943478</id>
	<title>Re:atlas yawned</title>
	<author>eeth</author>
	<datestamp>1257108420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a well known fact that the ultra-rich "run" the country.  It's also demonstrable that the gap between the "ruling" class and the "working" class is immense in magnitude, while the gap between the middle and the lower class is comparatively insignificant.

Liberal vs. conservative, right vs. left is nothing more than a distraction.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a well known fact that the ultra-rich " run " the country .
It 's also demonstrable that the gap between the " ruling " class and the " working " class is immense in magnitude , while the gap between the middle and the lower class is comparatively insignificant .
Liberal vs. conservative , right vs. left is nothing more than a distraction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a well known fact that the ultra-rich "run" the country.
It's also demonstrable that the gap between the "ruling" class and the "working" class is immense in magnitude, while the gap between the middle and the lower class is comparatively insignificant.
Liberal vs. conservative, right vs. left is nothing more than a distraction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29949024</id>
	<title>Re:Sociopaths and children of Sociopaths</title>
	<author>Paul Fernhout</author>
	<datestamp>1257166680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See also: "The psychopath as peer?"<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch\_listcultures.org/2009-November/005499.html" title="listcultures.org">http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch\_listcultures.org/2009-November/005499.html</a> [listcultures.org]<br>But also a reply:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch\_listcultures.org/2009-November/005502.html" title="listcultures.org">http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch\_listcultures.org/2009-November/005502.html</a> [listcultures.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See also : " The psychopath as peer ?
"     http : //listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch \ _listcultures.org/2009-November/005499.html [ listcultures.org ] But also a reply :     http : //listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch \ _listcultures.org/2009-November/005502.html [ listcultures.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See also: "The psychopath as peer?
"
    http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch\_listcultures.org/2009-November/005499.html [listcultures.org]But also a reply:
    http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch\_listcultures.org/2009-November/005502.html [listcultures.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29950740</id>
	<title>Re:News for nerds?</title>
	<author>smellsofbikes</author>
	<datestamp>1257180240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt;isn't it funny that Reagan and the Dubya who are supposed to be from the party of small government are responsible for the vast majority of US debt?<p>
You say that as if you're surprised.  I think it's pretty clear that one of the Republican long-term goals is to get rid of Social Security, but since that would injure them with respect to getting votes from the elderly as badly as the civil rights movement damaged the Democrats in the South, the way they've decided to do it is by bankrupting the Federal Government through massive spending programs on projects that pump money into their own pockets and those of the people who vote for them.  Once the Fed actually goes bankrupt they can say "see, we HAVE to cut SS because we're broke!  It's not our fault!" and not lose the critical (and growing) elderly demographic that they need.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; is n't it funny that Reagan and the Dubya who are supposed to be from the party of small government are responsible for the vast majority of US debt ?
You say that as if you 're surprised .
I think it 's pretty clear that one of the Republican long-term goals is to get rid of Social Security , but since that would injure them with respect to getting votes from the elderly as badly as the civil rights movement damaged the Democrats in the South , the way they 've decided to do it is by bankrupting the Federal Government through massive spending programs on projects that pump money into their own pockets and those of the people who vote for them .
Once the Fed actually goes bankrupt they can say " see , we HAVE to cut SS because we 're broke !
It 's not our fault !
" and not lose the critical ( and growing ) elderly demographic that they need .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;isn't it funny that Reagan and the Dubya who are supposed to be from the party of small government are responsible for the vast majority of US debt?
You say that as if you're surprised.
I think it's pretty clear that one of the Republican long-term goals is to get rid of Social Security, but since that would injure them with respect to getting votes from the elderly as badly as the civil rights movement damaged the Democrats in the South, the way they've decided to do it is by bankrupting the Federal Government through massive spending programs on projects that pump money into their own pockets and those of the people who vote for them.
Once the Fed actually goes bankrupt they can say "see, we HAVE to cut SS because we're broke!
It's not our fault!
" and not lose the critical (and growing) elderly demographic that they need.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29945922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943764</id>
	<title>STFU</title>
	<author>bitbucketeer</author>
	<datestamp>1257066840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The "leadership class" is privileged because they had the millions of dollars it takes to run campaigns and win elections.  I'm surprised you didn't figure this out while you were thumbing through your thesaurus.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The " leadership class " is privileged because they had the millions of dollars it takes to run campaigns and win elections .
I 'm surprised you did n't figure this out while you were thumbing through your thesaurus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "leadership class" is privileged because they had the millions of dollars it takes to run campaigns and win elections.
I'm surprised you didn't figure this out while you were thumbing through your thesaurus.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943052</id>
	<title>The people will have to make up for it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257105000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Powers use (and abuse) their options up to the point where nothing goes any more.<br>The the people will have to make up for it.</p><p>Then they sheepishly could allow other powers to do the same.</p><p>Unless they finally organize themselves in a way no power is needed any more. Which needs a generalized will to act GOOD. Without this, chaos will definitely ensue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Powers use ( and abuse ) their options up to the point where nothing goes any more.The the people will have to make up for it.Then they sheepishly could allow other powers to do the same.Unless they finally organize themselves in a way no power is needed any more .
Which needs a generalized will to act GOOD .
Without this , chaos will definitely ensue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Powers use (and abuse) their options up to the point where nothing goes any more.The the people will have to make up for it.Then they sheepishly could allow other powers to do the same.Unless they finally organize themselves in a way no power is needed any more.
Which needs a generalized will to act GOOD.
Without this, chaos will definitely ensue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29945922</id>
	<title>Re:News for nerds?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257083820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're right in the fact that in a certain sense it is a good idea, and outsourcing to quality people(and as much as I've wished in the past it wasn't so, there are some damned good and highly qualified IT folks in India) isn't necessarily a bad thing.</p><p>The problem with the American version of outsourcing is that it's very short sighted, like a lot of US policy government or otherwise.</p><p>Outsourcing is immensely profitable because you can buy goods at foreign prices and sell them to Americans at American prices. The problem with this is that as you lower employment in the US and move money overseas, there is less of it in the US to support US prices. Eventually the standard of living in the countries you outsourced to will rise increasing your outsourced costs, and the standard of living in the US will lower decreasing your revenues.</p><p>There's certainly something to be said for the idea that averaging out the world standard of living, but it's not a particularly great long term strategy for the US market. Particularly not luxury markets which may be cut out entirely if standard of living drops sufficiently.</p><p>That said, the United States economy is probably irrevocably fucked anyway at this point. The national debt skyrocketed out of control under Bush(even worse than it was under Reagan), and though I believe that most of the changes are necessary there's really no money left for any of Obama's plans to fix anything(isn't it funny that Reagan and the Dubya who are supposed to be from the party of small government are responsible for the vast majority of US debt?). The dollar is no longer considered safe and will likely continue dropping against nearly all major foreign currencies(possibly excluding the GBP which is also screwed). Most importantly, the US has done almost nothing to change any of the factors which got it into the position it is currently in. There has been no change in attitude towards sustainable economic policies(and I'm talking finance not environment here), or towards any of the economic stabilizers like workers rights and protection from unfair termination(you'd be amazed what having the vast majority of your population fairly confident they're not going to be randomly fired can to for keeping your economy a bit more stable). The US has been digging a hole under itself for a long time now, and it is about to fall in. It's going to be a long fall, and it may not be possible anymore to prevent it.</p><p>Personally this doesn't particularly please me for all that I live in another country now. I see a lot of people who want to see the US get its comeuppance, but I'm not sure how thrilled I am with the prospect of a world in which the primary super power is China. The US has made and continues to make an awful lot of mistakes, and it may be that the only way for us to learn from those mistakes is to face the consequences, but at the same time a large proportion of the western world depends on the US for military security. Even without that, while US foreign policy is often short sighted and misguided, it is largely well intentioned and I still hope that it isn't too late to prevent the coming fall.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right in the fact that in a certain sense it is a good idea , and outsourcing to quality people ( and as much as I 've wished in the past it was n't so , there are some damned good and highly qualified IT folks in India ) is n't necessarily a bad thing.The problem with the American version of outsourcing is that it 's very short sighted , like a lot of US policy government or otherwise.Outsourcing is immensely profitable because you can buy goods at foreign prices and sell them to Americans at American prices .
The problem with this is that as you lower employment in the US and move money overseas , there is less of it in the US to support US prices .
Eventually the standard of living in the countries you outsourced to will rise increasing your outsourced costs , and the standard of living in the US will lower decreasing your revenues.There 's certainly something to be said for the idea that averaging out the world standard of living , but it 's not a particularly great long term strategy for the US market .
Particularly not luxury markets which may be cut out entirely if standard of living drops sufficiently.That said , the United States economy is probably irrevocably fucked anyway at this point .
The national debt skyrocketed out of control under Bush ( even worse than it was under Reagan ) , and though I believe that most of the changes are necessary there 's really no money left for any of Obama 's plans to fix anything ( is n't it funny that Reagan and the Dubya who are supposed to be from the party of small government are responsible for the vast majority of US debt ? ) .
The dollar is no longer considered safe and will likely continue dropping against nearly all major foreign currencies ( possibly excluding the GBP which is also screwed ) .
Most importantly , the US has done almost nothing to change any of the factors which got it into the position it is currently in .
There has been no change in attitude towards sustainable economic policies ( and I 'm talking finance not environment here ) , or towards any of the economic stabilizers like workers rights and protection from unfair termination ( you 'd be amazed what having the vast majority of your population fairly confident they 're not going to be randomly fired can to for keeping your economy a bit more stable ) .
The US has been digging a hole under itself for a long time now , and it is about to fall in .
It 's going to be a long fall , and it may not be possible anymore to prevent it.Personally this does n't particularly please me for all that I live in another country now .
I see a lot of people who want to see the US get its comeuppance , but I 'm not sure how thrilled I am with the prospect of a world in which the primary super power is China .
The US has made and continues to make an awful lot of mistakes , and it may be that the only way for us to learn from those mistakes is to face the consequences , but at the same time a large proportion of the western world depends on the US for military security .
Even without that , while US foreign policy is often short sighted and misguided , it is largely well intentioned and I still hope that it is n't too late to prevent the coming fall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right in the fact that in a certain sense it is a good idea, and outsourcing to quality people(and as much as I've wished in the past it wasn't so, there are some damned good and highly qualified IT folks in India) isn't necessarily a bad thing.The problem with the American version of outsourcing is that it's very short sighted, like a lot of US policy government or otherwise.Outsourcing is immensely profitable because you can buy goods at foreign prices and sell them to Americans at American prices.
The problem with this is that as you lower employment in the US and move money overseas, there is less of it in the US to support US prices.
Eventually the standard of living in the countries you outsourced to will rise increasing your outsourced costs, and the standard of living in the US will lower decreasing your revenues.There's certainly something to be said for the idea that averaging out the world standard of living, but it's not a particularly great long term strategy for the US market.
Particularly not luxury markets which may be cut out entirely if standard of living drops sufficiently.That said, the United States economy is probably irrevocably fucked anyway at this point.
The national debt skyrocketed out of control under Bush(even worse than it was under Reagan), and though I believe that most of the changes are necessary there's really no money left for any of Obama's plans to fix anything(isn't it funny that Reagan and the Dubya who are supposed to be from the party of small government are responsible for the vast majority of US debt?).
The dollar is no longer considered safe and will likely continue dropping against nearly all major foreign currencies(possibly excluding the GBP which is also screwed).
Most importantly, the US has done almost nothing to change any of the factors which got it into the position it is currently in.
There has been no change in attitude towards sustainable economic policies(and I'm talking finance not environment here), or towards any of the economic stabilizers like workers rights and protection from unfair termination(you'd be amazed what having the vast majority of your population fairly confident they're not going to be randomly fired can to for keeping your economy a bit more stable).
The US has been digging a hole under itself for a long time now, and it is about to fall in.
It's going to be a long fall, and it may not be possible anymore to prevent it.Personally this doesn't particularly please me for all that I live in another country now.
I see a lot of people who want to see the US get its comeuppance, but I'm not sure how thrilled I am with the prospect of a world in which the primary super power is China.
The US has made and continues to make an awful lot of mistakes, and it may be that the only way for us to learn from those mistakes is to face the consequences, but at the same time a large proportion of the western world depends on the US for military security.
Even without that, while US foreign policy is often short sighted and misguided, it is largely well intentioned and I still hope that it isn't too late to prevent the coming fall.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943844</id>
	<title>Re:atlas yawned</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257067140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're a long long way from reality. How do you breathe up there?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're a long long way from reality .
How do you breathe up there ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're a long long way from reality.
How do you breathe up there?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29949034</id>
	<title>Other alternatives: basic income; making work fun</title>
	<author>Paul Fernhout</author>
	<datestamp>1257166860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A "basic income" or making work fun are other alternatives.<br>
&nbsp; <a href="http://www.basicincome.org/bien/aboutbasicincome.html" title="basicincome.org">http://www.basicincome.org/bien/aboutbasicincome.html</a> [basicincome.org]<br>Bob Black talks about "the abolition of work" here:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://www.whywork.org/rethinking/whywork/abolition.html" title="whywork.org">http://www.whywork.org/rethinking/whywork/abolition.html</a> [whywork.org]<br>"Liberals say we should end employment discrimination. I say we should end employment. Conservatives support right-to-work laws. Following Karl Marx's wayward son-in-law Paul Lafargue, I support the right to be lazy. Leftists favor full employment. Like the surrealists -- except that I'm not kidding -- I favor full unemployment. Trotskyists agitate for permanent revolution. I agitate for permanent revelry. But if all the ideologues (as they do) advocate work -- and not only because they plan to make other people do theirs -- they are strangely reluctant to say so. They will carry on endlessly about wages, hours, working conditions, exploitation, productivity, profitability. They'll gladly talk about anything but work itself. These experts who offer to do our thinking for us rarely share their conclusions about work, for all its saliency in the lives of all of us. Among themselves they quibble over the details. Unions and management agree that we ought to sell the time of our lives in exchange for survival, although they haggle over the price. Marxists think we should be bossed by bureaucrats. Libertarians think we should be bossed by businessmen. Feminists don't care which form bossing takes, so long as the bosses are women. Clearly these ideology-mongers have serious differences over how to divvy up the spoils of power. Just as clearly, none of them have any objection to power as such and all of them want to keep us working. "</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A " basic income " or making work fun are other alternatives .
  http : //www.basicincome.org/bien/aboutbasicincome.html [ basicincome.org ] Bob Black talks about " the abolition of work " here :     http : //www.whywork.org/rethinking/whywork/abolition.html [ whywork.org ] " Liberals say we should end employment discrimination .
I say we should end employment .
Conservatives support right-to-work laws .
Following Karl Marx 's wayward son-in-law Paul Lafargue , I support the right to be lazy .
Leftists favor full employment .
Like the surrealists -- except that I 'm not kidding -- I favor full unemployment .
Trotskyists agitate for permanent revolution .
I agitate for permanent revelry .
But if all the ideologues ( as they do ) advocate work -- and not only because they plan to make other people do theirs -- they are strangely reluctant to say so .
They will carry on endlessly about wages , hours , working conditions , exploitation , productivity , profitability .
They 'll gladly talk about anything but work itself .
These experts who offer to do our thinking for us rarely share their conclusions about work , for all its saliency in the lives of all of us .
Among themselves they quibble over the details .
Unions and management agree that we ought to sell the time of our lives in exchange for survival , although they haggle over the price .
Marxists think we should be bossed by bureaucrats .
Libertarians think we should be bossed by businessmen .
Feminists do n't care which form bossing takes , so long as the bosses are women .
Clearly these ideology-mongers have serious differences over how to divvy up the spoils of power .
Just as clearly , none of them have any objection to power as such and all of them want to keep us working .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A "basic income" or making work fun are other alternatives.
  http://www.basicincome.org/bien/aboutbasicincome.html [basicincome.org]Bob Black talks about "the abolition of work" here:
    http://www.whywork.org/rethinking/whywork/abolition.html [whywork.org]"Liberals say we should end employment discrimination.
I say we should end employment.
Conservatives support right-to-work laws.
Following Karl Marx's wayward son-in-law Paul Lafargue, I support the right to be lazy.
Leftists favor full employment.
Like the surrealists -- except that I'm not kidding -- I favor full unemployment.
Trotskyists agitate for permanent revolution.
I agitate for permanent revelry.
But if all the ideologues (as they do) advocate work -- and not only because they plan to make other people do theirs -- they are strangely reluctant to say so.
They will carry on endlessly about wages, hours, working conditions, exploitation, productivity, profitability.
They'll gladly talk about anything but work itself.
These experts who offer to do our thinking for us rarely share their conclusions about work, for all its saliency in the lives of all of us.
Among themselves they quibble over the details.
Unions and management agree that we ought to sell the time of our lives in exchange for survival, although they haggle over the price.
Marxists think we should be bossed by bureaucrats.
Libertarians think we should be bossed by businessmen.
Feminists don't care which form bossing takes, so long as the bosses are women.
Clearly these ideology-mongers have serious differences over how to divvy up the spoils of power.
Just as clearly, none of them have any objection to power as such and all of them want to keep us working.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943210</id>
	<title>my eyes, they burn</title>
	<author>SpatialVacancy</author>
	<datestamp>1257106260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You lost me at 'clueless about the implications of their work'. the crooks at AIG, JPMC et. al. lied about their involvement in the subprime mortgage crisis. many of these guys hold advanced degrees in finance, economics, etc. and they knew what the hell would happen. Come on now, not only does Congress need to stop enabling these Criminals by looking the other way (granting them a covert opportunity to recoup their loses), it's time We demand they prosecute them under the laws which match their Crimes- RICO. It's not just been Fraud and embezzlement- it's been extortion. Not just against their own 'customers', but against the entire citizenry of this country (and others) which taken in it's totality equals Economic Treason. They've not only endangered the US &amp; World economy, they've been trying to cripple them by busting our knees to get the rest of the money out of Us all.
In fact, Wall Street makes the 'Teflon Don' and the Gambino Crime Family look rather quaint, in retrospect.

It is Cringely that is clueless yet again, not the other way around</htmltext>
<tokenext>You lost me at 'clueless about the implications of their work' .
the crooks at AIG , JPMC et .
al. lied about their involvement in the subprime mortgage crisis .
many of these guys hold advanced degrees in finance , economics , etc .
and they knew what the hell would happen .
Come on now , not only does Congress need to stop enabling these Criminals by looking the other way ( granting them a covert opportunity to recoup their loses ) , it 's time We demand they prosecute them under the laws which match their Crimes- RICO .
It 's not just been Fraud and embezzlement- it 's been extortion .
Not just against their own 'customers ' , but against the entire citizenry of this country ( and others ) which taken in it 's totality equals Economic Treason .
They 've not only endangered the US &amp; World economy , they 've been trying to cripple them by busting our knees to get the rest of the money out of Us all .
In fact , Wall Street makes the 'Teflon Don ' and the Gambino Crime Family look rather quaint , in retrospect .
It is Cringely that is clueless yet again , not the other way around</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You lost me at 'clueless about the implications of their work'.
the crooks at AIG, JPMC et.
al. lied about their involvement in the subprime mortgage crisis.
many of these guys hold advanced degrees in finance, economics, etc.
and they knew what the hell would happen.
Come on now, not only does Congress need to stop enabling these Criminals by looking the other way (granting them a covert opportunity to recoup their loses), it's time We demand they prosecute them under the laws which match their Crimes- RICO.
It's not just been Fraud and embezzlement- it's been extortion.
Not just against their own 'customers', but against the entire citizenry of this country (and others) which taken in it's totality equals Economic Treason.
They've not only endangered the US &amp; World economy, they've been trying to cripple them by busting our knees to get the rest of the money out of Us all.
In fact, Wall Street makes the 'Teflon Don' and the Gambino Crime Family look rather quaint, in retrospect.
It is Cringely that is clueless yet again, not the other way around</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29942956</id>
	<title>Come to California...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257104160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...to really see it in action. The state legislature approval rating was approaching single digits last I heard.</p><p>Do you think a single one of those scumbags give a gnat's fart about it?</p><p>They don't have to- not with district boundaries drawn like fractals and the vast majority of you voting the Party line.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...to really see it in action .
The state legislature approval rating was approaching single digits last I heard.Do you think a single one of those scumbags give a gnat 's fart about it ? They do n't have to- not with district boundaries drawn like fractals and the vast majority of you voting the Party line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...to really see it in action.
The state legislature approval rating was approaching single digits last I heard.Do you think a single one of those scumbags give a gnat's fart about it?They don't have to- not with district boundaries drawn like fractals and the vast majority of you voting the Party line.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944134</id>
	<title>Re:The "problem"</title>
	<author>Staticcling</author>
	<datestamp>1257069180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Our government does things well?!!!!  Middle way "Proven to Work"?  Where?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Our government does things well ? ! ! ! !
Middle way " Proven to Work " ?
Where ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our government does things well?!!!!
Middle way "Proven to Work"?
Where?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29946588</id>
	<title>Re:She's without hope, so we must be?</title>
	<author>Eskarel</author>
	<datestamp>1257089520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the libertarians ever got their way we'd just end up with government by another name. Pretty much the cornerstone of economics is that you can do a lot more with a little bit of from everyone than you can with a lot from a few people. The world would still need roads and those roads would have to be built either by some private enterprise or by groups of citizens. Either way you've got a department of transportation. It's either selected by the people, or it's selected by the some private company. It doesn't really make any difference. Anarchy doesn't work and government isn't going away. If your privatized it it wouldn't all of a sudden magically work better. This is why the only major libertarian candidate in the last election wanted to go back to the gold standard which would have somehow required either finding an awful lot more gold  or getting rid of the vast majority of the money in the US economy somehow.</p><p>Like most conservatives(social, economic, environmental), libertarians want to go back in time, and like most social conservatives the time they want to go back to never really existed. I'm certainly no proponent of progress for the sake of progress or change for the sake of change, but we can't go back in time, it just isn't possible. We can't go back to all growing our own food in our backyards or going without electricity, because a lot of people would end up starving and starving humans in large numbers tend not to fade away quietly, we can't go back to social norms of the 1950's because they didn't even work then, we can't go back to the Jeffersonian ideal because even Jefferson didn't actually live it.</p><p>We've been standing on the brink of a new future for a long time trying to legislate our way back into the past, and it's just not working. I don't know what's out there, it might be good, it might be bad, but it's almost certainly going to be better than what we have now. I'd rather a new world order as terrible as that sounds than the old world order doing all the things we're afraid of but doing them to try and move us backward.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the libertarians ever got their way we 'd just end up with government by another name .
Pretty much the cornerstone of economics is that you can do a lot more with a little bit of from everyone than you can with a lot from a few people .
The world would still need roads and those roads would have to be built either by some private enterprise or by groups of citizens .
Either way you 've got a department of transportation .
It 's either selected by the people , or it 's selected by the some private company .
It does n't really make any difference .
Anarchy does n't work and government is n't going away .
If your privatized it it would n't all of a sudden magically work better .
This is why the only major libertarian candidate in the last election wanted to go back to the gold standard which would have somehow required either finding an awful lot more gold or getting rid of the vast majority of the money in the US economy somehow.Like most conservatives ( social , economic , environmental ) , libertarians want to go back in time , and like most social conservatives the time they want to go back to never really existed .
I 'm certainly no proponent of progress for the sake of progress or change for the sake of change , but we ca n't go back in time , it just is n't possible .
We ca n't go back to all growing our own food in our backyards or going without electricity , because a lot of people would end up starving and starving humans in large numbers tend not to fade away quietly , we ca n't go back to social norms of the 1950 's because they did n't even work then , we ca n't go back to the Jeffersonian ideal because even Jefferson did n't actually live it.We 've been standing on the brink of a new future for a long time trying to legislate our way back into the past , and it 's just not working .
I do n't know what 's out there , it might be good , it might be bad , but it 's almost certainly going to be better than what we have now .
I 'd rather a new world order as terrible as that sounds than the old world order doing all the things we 're afraid of but doing them to try and move us backward .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the libertarians ever got their way we'd just end up with government by another name.
Pretty much the cornerstone of economics is that you can do a lot more with a little bit of from everyone than you can with a lot from a few people.
The world would still need roads and those roads would have to be built either by some private enterprise or by groups of citizens.
Either way you've got a department of transportation.
It's either selected by the people, or it's selected by the some private company.
It doesn't really make any difference.
Anarchy doesn't work and government isn't going away.
If your privatized it it wouldn't all of a sudden magically work better.
This is why the only major libertarian candidate in the last election wanted to go back to the gold standard which would have somehow required either finding an awful lot more gold  or getting rid of the vast majority of the money in the US economy somehow.Like most conservatives(social, economic, environmental), libertarians want to go back in time, and like most social conservatives the time they want to go back to never really existed.
I'm certainly no proponent of progress for the sake of progress or change for the sake of change, but we can't go back in time, it just isn't possible.
We can't go back to all growing our own food in our backyards or going without electricity, because a lot of people would end up starving and starving humans in large numbers tend not to fade away quietly, we can't go back to social norms of the 1950's because they didn't even work then, we can't go back to the Jeffersonian ideal because even Jefferson didn't actually live it.We've been standing on the brink of a new future for a long time trying to legislate our way back into the past, and it's just not working.
I don't know what's out there, it might be good, it might be bad, but it's almost certainly going to be better than what we have now.
I'd rather a new world order as terrible as that sounds than the old world order doing all the things we're afraid of but doing them to try and move us backward.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29946848</id>
	<title>How is this different than in the past?</title>
	<author>SlappyBastard</author>
	<datestamp>1257091980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The difference between the idiots who used to wreck the world 100 years ago and the idiots who wreck it today is that the modern day idiots are under the microscope, while the idiots back then could get away with anything.</p><p>For all of the faults of modern society, the wealthy are still far, far more accountable for their failures and for the damage they cause society today than they were 100 years ago.  100 years ago, if the public pissed the rich off, the rich responded by killing a hundred strikers and burying them in a mass grave.  Environmental damage? Ha!  Poverty?  So what?!  We've come a long way from the days when immigrant-lined sweatshops were the norm.</p><p>What Noonan, especially, is whining about arises from a myth: that our Great Leaders were soooo fucking much better.  It's not an accident that she masturbates furiously to the myth of Ronald Reagan -- she used to write for the fucker!  Talk about being doused in a big bucket of "DUH!"</p><p>The difference in this age is that we are aware.  We know the emperor has no clothes.  Politicians are afraid of asking for real sacrifice in the name of national unity.  The public knows that corporate America churns out reams of bullshit every day.</p><p>What Noonan is really crying about is that the peasants are now aware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference between the idiots who used to wreck the world 100 years ago and the idiots who wreck it today is that the modern day idiots are under the microscope , while the idiots back then could get away with anything.For all of the faults of modern society , the wealthy are still far , far more accountable for their failures and for the damage they cause society today than they were 100 years ago .
100 years ago , if the public pissed the rich off , the rich responded by killing a hundred strikers and burying them in a mass grave .
Environmental damage ?
Ha ! Poverty ?
So what ? !
We 've come a long way from the days when immigrant-lined sweatshops were the norm.What Noonan , especially , is whining about arises from a myth : that our Great Leaders were soooo fucking much better .
It 's not an accident that she masturbates furiously to the myth of Ronald Reagan -- she used to write for the fucker !
Talk about being doused in a big bucket of " DUH !
" The difference in this age is that we are aware .
We know the emperor has no clothes .
Politicians are afraid of asking for real sacrifice in the name of national unity .
The public knows that corporate America churns out reams of bullshit every day.What Noonan is really crying about is that the peasants are now aware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference between the idiots who used to wreck the world 100 years ago and the idiots who wreck it today is that the modern day idiots are under the microscope, while the idiots back then could get away with anything.For all of the faults of modern society, the wealthy are still far, far more accountable for their failures and for the damage they cause society today than they were 100 years ago.
100 years ago, if the public pissed the rich off, the rich responded by killing a hundred strikers and burying them in a mass grave.
Environmental damage?
Ha!  Poverty?
So what?!
We've come a long way from the days when immigrant-lined sweatshops were the norm.What Noonan, especially, is whining about arises from a myth: that our Great Leaders were soooo fucking much better.
It's not an accident that she masturbates furiously to the myth of Ronald Reagan -- she used to write for the fucker!
Talk about being doused in a big bucket of "DUH!
"The difference in this age is that we are aware.
We know the emperor has no clothes.
Politicians are afraid of asking for real sacrifice in the name of national unity.
The public knows that corporate America churns out reams of bullshit every day.What Noonan is really crying about is that the peasants are now aware.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29949200</id>
	<title>Re:News for nerds?</title>
	<author>Faerunner</author>
	<datestamp>1257169020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It may be an aggregate short-term gain but think in terms of long-term. We are now paying part of that company's profits (say, $30 of the $50 you spent on that tool) to another country's workers where it is more likely to be reinvested in their small businesses and local economy than to be paid back to another American company operating over there. (Ie, the chinese will go to a local shoe store with their paycheck from the american shoe factory, instead of buying from the american shoe stores in China).

<br>The overall effect is less money to go into reinvestment - maintenance of company property, R&amp;D, other workers' salaries suffer because the company is bleeding money at the reinvestment stage even as they save on cheaper labor. For some companies this is a manageable loss; they sell enough product that they will never have to worry about their bottom line as long as the product stays cheap. For others, it's a cost they can not afford to absorb long-term and one that will ultimately stifle the creativity and growth of that company.

<br>You also have to count the costs that increased unemployment over here can have. Unemployed people are costing us a lot of taxpayer dollars in food programs, shelters and medical care that they can't afford to pay. They aren't paying much, if anything, back into the system but are draining it daily. If we aren't giving them an opportunity to work, they may end up taking what they can't buy - and now you've got higher crime rates in poor areas, which costs us money for more police activity, more "security" measures, more full jails... you get the point. If enough people offshore or cut jobs here, you get a pretty damn big mess.

<br>I don't like the idea of feeding hungry Chinese when I'm starving myself. I've got a relatively low standard of living but when the economy makes it hard for me to put a roof over my head and the company down the street is hiring 200 Indians and not 100 of my neighbors, I'm naturally going to be a little bitter about outsourcing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It may be an aggregate short-term gain but think in terms of long-term .
We are now paying part of that company 's profits ( say , $ 30 of the $ 50 you spent on that tool ) to another country 's workers where it is more likely to be reinvested in their small businesses and local economy than to be paid back to another American company operating over there .
( Ie , the chinese will go to a local shoe store with their paycheck from the american shoe factory , instead of buying from the american shoe stores in China ) .
The overall effect is less money to go into reinvestment - maintenance of company property , R&amp;D , other workers ' salaries suffer because the company is bleeding money at the reinvestment stage even as they save on cheaper labor .
For some companies this is a manageable loss ; they sell enough product that they will never have to worry about their bottom line as long as the product stays cheap .
For others , it 's a cost they can not afford to absorb long-term and one that will ultimately stifle the creativity and growth of that company .
You also have to count the costs that increased unemployment over here can have .
Unemployed people are costing us a lot of taxpayer dollars in food programs , shelters and medical care that they ca n't afford to pay .
They are n't paying much , if anything , back into the system but are draining it daily .
If we are n't giving them an opportunity to work , they may end up taking what they ca n't buy - and now you 've got higher crime rates in poor areas , which costs us money for more police activity , more " security " measures , more full jails... you get the point .
If enough people offshore or cut jobs here , you get a pretty damn big mess .
I do n't like the idea of feeding hungry Chinese when I 'm starving myself .
I 've got a relatively low standard of living but when the economy makes it hard for me to put a roof over my head and the company down the street is hiring 200 Indians and not 100 of my neighbors , I 'm naturally going to be a little bitter about outsourcing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It may be an aggregate short-term gain but think in terms of long-term.
We are now paying part of that company's profits (say, $30 of the $50 you spent on that tool) to another country's workers where it is more likely to be reinvested in their small businesses and local economy than to be paid back to another American company operating over there.
(Ie, the chinese will go to a local shoe store with their paycheck from the american shoe factory, instead of buying from the american shoe stores in China).
The overall effect is less money to go into reinvestment - maintenance of company property, R&amp;D, other workers' salaries suffer because the company is bleeding money at the reinvestment stage even as they save on cheaper labor.
For some companies this is a manageable loss; they sell enough product that they will never have to worry about their bottom line as long as the product stays cheap.
For others, it's a cost they can not afford to absorb long-term and one that will ultimately stifle the creativity and growth of that company.
You also have to count the costs that increased unemployment over here can have.
Unemployed people are costing us a lot of taxpayer dollars in food programs, shelters and medical care that they can't afford to pay.
They aren't paying much, if anything, back into the system but are draining it daily.
If we aren't giving them an opportunity to work, they may end up taking what they can't buy - and now you've got higher crime rates in poor areas, which costs us money for more police activity, more "security" measures, more full jails... you get the point.
If enough people offshore or cut jobs here, you get a pretty damn big mess.
I don't like the idea of feeding hungry Chinese when I'm starving myself.
I've got a relatively low standard of living but when the economy makes it hard for me to put a roof over my head and the company down the street is hiring 200 Indians and not 100 of my neighbors, I'm naturally going to be a little bitter about outsourcing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29947092</id>
	<title>Most of you are missing the point</title>
	<author>ewe2</author>
	<datestamp>1257094500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not even a specifically American problem. Simply put, our so-called heroic leaders have no idea what to do with their power, a bit of a problem since we have no intention of doing anything to help.

</p><p>To quote (as I often do) <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Voltaires-Bastards-John-Ralston-Saul/dp/0679748199/ref=sr\_1\_2?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1257132521&amp;sr=8-2" title="amazon.co.uk">Voltaire's Bastards</a> [amazon.co.uk]:</p><blockquote><div><p>Jefferson put it that men by their constitution were naturally divided into two parts -- those who fear and distrust the people versus those who identify with the people and have confidence in them. Our civilization has increasingly put those who fear and distrust in power over us. Those who have confidence have always argued that consciousness is the key to improvements in the human condition. But power structures have always treated consciousness in the citizenry as a danger which must first be lulled, then channelled towards the inoffensive through the mechanisms of language, mythology and structure.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>We are profoundly conformist and authoritarian, the biggest cowards in history. We wait for a disaster so we can fix it, rather than taking preventative measures, all the while hoping someone else will do it for us.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not even a specifically American problem .
Simply put , our so-called heroic leaders have no idea what to do with their power , a bit of a problem since we have no intention of doing anything to help .
To quote ( as I often do ) Voltaire 's Bastards [ amazon.co.uk ] : Jefferson put it that men by their constitution were naturally divided into two parts -- those who fear and distrust the people versus those who identify with the people and have confidence in them .
Our civilization has increasingly put those who fear and distrust in power over us .
Those who have confidence have always argued that consciousness is the key to improvements in the human condition .
But power structures have always treated consciousness in the citizenry as a danger which must first be lulled , then channelled towards the inoffensive through the mechanisms of language , mythology and structure .
We are profoundly conformist and authoritarian , the biggest cowards in history .
We wait for a disaster so we can fix it , rather than taking preventative measures , all the while hoping someone else will do it for us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not even a specifically American problem.
Simply put, our so-called heroic leaders have no idea what to do with their power, a bit of a problem since we have no intention of doing anything to help.
To quote (as I often do) Voltaire's Bastards [amazon.co.uk]:Jefferson put it that men by their constitution were naturally divided into two parts -- those who fear and distrust the people versus those who identify with the people and have confidence in them.
Our civilization has increasingly put those who fear and distrust in power over us.
Those who have confidence have always argued that consciousness is the key to improvements in the human condition.
But power structures have always treated consciousness in the citizenry as a danger which must first be lulled, then channelled towards the inoffensive through the mechanisms of language, mythology and structure.
We are profoundly conformist and authoritarian, the biggest cowards in history.
We wait for a disaster so we can fix it, rather than taking preventative measures, all the while hoping someone else will do it for us.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943850</id>
	<title>Re:atlas yawned</title>
	<author>k8to</author>
	<datestamp>1257067140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At the local politics level, what you say is often true.  Local politics are often the most useful, anyway.</p><p>However, at the national level, this is almost never true.  National politics are popoulated nearly entirely by the priveledged old boys club.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At the local politics level , what you say is often true .
Local politics are often the most useful , anyway.However , at the national level , this is almost never true .
National politics are popoulated nearly entirely by the priveledged old boys club .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the local politics level, what you say is often true.
Local politics are often the most useful, anyway.However, at the national level, this is almost never true.
National politics are popoulated nearly entirely by the priveledged old boys club.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943682</id>
	<title>Re:Fundamentally Broken System</title>
	<author>u38cg</author>
	<datestamp>1257066360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh dear.  The reason the system works, that we can have exponential growth, is that money has no value.  You can't eat it, fuck it, or wear it.  We seem as a whole to be under the misapprehension that the economy is a linear system, with outputs that respond in some sensible way to perturbations of input and where if we just get the market players to behave in certain ways everything will play nicely.  The world economy is in fact a chaotic system with unpredictable reactions which never reacts the same way twice.  It acts as a linear system over small periods of time, but in the long term you cannot safely bet your shirt on it except in certain very broad ways.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh dear .
The reason the system works , that we can have exponential growth , is that money has no value .
You ca n't eat it , fuck it , or wear it .
We seem as a whole to be under the misapprehension that the economy is a linear system , with outputs that respond in some sensible way to perturbations of input and where if we just get the market players to behave in certain ways everything will play nicely .
The world economy is in fact a chaotic system with unpredictable reactions which never reacts the same way twice .
It acts as a linear system over small periods of time , but in the long term you can not safely bet your shirt on it except in certain very broad ways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh dear.
The reason the system works, that we can have exponential growth, is that money has no value.
You can't eat it, fuck it, or wear it.
We seem as a whole to be under the misapprehension that the economy is a linear system, with outputs that respond in some sensible way to perturbations of input and where if we just get the market players to behave in certain ways everything will play nicely.
The world economy is in fact a chaotic system with unpredictable reactions which never reacts the same way twice.
It acts as a linear system over small periods of time, but in the long term you cannot safely bet your shirt on it except in certain very broad ways.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943104</id>
	<title>Noonan, go Galt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257105420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love the "you don't understand, we'll go Galt," whining.</p><p>To the old executive talking to Noonan: please, go Galt.  You did a shitty job and I believe I can do better.  Get out of my and my generation's way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love the " you do n't understand , we 'll go Galt , " whining.To the old executive talking to Noonan : please , go Galt .
You did a shitty job and I believe I can do better .
Get out of my and my generation 's way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love the "you don't understand, we'll go Galt," whining.To the old executive talking to Noonan: please, go Galt.
You did a shitty job and I believe I can do better.
Get out of my and my generation's way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943084</id>
	<title>V for Vendetta</title>
	<author>Gothmolly</author>
	<datestamp>1257105240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" And the truth is , there is something terribly wrong with this country , is n't there ?
Cruelty and injustice , intolerance and oppression .
And where once you had the freedom to object , to think and speak as you saw fit , you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission .
How did this happen ?
Who 's to blame ?
Well certainly there are those more responsible than others , and they will be held accountable , but again truth be told , if you 're looking for the guilty , you need only look into a mirror .
I know why you did it .
I know you were afraid .
Who would n't be ?
War , terror , disease .
There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there?
Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression.
And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission.
How did this happen?
Who's to blame?
Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror.
I know why you did it.
I know you were afraid.
Who wouldn't be?
War, terror, disease.
There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944474</id>
	<title>Re:Illinois Wants Insurers to Cover Prayer Treatme</title>
	<author>benjamindees</author>
	<datestamp>1257071460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Republicans have decided that they aren't actually against welfare state or government spending, they just want it to go to religious groups instead of scientists and social workers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Republicans have decided that they are n't actually against welfare state or government spending , they just want it to go to religious groups instead of scientists and social workers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Republicans have decided that they aren't actually against welfare state or government spending, they just want it to go to religious groups instead of scientists and social workers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943692</id>
	<title>Re:Clueless? Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257066420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The likes of Goldman are neither clueless nor evil, merely self-interested.  From what I understand, Goldman is one of the smaller firms on Wall Street, and they seem to have been one of the few to profit (legitimately, without bailouts) from the housing collapse.  And it's important to realize that they did so by doing <b>the right thing</b> before any of the others, by divesting themselves of many mortgage backed securities and by hedging against the collapse of the market.  If any of them are clueless, it's the larger banks (Citi, BoA, Wells Fargo) that rode the real estate market right off the cliff.  If any of them are evil, it's the government-sponsored mortgage backers who encouraged (with stolen tax dollars) such a ridiculous mis-allocation of resources to begin with.</p><p>Furthermore, profiting by "betting" against mal-investment is in no way evil.  Here's an analogy.  Let's say you know someone who discovers a coal mine in his backyard.  And he says that he'd rather not go to the trouble of developing the mine and selling the coal to produce electricity or heat houses or whatever.  He'd rather just ignite it to burn off underground.</p><p>You clearly recognize that this is an economic waste, a mis-allocation of resources, an increase of entropy with no discernible benefit to anyone.  So you tie him up and rob him of his coal instead.  You have saved an entire mine full of coal, and provided that benefit to the market and the economy, by preventing him from destroying this natural resource.  This example is much more extreme than merely betting against some endeavour, it's actually physically preventing it.  But is what you did evil?  You prevented someone from destroying a valuable resource.  If it required no physical force, would performing the same action using paper instruments or "betting" be evil?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The likes of Goldman are neither clueless nor evil , merely self-interested .
From what I understand , Goldman is one of the smaller firms on Wall Street , and they seem to have been one of the few to profit ( legitimately , without bailouts ) from the housing collapse .
And it 's important to realize that they did so by doing the right thing before any of the others , by divesting themselves of many mortgage backed securities and by hedging against the collapse of the market .
If any of them are clueless , it 's the larger banks ( Citi , BoA , Wells Fargo ) that rode the real estate market right off the cliff .
If any of them are evil , it 's the government-sponsored mortgage backers who encouraged ( with stolen tax dollars ) such a ridiculous mis-allocation of resources to begin with.Furthermore , profiting by " betting " against mal-investment is in no way evil .
Here 's an analogy .
Let 's say you know someone who discovers a coal mine in his backyard .
And he says that he 'd rather not go to the trouble of developing the mine and selling the coal to produce electricity or heat houses or whatever .
He 'd rather just ignite it to burn off underground.You clearly recognize that this is an economic waste , a mis-allocation of resources , an increase of entropy with no discernible benefit to anyone .
So you tie him up and rob him of his coal instead .
You have saved an entire mine full of coal , and provided that benefit to the market and the economy , by preventing him from destroying this natural resource .
This example is much more extreme than merely betting against some endeavour , it 's actually physically preventing it .
But is what you did evil ?
You prevented someone from destroying a valuable resource .
If it required no physical force , would performing the same action using paper instruments or " betting " be evil ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The likes of Goldman are neither clueless nor evil, merely self-interested.
From what I understand, Goldman is one of the smaller firms on Wall Street, and they seem to have been one of the few to profit (legitimately, without bailouts) from the housing collapse.
And it's important to realize that they did so by doing the right thing before any of the others, by divesting themselves of many mortgage backed securities and by hedging against the collapse of the market.
If any of them are clueless, it's the larger banks (Citi, BoA, Wells Fargo) that rode the real estate market right off the cliff.
If any of them are evil, it's the government-sponsored mortgage backers who encouraged (with stolen tax dollars) such a ridiculous mis-allocation of resources to begin with.Furthermore, profiting by "betting" against mal-investment is in no way evil.
Here's an analogy.
Let's say you know someone who discovers a coal mine in his backyard.
And he says that he'd rather not go to the trouble of developing the mine and selling the coal to produce electricity or heat houses or whatever.
He'd rather just ignite it to burn off underground.You clearly recognize that this is an economic waste, a mis-allocation of resources, an increase of entropy with no discernible benefit to anyone.
So you tie him up and rob him of his coal instead.
You have saved an entire mine full of coal, and provided that benefit to the market and the economy, by preventing him from destroying this natural resource.
This example is much more extreme than merely betting against some endeavour, it's actually physically preventing it.
But is what you did evil?
You prevented someone from destroying a valuable resource.
If it required no physical force, would performing the same action using paper instruments or "betting" be evil?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943094</id>
	<title>Then maybe...</title>
	<author>Manip</author>
	<datestamp>1257105300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In order to get one of those top bankers jobs you need to have:<br>
&nbsp; - Perfect credit rating<br>
&nbsp; - Clean criminal record<br>
&nbsp; - At least a degree (although a masters is more realistic)<br>
&nbsp; - Private school and or brand university</p><p>If you don't then forget it. You would never make it past the interview stage. Which in turn results in every banker being a white male with fairly rich parents and a bunch of peers they fit in well with. The entire system is set to allow people "like them" in and to keep "those other people" out.</p><p>It isn't just about sexism or racism, it is about class. They don't want poor people into their club.</p><p>Thus it results in exactly what the article is talking about. Bankers have no real life experience. They never make mistakes or are down on their luck. I mean, heck, they likely complain if their pent house is a rental... So are we really surprised when they lack understanding of what might happen if they lose their gambling?</p><p>But truth be known a lot of bankers didn't understand the level of risk. They left it up to third parties to literally invent ways to measure risk and sell it back to them. Then they could turn around and blame these third parties if what was a "low risk" investment wasn't (which is a false self-reassurance).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In order to get one of those top bankers jobs you need to have :   - Perfect credit rating   - Clean criminal record   - At least a degree ( although a masters is more realistic )   - Private school and or brand universityIf you do n't then forget it .
You would never make it past the interview stage .
Which in turn results in every banker being a white male with fairly rich parents and a bunch of peers they fit in well with .
The entire system is set to allow people " like them " in and to keep " those other people " out.It is n't just about sexism or racism , it is about class .
They do n't want poor people into their club.Thus it results in exactly what the article is talking about .
Bankers have no real life experience .
They never make mistakes or are down on their luck .
I mean , heck , they likely complain if their pent house is a rental... So are we really surprised when they lack understanding of what might happen if they lose their gambling ? But truth be known a lot of bankers did n't understand the level of risk .
They left it up to third parties to literally invent ways to measure risk and sell it back to them .
Then they could turn around and blame these third parties if what was a " low risk " investment was n't ( which is a false self-reassurance ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In order to get one of those top bankers jobs you need to have:
  - Perfect credit rating
  - Clean criminal record
  - At least a degree (although a masters is more realistic)
  - Private school and or brand universityIf you don't then forget it.
You would never make it past the interview stage.
Which in turn results in every banker being a white male with fairly rich parents and a bunch of peers they fit in well with.
The entire system is set to allow people "like them" in and to keep "those other people" out.It isn't just about sexism or racism, it is about class.
They don't want poor people into their club.Thus it results in exactly what the article is talking about.
Bankers have no real life experience.
They never make mistakes or are down on their luck.
I mean, heck, they likely complain if their pent house is a rental... So are we really surprised when they lack understanding of what might happen if they lose their gambling?But truth be known a lot of bankers didn't understand the level of risk.
They left it up to third parties to literally invent ways to measure risk and sell it back to them.
Then they could turn around and blame these third parties if what was a "low risk" investment wasn't (which is a false self-reassurance).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29951334</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another right-wing nihilism hit piece</title>
	<author>amplt1337</author>
	<datestamp>1257182820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This.</p><p>Noonan is claiming that since Democrats don't have the same reverential passion for the Dear Leader that the Republican majority of yesteryear did, therefore America is out of ideas.</p><p>Not so.  There are <i>plenty</i> of people who have well-thought-out, believable responses to our current problems--social, economic, and political.  It's just not in the interest of either major party to represent those ideas.  So progressives lose faith in our leaders, because <i>our leaders aren't radical enough</i>.  Consider Joe Lieberman -- planning to filibuster a health-care reform bill that's supported by 80\% of the population, by a FORTY-POINT MAJORITY of his OWN constituents.  And why?  A lot of reasons -- he's Sen. Lieberman, I-Aetna; he's trying to spike the Dems who failed to drive him out of office thanks to his name recognition; he's playing both sides; he's a dick.  But please, don't tell me I've lost hope in America because I've lost faith in Joe Lieberman's ability to do anything non-self-serving.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This.Noonan is claiming that since Democrats do n't have the same reverential passion for the Dear Leader that the Republican majority of yesteryear did , therefore America is out of ideas.Not so .
There are plenty of people who have well-thought-out , believable responses to our current problems--social , economic , and political .
It 's just not in the interest of either major party to represent those ideas .
So progressives lose faith in our leaders , because our leaders are n't radical enough .
Consider Joe Lieberman -- planning to filibuster a health-care reform bill that 's supported by 80 \ % of the population , by a FORTY-POINT MAJORITY of his OWN constituents .
And why ?
A lot of reasons -- he 's Sen. Lieberman , I-Aetna ; he 's trying to spike the Dems who failed to drive him out of office thanks to his name recognition ; he 's playing both sides ; he 's a dick .
But please , do n't tell me I 've lost hope in America because I 've lost faith in Joe Lieberman 's ability to do anything non-self-serving .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This.Noonan is claiming that since Democrats don't have the same reverential passion for the Dear Leader that the Republican majority of yesteryear did, therefore America is out of ideas.Not so.
There are plenty of people who have well-thought-out, believable responses to our current problems--social, economic, and political.
It's just not in the interest of either major party to represent those ideas.
So progressives lose faith in our leaders, because our leaders aren't radical enough.
Consider Joe Lieberman -- planning to filibuster a health-care reform bill that's supported by 80\% of the population, by a FORTY-POINT MAJORITY of his OWN constituents.
And why?
A lot of reasons -- he's Sen. Lieberman, I-Aetna; he's trying to spike the Dems who failed to drive him out of office thanks to his name recognition; he's playing both sides; he's a dick.
But please, don't tell me I've lost hope in America because I've lost faith in Joe Lieberman's ability to do anything non-self-serving.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944656</id>
	<title>Re:The "problem"</title>
	<author>blahplusplus</author>
	<datestamp>1257072720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Is capitalism or socialism the answer? Yes.</p><p>Yes, because BOTH are the answer, at the same time.</p><p>Allow me to try to explain this, before you explode."</p><p>The real issue is the AGENT principle problem, people will begin to rule in their interests over the common good.  Free marketeers and socialists both fall for it.</p><p>But it really comes down to human beings being stupid low intelligence creatures, with genetic engineering/AI I'm guessing a lot of our problems would be eliminated, it's the human minds gullability and mediocrity at seperating truth from error that causes so much mischief</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Is capitalism or socialism the answer ?
Yes.Yes , because BOTH are the answer , at the same time.Allow me to try to explain this , before you explode .
" The real issue is the AGENT principle problem , people will begin to rule in their interests over the common good .
Free marketeers and socialists both fall for it.But it really comes down to human beings being stupid low intelligence creatures , with genetic engineering/AI I 'm guessing a lot of our problems would be eliminated , it 's the human minds gullability and mediocrity at seperating truth from error that causes so much mischief</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Is capitalism or socialism the answer?
Yes.Yes, because BOTH are the answer, at the same time.Allow me to try to explain this, before you explode.
"The real issue is the AGENT principle problem, people will begin to rule in their interests over the common good.
Free marketeers and socialists both fall for it.But it really comes down to human beings being stupid low intelligence creatures, with genetic engineering/AI I'm guessing a lot of our problems would be eliminated, it's the human minds gullability and mediocrity at seperating truth from error that causes so much mischief</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29946430</id>
	<title>Re:News for nerds?</title>
	<author>Austerity Empowers</author>
	<datestamp>1257088200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're right, I don't care about Indians or Chinese, nor do I think we ought to be supporting their welfare unless they want to become the 51st and 52nd states.</p><p>China you can argue is a country that is going to at least make good on the money we give it, an investment there is an investment in someone's future. However it stands for pretty much the exact opposite ideals that we stand for in the USA (and that Europeans generally want to believe in). They haven't met a civil liberty that they wouldn't trample. Their commitment to communism equals only their commitment to capitalism: the people may suffer as long as the status quo marches on. India? Replace evil ideals with poverty and corruption. Investing there is like flushing money down the toilet. How does that help anyone?</p><p>So in the process of impoverishing that American, you're also hurting his country, and also hurting the ideals that enable the free world to be free. You don't have to like America, but you would be a complete moron to not understand that the free world is safe, as long as we're here doing whatever we do. It doesn't matter if we're fighting a war that doesn't need to be fought in Iraq, or if we're late to show for world wars you do happen to care about, the key point is top to bottom we do value what we have and we will help protect it, as long as we have the resources and know how to do so. That doesn't mean that a few very short sighted people will not sell us out to make a quick buck, and then wake up one day wondering why the villagers are lined up outside their castle with pitchforks and torches.</p><p>It doesn't matter if you end up with a cheaper power tool if you lose the jobs required to pay for it, or you lose the edge on technology required to build more and better tools. Talking about "unskilled factory jobs" moving offshore was 30 years ago, we're losing science and engineering jobs at record rates. The only thing we're keeping are service jobs and managerial jobs, none of which is going to keep us in a position of power for very long. I don't know how many managers it takes to invent a light bulb, but I suspect it will get lost in committee before we find an answer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right , I do n't care about Indians or Chinese , nor do I think we ought to be supporting their welfare unless they want to become the 51st and 52nd states.China you can argue is a country that is going to at least make good on the money we give it , an investment there is an investment in someone 's future .
However it stands for pretty much the exact opposite ideals that we stand for in the USA ( and that Europeans generally want to believe in ) .
They have n't met a civil liberty that they would n't trample .
Their commitment to communism equals only their commitment to capitalism : the people may suffer as long as the status quo marches on .
India ? Replace evil ideals with poverty and corruption .
Investing there is like flushing money down the toilet .
How does that help anyone ? So in the process of impoverishing that American , you 're also hurting his country , and also hurting the ideals that enable the free world to be free .
You do n't have to like America , but you would be a complete moron to not understand that the free world is safe , as long as we 're here doing whatever we do .
It does n't matter if we 're fighting a war that does n't need to be fought in Iraq , or if we 're late to show for world wars you do happen to care about , the key point is top to bottom we do value what we have and we will help protect it , as long as we have the resources and know how to do so .
That does n't mean that a few very short sighted people will not sell us out to make a quick buck , and then wake up one day wondering why the villagers are lined up outside their castle with pitchforks and torches.It does n't matter if you end up with a cheaper power tool if you lose the jobs required to pay for it , or you lose the edge on technology required to build more and better tools .
Talking about " unskilled factory jobs " moving offshore was 30 years ago , we 're losing science and engineering jobs at record rates .
The only thing we 're keeping are service jobs and managerial jobs , none of which is going to keep us in a position of power for very long .
I do n't know how many managers it takes to invent a light bulb , but I suspect it will get lost in committee before we find an answer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right, I don't care about Indians or Chinese, nor do I think we ought to be supporting their welfare unless they want to become the 51st and 52nd states.China you can argue is a country that is going to at least make good on the money we give it, an investment there is an investment in someone's future.
However it stands for pretty much the exact opposite ideals that we stand for in the USA (and that Europeans generally want to believe in).
They haven't met a civil liberty that they wouldn't trample.
Their commitment to communism equals only their commitment to capitalism: the people may suffer as long as the status quo marches on.
India? Replace evil ideals with poverty and corruption.
Investing there is like flushing money down the toilet.
How does that help anyone?So in the process of impoverishing that American, you're also hurting his country, and also hurting the ideals that enable the free world to be free.
You don't have to like America, but you would be a complete moron to not understand that the free world is safe, as long as we're here doing whatever we do.
It doesn't matter if we're fighting a war that doesn't need to be fought in Iraq, or if we're late to show for world wars you do happen to care about, the key point is top to bottom we do value what we have and we will help protect it, as long as we have the resources and know how to do so.
That doesn't mean that a few very short sighted people will not sell us out to make a quick buck, and then wake up one day wondering why the villagers are lined up outside their castle with pitchforks and torches.It doesn't matter if you end up with a cheaper power tool if you lose the jobs required to pay for it, or you lose the edge on technology required to build more and better tools.
Talking about "unskilled factory jobs" moving offshore was 30 years ago, we're losing science and engineering jobs at record rates.
The only thing we're keeping are service jobs and managerial jobs, none of which is going to keep us in a position of power for very long.
I don't know how many managers it takes to invent a light bulb, but I suspect it will get lost in committee before we find an answer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943048</id>
	<title>atlas yawned</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257104940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>i don't buy noonan's premise. most elected officials i know (and i know hundreds) don't come from any so-called privileged "leadership class," whatever that is, they come instead from nearly all walks of life and bring with them the experience of extremely diverse backgrounds, including poverty and marginalization. it's true that the profoundly destitute among us, the homeless, the institutionalized etc rarely make it past the intention to run but this recurring conservative refrain that the country is held hostage by an arrogant and privileged elite (by definition "liberal") is nothing more than a constant whine from a group of philosophically bankrupt extremists who don't have the intellectual firepower to understand why we're not all in thrall to alissa rosenbaum and her fifty year old adolescent fairy tales.</htmltext>
<tokenext>i do n't buy noonan 's premise .
most elected officials i know ( and i know hundreds ) do n't come from any so-called privileged " leadership class , " whatever that is , they come instead from nearly all walks of life and bring with them the experience of extremely diverse backgrounds , including poverty and marginalization .
it 's true that the profoundly destitute among us , the homeless , the institutionalized etc rarely make it past the intention to run but this recurring conservative refrain that the country is held hostage by an arrogant and privileged elite ( by definition " liberal " ) is nothing more than a constant whine from a group of philosophically bankrupt extremists who do n't have the intellectual firepower to understand why we 're not all in thrall to alissa rosenbaum and her fifty year old adolescent fairy tales .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i don't buy noonan's premise.
most elected officials i know (and i know hundreds) don't come from any so-called privileged "leadership class," whatever that is, they come instead from nearly all walks of life and bring with them the experience of extremely diverse backgrounds, including poverty and marginalization.
it's true that the profoundly destitute among us, the homeless, the institutionalized etc rarely make it past the intention to run but this recurring conservative refrain that the country is held hostage by an arrogant and privileged elite (by definition "liberal") is nothing more than a constant whine from a group of philosophically bankrupt extremists who don't have the intellectual firepower to understand why we're not all in thrall to alissa rosenbaum and her fifty year old adolescent fairy tales.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29948270</id>
	<title>Re:Illinois Wants Insurers to Cover Prayer Treatme</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257152940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, that's just all kind of stupid.</p><p>Maybe let them choose one? Traditional or prayer treatment. I mean, we wouldn't want to discriminate against the poor believers who are atacked by science on all sides. And the problem will take care of itself.</p><p>Too bad about their children, but hey..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , that 's just all kind of stupid.Maybe let them choose one ?
Traditional or prayer treatment .
I mean , we would n't want to discriminate against the poor believers who are atacked by science on all sides .
And the problem will take care of itself.Too bad about their children , but hey. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, that's just all kind of stupid.Maybe let them choose one?
Traditional or prayer treatment.
I mean, we wouldn't want to discriminate against the poor believers who are atacked by science on all sides.
And the problem will take care of itself.Too bad about their children, but hey..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943432</id>
	<title>Re:She's without hope, so we must be?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257108000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If "most everyone else" knows that government - which by its nature involves regulation, and public investment, and yes collecting taxes to pay for those activities - is "not a path through," we're left asking "Who is this 'everyone else'?"</p></div></blockquote><p>This is same duplicity being pushed by Republicans when it comes to health care reform.  It starts out, "Yes, we have a health care problem."  Then it becomes, "Yes, we (ie, government) need to do something about it."  Then, "Oh no, we can't let the government regulate or tax to fix the health care problem; they're the source of the health care problem!"  What does that mean?  Well, the only "solution" then is to cut taxes on health-care related taxes.</p><p>As the adage goes, if all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like nails.  Unfortunately, sometimes there is a market failure when it comes to allocate resources.  When it's non-critical (ie, not health, the elderly, the poor), government very probably shouldn't become involved.  But this fanciful idea that markets that function on money will suddenly start working with people without money to spend is ludicrous.  Cutting taxes doesn't solve the problem.  Nor, really, does this mandatory health insurance.  The real solution is universal coverage with progressive taxation, just like nearly every other governmental project.  But, I guess pointing out that would alienate the Republican base and do nothing political advantageous.</p><p>PS - Yes, Obama's doing the same thing from the other angle.  The whole "health insurance subsidy" is clearly a pragmatic (ie, political) attempt to obtain Republican support.  Since that's not going to fly anyways, why half-ass it?  A major problem with the health care system, anyways, is that it's been so cobbled together there's tons of inefficiency and loads of room for fraud.  Real reform means real unification, even if it involves a lot of kicking and screaming from people.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If " most everyone else " knows that government - which by its nature involves regulation , and public investment , and yes collecting taxes to pay for those activities - is " not a path through , " we 're left asking " Who is this 'everyone else ' ?
" This is same duplicity being pushed by Republicans when it comes to health care reform .
It starts out , " Yes , we have a health care problem .
" Then it becomes , " Yes , we ( ie , government ) need to do something about it .
" Then , " Oh no , we ca n't let the government regulate or tax to fix the health care problem ; they 're the source of the health care problem !
" What does that mean ?
Well , the only " solution " then is to cut taxes on health-care related taxes.As the adage goes , if all you have is a hammer , everything starts to look like nails .
Unfortunately , sometimes there is a market failure when it comes to allocate resources .
When it 's non-critical ( ie , not health , the elderly , the poor ) , government very probably should n't become involved .
But this fanciful idea that markets that function on money will suddenly start working with people without money to spend is ludicrous .
Cutting taxes does n't solve the problem .
Nor , really , does this mandatory health insurance .
The real solution is universal coverage with progressive taxation , just like nearly every other governmental project .
But , I guess pointing out that would alienate the Republican base and do nothing political advantageous.PS - Yes , Obama 's doing the same thing from the other angle .
The whole " health insurance subsidy " is clearly a pragmatic ( ie , political ) attempt to obtain Republican support .
Since that 's not going to fly anyways , why half-ass it ?
A major problem with the health care system , anyways , is that it 's been so cobbled together there 's tons of inefficiency and loads of room for fraud .
Real reform means real unification , even if it involves a lot of kicking and screaming from people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If "most everyone else" knows that government - which by its nature involves regulation, and public investment, and yes collecting taxes to pay for those activities - is "not a path through," we're left asking "Who is this 'everyone else'?
"This is same duplicity being pushed by Republicans when it comes to health care reform.
It starts out, "Yes, we have a health care problem.
"  Then it becomes, "Yes, we (ie, government) need to do something about it.
"  Then, "Oh no, we can't let the government regulate or tax to fix the health care problem; they're the source of the health care problem!
"  What does that mean?
Well, the only "solution" then is to cut taxes on health-care related taxes.As the adage goes, if all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like nails.
Unfortunately, sometimes there is a market failure when it comes to allocate resources.
When it's non-critical (ie, not health, the elderly, the poor), government very probably shouldn't become involved.
But this fanciful idea that markets that function on money will suddenly start working with people without money to spend is ludicrous.
Cutting taxes doesn't solve the problem.
Nor, really, does this mandatory health insurance.
The real solution is universal coverage with progressive taxation, just like nearly every other governmental project.
But, I guess pointing out that would alienate the Republican base and do nothing political advantageous.PS - Yes, Obama's doing the same thing from the other angle.
The whole "health insurance subsidy" is clearly a pragmatic (ie, political) attempt to obtain Republican support.
Since that's not going to fly anyways, why half-ass it?
A major problem with the health care system, anyways, is that it's been so cobbled together there's tons of inefficiency and loads of room for fraud.
Real reform means real unification, even if it involves a lot of kicking and screaming from people.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29947236</id>
	<title>Re:Why are they still employed?</title>
	<author>ukyoCE</author>
	<datestamp>1257096300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you missed the part where the Bush administration started the stimulus spending, and Bush-appointed fed chairman is running the show.  This isn't about the left or the right, Obama or Cheney.  The people bailing these companies out do not want to, but they have no real choice.  If you'd listen, you'd hear that every time they talk.  They hate it every bit as much as us.</p><p>The real problem is that companies are allowed to get this big.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you missed the part where the Bush administration started the stimulus spending , and Bush-appointed fed chairman is running the show .
This is n't about the left or the right , Obama or Cheney .
The people bailing these companies out do not want to , but they have no real choice .
If you 'd listen , you 'd hear that every time they talk .
They hate it every bit as much as us.The real problem is that companies are allowed to get this big .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you missed the part where the Bush administration started the stimulus spending, and Bush-appointed fed chairman is running the show.
This isn't about the left or the right, Obama or Cheney.
The people bailing these companies out do not want to, but they have no real choice.
If you'd listen, you'd hear that every time they talk.
They hate it every bit as much as us.The real problem is that companies are allowed to get this big.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29942938</id>
	<title>Uhh...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257103980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What a load of bollocks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What a load of bollocks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a load of bollocks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943182</id>
	<title>Cap-and-Trade Law: Good for Bankers, Bad for U.S.?</title>
	<author>theodp</author>
	<datestamp>1257106080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/220523" title="newsweek.com">Scrap Cap-and-Trade</a> [newsweek.com]: Americans would spend $100 billion to $200 billion a year for limited results: a 15 percent cut in U.S. emissions would reduce global emissions by less than 4 percent, which would have a negligible worldwide impact. Investment bankers need cap-and-trade to make their "green energy" deals successful. That's great (and profitable) for them, but their earnings would come at the expense of every other American.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Scrap Cap-and-Trade [ newsweek.com ] : Americans would spend $ 100 billion to $ 200 billion a year for limited results : a 15 percent cut in U.S. emissions would reduce global emissions by less than 4 percent , which would have a negligible worldwide impact .
Investment bankers need cap-and-trade to make their " green energy " deals successful .
That 's great ( and profitable ) for them , but their earnings would come at the expense of every other American .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scrap Cap-and-Trade [newsweek.com]: Americans would spend $100 billion to $200 billion a year for limited results: a 15 percent cut in U.S. emissions would reduce global emissions by less than 4 percent, which would have a negligible worldwide impact.
Investment bankers need cap-and-trade to make their "green energy" deals successful.
That's great (and profitable) for them, but their earnings would come at the expense of every other American.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29947958</id>
	<title>Re:News for nerds?</title>
	<author>govt-serpent</author>
	<datestamp>1257104280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It arguably *is* a good idea. If you can hire 3 engineers in India for the price of one in the USA, then yes, it harms that one in the USA, but it helps *three* in India. I'm operating from the assumption that an Indian is just as valuable as an American, so there's a net gain of two people finding good jobs. If your premise is that Americans are more important than everyone else in the world, then you might reach a different conclusion."</p></div><p>it is also a good idea to hire Indian or Chinese CEO's and managers. You can hire hire 3 of them for the price of one in the USA. Why outsource only non-CEO's and managers?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It arguably * is * a good idea .
If you can hire 3 engineers in India for the price of one in the USA , then yes , it harms that one in the USA , but it helps * three * in India .
I 'm operating from the assumption that an Indian is just as valuable as an American , so there 's a net gain of two people finding good jobs .
If your premise is that Americans are more important than everyone else in the world , then you might reach a different conclusion .
" it is also a good idea to hire Indian or Chinese CEO 's and managers .
You can hire hire 3 of them for the price of one in the USA .
Why outsource only non-CEO 's and managers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It arguably *is* a good idea.
If you can hire 3 engineers in India for the price of one in the USA, then yes, it harms that one in the USA, but it helps *three* in India.
I'm operating from the assumption that an Indian is just as valuable as an American, so there's a net gain of two people finding good jobs.
If your premise is that Americans are more important than everyone else in the world, then you might reach a different conclusion.
"it is also a good idea to hire Indian or Chinese CEO's and managers.
You can hire hire 3 of them for the price of one in the USA.
Why outsource only non-CEO's and managers?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29947322</id>
	<title>Re:News for nerds?</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1257097020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If everyone buys everything from China and the tech jobs get shipped to India, who here will have any money to spend here so that you can keep your job?</p><p>The answer is nobody. Then the $50 power tool might as well cost $5000 since you won't be able to afford it anyway.</p><p>The workers in India and China meanwhile only see a tiny fraction of the benefit. Most of it goes right into the pockets of the wealthiest 5\% of the U.S. They would be far better off growing their own technologic and economic base free of the leeches.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If everyone buys everything from China and the tech jobs get shipped to India , who here will have any money to spend here so that you can keep your job ? The answer is nobody .
Then the $ 50 power tool might as well cost $ 5000 since you wo n't be able to afford it anyway.The workers in India and China meanwhile only see a tiny fraction of the benefit .
Most of it goes right into the pockets of the wealthiest 5 \ % of the U.S. They would be far better off growing their own technologic and economic base free of the leeches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If everyone buys everything from China and the tech jobs get shipped to India, who here will have any money to spend here so that you can keep your job?The answer is nobody.
Then the $50 power tool might as well cost $5000 since you won't be able to afford it anyway.The workers in India and China meanwhile only see a tiny fraction of the benefit.
Most of it goes right into the pockets of the wealthiest 5\% of the U.S. They would be far better off growing their own technologic and economic base free of the leeches.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29951768</id>
	<title>Re:News for nerds?</title>
	<author>nwf</author>
	<datestamp>1257184740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this is a cordless tool, it really doesn't matter how long it lasts. The batteries of any power tool, made in China, US or anywhere else, will be dead in two years tops. At that point, its' cheaper to buy another drill. So the cheap power tool is actually matched to last as long as the batteries. My brother, a licensed contractor, bought the made in the US $500 drill. While it was an awesome drill, the batteries just don't last either. Maybe somewhat longer than the cheap brand, but certainly not twice as long.</p><p>A larger problem is that people purchased based on initial cost only, not life cycle cost. (Otherwise, there would be no Microsoft or Chrysler for that matter.) Replacement parts cost more than a new unit because people just don't fix stuff or purchase based on what will be cheapest to fix. No batteries are going to last 5 years in a power tool.</p><p>Now I do try to stay away from "made in China" because it is mostly junk, but nearly all cordless drills are made there or somewhere similar. Even the once stout Milwaukee's drills are made in China with the possible exception of their $500 models. (Now that they are owned by the same parent that makes Ryobi, the crappiest power tools on the market.) DeWalt? Made in China. Makita? Same.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this is a cordless tool , it really does n't matter how long it lasts .
The batteries of any power tool , made in China , US or anywhere else , will be dead in two years tops .
At that point , its ' cheaper to buy another drill .
So the cheap power tool is actually matched to last as long as the batteries .
My brother , a licensed contractor , bought the made in the US $ 500 drill .
While it was an awesome drill , the batteries just do n't last either .
Maybe somewhat longer than the cheap brand , but certainly not twice as long.A larger problem is that people purchased based on initial cost only , not life cycle cost .
( Otherwise , there would be no Microsoft or Chrysler for that matter .
) Replacement parts cost more than a new unit because people just do n't fix stuff or purchase based on what will be cheapest to fix .
No batteries are going to last 5 years in a power tool.Now I do try to stay away from " made in China " because it is mostly junk , but nearly all cordless drills are made there or somewhere similar .
Even the once stout Milwaukee 's drills are made in China with the possible exception of their $ 500 models .
( Now that they are owned by the same parent that makes Ryobi , the crappiest power tools on the market .
) DeWalt ?
Made in China .
Makita ? Same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this is a cordless tool, it really doesn't matter how long it lasts.
The batteries of any power tool, made in China, US or anywhere else, will be dead in two years tops.
At that point, its' cheaper to buy another drill.
So the cheap power tool is actually matched to last as long as the batteries.
My brother, a licensed contractor, bought the made in the US $500 drill.
While it was an awesome drill, the batteries just don't last either.
Maybe somewhat longer than the cheap brand, but certainly not twice as long.A larger problem is that people purchased based on initial cost only, not life cycle cost.
(Otherwise, there would be no Microsoft or Chrysler for that matter.
) Replacement parts cost more than a new unit because people just don't fix stuff or purchase based on what will be cheapest to fix.
No batteries are going to last 5 years in a power tool.Now I do try to stay away from "made in China" because it is mostly junk, but nearly all cordless drills are made there or somewhere similar.
Even the once stout Milwaukee's drills are made in China with the possible exception of their $500 models.
(Now that they are owned by the same parent that makes Ryobi, the crappiest power tools on the market.
) DeWalt?
Made in China.
Makita? Same.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29947432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29954972</id>
	<title>Re:News for nerds?</title>
	<author>thickdiick</author>
	<datestamp>1257156360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem with this is that as you lower employment in the US and move money overseas, there is less of it in the US to support US prices. Eventually the standard of living in the countries you outsourced to will rise increasing your outsourced costs, and the standard of living in the US will lower decreasing your revenues.</p></div><p>
Actually, if you sell dollars and buy foreign currency, the dollars will become lower in value relative to the foreign currency and the dollar prices will rise to equilibrium with other prices.
<br> <br>
If your statement were true, then international trade would be the destoryer of worlds. Alas, tis not so. Outsourcing allows people with a compqrative advantage to produce what they produce best. <br>
Woe to the persons who denied you a literate education. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative\_advantage" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative\_advantage</a> [wikipedia.org] <br>
Additional reading:<br>
The term "Luddite fallacy" has become a concept in neoclassical economics reflecting the belief that labour-saving technologies (i.e., technologies that increase output-per-worker) increase unemployment by reducing demand for labour. The fallacy lies in assuming that employers will seek to keep production constant by employing a smaller, more productive workforce instead of allowing production to grow while keeping workforce size constant.[4] Wikipedia</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with this is that as you lower employment in the US and move money overseas , there is less of it in the US to support US prices .
Eventually the standard of living in the countries you outsourced to will rise increasing your outsourced costs , and the standard of living in the US will lower decreasing your revenues .
Actually , if you sell dollars and buy foreign currency , the dollars will become lower in value relative to the foreign currency and the dollar prices will rise to equilibrium with other prices .
If your statement were true , then international trade would be the destoryer of worlds .
Alas , t is not so .
Outsourcing allows people with a compqrative advantage to produce what they produce best .
Woe to the persons who denied you a literate education .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative \ _advantage [ wikipedia.org ] Additional reading : The term " Luddite fallacy " has become a concept in neoclassical economics reflecting the belief that labour-saving technologies ( i.e. , technologies that increase output-per-worker ) increase unemployment by reducing demand for labour .
The fallacy lies in assuming that employers will seek to keep production constant by employing a smaller , more productive workforce instead of allowing production to grow while keeping workforce size constant .
[ 4 ] Wikipedia</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with this is that as you lower employment in the US and move money overseas, there is less of it in the US to support US prices.
Eventually the standard of living in the countries you outsourced to will rise increasing your outsourced costs, and the standard of living in the US will lower decreasing your revenues.
Actually, if you sell dollars and buy foreign currency, the dollars will become lower in value relative to the foreign currency and the dollar prices will rise to equilibrium with other prices.
If your statement were true, then international trade would be the destoryer of worlds.
Alas, tis not so.
Outsourcing allows people with a compqrative advantage to produce what they produce best.
Woe to the persons who denied you a literate education.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative\_advantage [wikipedia.org] 
Additional reading:
The term "Luddite fallacy" has become a concept in neoclassical economics reflecting the belief that labour-saving technologies (i.e., technologies that increase output-per-worker) increase unemployment by reducing demand for labour.
The fallacy lies in assuming that employers will seek to keep production constant by employing a smaller, more productive workforce instead of allowing production to grow while keeping workforce size constant.
[4] Wikipedia
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29945922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943450</id>
	<title>Sociopaths and children of Sociopaths</title>
	<author>SimBuddha</author>
	<datestamp>1257108120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It took me a long time to figure out why things are going to hell.  Then I read

<a href="http://www.youmeworks.com/sociopaths.html" title="youmeworks.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youmeworks.com/sociopaths.html</a> [youmeworks.com]

and it all made sense.  Sociopaths seek power and winning without conscience
and this is why banking and wall street leaders are where they are, because
they've changed the system of laws to favor themselves.  Like terminators,
they don't feel remorse or care if their actions hurt other people.  These
people are now a large proportion of our international corporate leadership.
Until our system collapses, they will stay in power, even though they are
the reason for our suffering and downfall as a nation.  Not sure what there
is to do about the situation except have people come to recognize sociopaths
for what they are, broken people who should never be allowed to hold power.

From the web site the 12 clues to recognizing a sociopath
HOW TO KNOW

The big question is, of course, how can you know whether someone is a sociopath or not? It is a difficult question and even experts on the subject can be fooled. If you suspect that someone close to you is a sociopath, I suggest you read both of the books I mentioned and think hard about it. Compare that person to the other people in your life. Ask yourself these questions:

1. Do you often feel used by the person?

2. Have you often felt that he (or she) doesn't care about you?

3. Does he lie and deceive you?

4. Does he tend to make contradictory statements?

5. Does he tend to take from you and not give back much?

6. Does he often appeal to pity? Does he seem to try to make you feel sorry for him?

7. Does he try to make you feel guilty?

8. Do you sometimes feel he is taking advantage of your good nature?

9. Does he seem easily bored and need constant stimulation?

10. Does he use a lot of flattery? Does he interact with you in a way that makes you feel flattered even if he says nothing overtly complimentary?

11. Does he make you feel worried? Does he do it obviously or more cleverly and sneakily?

12. Does he give you the impression you owe him?

13. Does he chronically fail to take responsibility for harming others? Does he blame everyone and everything but himself?

Tags: evil, Hitler, anti-christ, sociopath,</htmltext>
<tokenext>It took me a long time to figure out why things are going to hell .
Then I read http : //www.youmeworks.com/sociopaths.html [ youmeworks.com ] and it all made sense .
Sociopaths seek power and winning without conscience and this is why banking and wall street leaders are where they are , because they 've changed the system of laws to favor themselves .
Like terminators , they do n't feel remorse or care if their actions hurt other people .
These people are now a large proportion of our international corporate leadership .
Until our system collapses , they will stay in power , even though they are the reason for our suffering and downfall as a nation .
Not sure what there is to do about the situation except have people come to recognize sociopaths for what they are , broken people who should never be allowed to hold power .
From the web site the 12 clues to recognizing a sociopath HOW TO KNOW The big question is , of course , how can you know whether someone is a sociopath or not ?
It is a difficult question and even experts on the subject can be fooled .
If you suspect that someone close to you is a sociopath , I suggest you read both of the books I mentioned and think hard about it .
Compare that person to the other people in your life .
Ask yourself these questions : 1 .
Do you often feel used by the person ?
2. Have you often felt that he ( or she ) does n't care about you ?
3. Does he lie and deceive you ?
4. Does he tend to make contradictory statements ?
5. Does he tend to take from you and not give back much ?
6. Does he often appeal to pity ?
Does he seem to try to make you feel sorry for him ?
7. Does he try to make you feel guilty ?
8. Do you sometimes feel he is taking advantage of your good nature ?
9. Does he seem easily bored and need constant stimulation ?
10. Does he use a lot of flattery ?
Does he interact with you in a way that makes you feel flattered even if he says nothing overtly complimentary ?
11. Does he make you feel worried ?
Does he do it obviously or more cleverly and sneakily ?
12. Does he give you the impression you owe him ?
13. Does he chronically fail to take responsibility for harming others ?
Does he blame everyone and everything but himself ?
Tags : evil , Hitler , anti-christ , sociopath,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It took me a long time to figure out why things are going to hell.
Then I read

http://www.youmeworks.com/sociopaths.html [youmeworks.com]

and it all made sense.
Sociopaths seek power and winning without conscience
and this is why banking and wall street leaders are where they are, because
they've changed the system of laws to favor themselves.
Like terminators,
they don't feel remorse or care if their actions hurt other people.
These
people are now a large proportion of our international corporate leadership.
Until our system collapses, they will stay in power, even though they are
the reason for our suffering and downfall as a nation.
Not sure what there
is to do about the situation except have people come to recognize sociopaths
for what they are, broken people who should never be allowed to hold power.
From the web site the 12 clues to recognizing a sociopath
HOW TO KNOW

The big question is, of course, how can you know whether someone is a sociopath or not?
It is a difficult question and even experts on the subject can be fooled.
If you suspect that someone close to you is a sociopath, I suggest you read both of the books I mentioned and think hard about it.
Compare that person to the other people in your life.
Ask yourself these questions:

1.
Do you often feel used by the person?
2. Have you often felt that he (or she) doesn't care about you?
3. Does he lie and deceive you?
4. Does he tend to make contradictory statements?
5. Does he tend to take from you and not give back much?
6. Does he often appeal to pity?
Does he seem to try to make you feel sorry for him?
7. Does he try to make you feel guilty?
8. Do you sometimes feel he is taking advantage of your good nature?
9. Does he seem easily bored and need constant stimulation?
10. Does he use a lot of flattery?
Does he interact with you in a way that makes you feel flattered even if he says nothing overtly complimentary?
11. Does he make you feel worried?
Does he do it obviously or more cleverly and sneakily?
12. Does he give you the impression you owe him?
13. Does he chronically fail to take responsibility for harming others?
Does he blame everyone and everything but himself?
Tags: evil, Hitler, anti-christ, sociopath,</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29945788</id>
	<title>Re:Then maybe...</title>
	<author>quarterbuck</author>
	<datestamp>1257082260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not true. <br>
There is no credit check for banking jobs, otherwise they would not be able to hire all the international students they hire (who arrive here with no credit history). CEO of Citibank, Vikram Pandit started like that.<br>
 You also don't need a private school background, the most preferred group for an associate job is from Army. They get to claim "we hire veterans" and at the same time the Army background gives the hired people the ability to work insane hours without protest, be comfortable with being away from family for days etc. Best of all they are often broke and will work hard to make money. Many traders and bankers started out this route. <br>

Other things you say about the field is more or less correct.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not true .
There is no credit check for banking jobs , otherwise they would not be able to hire all the international students they hire ( who arrive here with no credit history ) .
CEO of Citibank , Vikram Pandit started like that .
You also do n't need a private school background , the most preferred group for an associate job is from Army .
They get to claim " we hire veterans " and at the same time the Army background gives the hired people the ability to work insane hours without protest , be comfortable with being away from family for days etc .
Best of all they are often broke and will work hard to make money .
Many traders and bankers started out this route .
Other things you say about the field is more or less correct .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not true.
There is no credit check for banking jobs, otherwise they would not be able to hire all the international students they hire (who arrive here with no credit history).
CEO of Citibank, Vikram Pandit started like that.
You also don't need a private school background, the most preferred group for an associate job is from Army.
They get to claim "we hire veterans" and at the same time the Army background gives the hired people the ability to work insane hours without protest, be comfortable with being away from family for days etc.
Best of all they are often broke and will work hard to make money.
Many traders and bankers started out this route.
Other things you say about the field is more or less correct.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29951924</id>
	<title>Re:News for nerds?</title>
	<author>nwf</author>
	<datestamp>1257185400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are several problems with companies chasing the cheapest solution via outsourcing:</p><p>1. They don't save as much as they think due to increased costs of management due to communication problems and high turnover. However, these are harder to bean count, so they often don't figure into the picture. This is a major flaw of American business: if you can't quantify it, it's insignificant. Tell that to Gateway who used to be the largest PC manufacturer, but lost that when their customers bailed due to poor customer service.</p><p>2. You now have much of your intellectual capital in a foreign country with different laws, and in the case of ones like China, laws that can be changed when it suites the leaders. So when your cheap labor decides they can compete with you cheaper, courtesy of you who paid to train them and grow them enough to be a threat, you're screwed. Most of the jobs being outscored are for companies that could just as well be owned and operated from India!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are several problems with companies chasing the cheapest solution via outsourcing : 1 .
They do n't save as much as they think due to increased costs of management due to communication problems and high turnover .
However , these are harder to bean count , so they often do n't figure into the picture .
This is a major flaw of American business : if you ca n't quantify it , it 's insignificant .
Tell that to Gateway who used to be the largest PC manufacturer , but lost that when their customers bailed due to poor customer service.2 .
You now have much of your intellectual capital in a foreign country with different laws , and in the case of ones like China , laws that can be changed when it suites the leaders .
So when your cheap labor decides they can compete with you cheaper , courtesy of you who paid to train them and grow them enough to be a threat , you 're screwed .
Most of the jobs being outscored are for companies that could just as well be owned and operated from India !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are several problems with companies chasing the cheapest solution via outsourcing:1.
They don't save as much as they think due to increased costs of management due to communication problems and high turnover.
However, these are harder to bean count, so they often don't figure into the picture.
This is a major flaw of American business: if you can't quantify it, it's insignificant.
Tell that to Gateway who used to be the largest PC manufacturer, but lost that when their customers bailed due to poor customer service.2.
You now have much of your intellectual capital in a foreign country with different laws, and in the case of ones like China, laws that can be changed when it suites the leaders.
So when your cheap labor decides they can compete with you cheaper, courtesy of you who paid to train them and grow them enough to be a threat, you're screwed.
Most of the jobs being outscored are for companies that could just as well be owned and operated from India!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29946320</id>
	<title>Dear OP, Please Learn to Turn Phrases Correctly</title>
	<author>herojig</author>
	<datestamp>1257087180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fearlessness could never be described as being unimaginative, stupid, and faithless, so your turning of FDR's phrase is inaccurate at best. From Ch&#246;gyam Trungpa Rinpoche to www.answers.com, fearlessness has not been used in this manner. However, the content was good, so kudos for that...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fearlessness could never be described as being unimaginative , stupid , and faithless , so your turning of FDR 's phrase is inaccurate at best .
From Ch   gyam Trungpa Rinpoche to www.answers.com , fearlessness has not been used in this manner .
However , the content was good , so kudos for that.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fearlessness could never be described as being unimaginative, stupid, and faithless, so your turning of FDR's phrase is inaccurate at best.
From Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche to www.answers.com, fearlessness has not been used in this manner.
However, the content was good, so kudos for that...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944316</id>
	<title>Re:Why should we be surprised</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257070380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It's ridiculous when GM assembly line workers expect health care in perpetuity. </i></p><p>Well, no. When it is part of a signed contract negotiated by GM management and part of the total compensation offered to the workers, it is perfectly reasonable to expect GM to live up to the obligations GM agreed to.</p><p>The problems of GM have been long in the making. The fundamental problem for GM is that they aren't making much money selling cars.</p><p>GM needs to improve its margins, get costs under control, and make their cars more desirable to the customer. Government assistance isn't going to magically make that happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's ridiculous when GM assembly line workers expect health care in perpetuity .
Well , no .
When it is part of a signed contract negotiated by GM management and part of the total compensation offered to the workers , it is perfectly reasonable to expect GM to live up to the obligations GM agreed to.The problems of GM have been long in the making .
The fundamental problem for GM is that they are n't making much money selling cars.GM needs to improve its margins , get costs under control , and make their cars more desirable to the customer .
Government assistance is n't going to magically make that happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's ridiculous when GM assembly line workers expect health care in perpetuity.
Well, no.
When it is part of a signed contract negotiated by GM management and part of the total compensation offered to the workers, it is perfectly reasonable to expect GM to live up to the obligations GM agreed to.The problems of GM have been long in the making.
The fundamental problem for GM is that they aren't making much money selling cars.GM needs to improve its margins, get costs under control, and make their cars more desirable to the customer.
Government assistance isn't going to magically make that happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943958</id>
	<title>Re:Fundamentally Broken System</title>
	<author>nebaz</author>
	<datestamp>1257068100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A constant percentage increase each year IS exponential growth.  Say we have 5\% every year, then the growth for a given year n, is defined by G(n) = g0 * (1.05)^n, where g0 is the initial value at year 0.  This is an exponential function of n.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A constant percentage increase each year IS exponential growth .
Say we have 5 \ % every year , then the growth for a given year n , is defined by G ( n ) = g0 * ( 1.05 ) ^ n , where g0 is the initial value at year 0 .
This is an exponential function of n .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A constant percentage increase each year IS exponential growth.
Say we have 5\% every year, then the growth for a given year n, is defined by G(n) = g0 * (1.05)^n, where g0 is the initial value at year 0.
This is an exponential function of n.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29947432</id>
	<title>Re:News for nerds?</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1257098040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I recently bought a made-in-China power tool for $50. "</p><p>Thou art a fool, and probably the son of fools.</p><p>If you had bought that $50 dollar tool made-in-India, I would ask you how well the tool worked, and how long it lasted.  But, I know how well that $50 made-in-China power tool worked out.  It has 1/4 the power of the "comparable" American made tool, and it will last about 1/10 as long.</p><p>In short, you are full of shit, because there is no "made-in-China equivalent".  Replace China with any of a dozen other nations, then you'll have my interest.  Korea, Taiwan, India, Vietnam - there are indeed a lot of Asian markets who are undercutting us on goods that might be comparable.  But, it sure as HELL isn't China.</p><p>Bought any milk products, lately, from China?  Drywall?  Children's toys?  Clothing?</p><p>No wonder you post as Anonymous Coward - you have your head up your ass, or you are being paid by China to astroturf for China.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I recently bought a made-in-China power tool for $ 50 .
" Thou art a fool , and probably the son of fools.If you had bought that $ 50 dollar tool made-in-India , I would ask you how well the tool worked , and how long it lasted .
But , I know how well that $ 50 made-in-China power tool worked out .
It has 1/4 the power of the " comparable " American made tool , and it will last about 1/10 as long.In short , you are full of shit , because there is no " made-in-China equivalent " .
Replace China with any of a dozen other nations , then you 'll have my interest .
Korea , Taiwan , India , Vietnam - there are indeed a lot of Asian markets who are undercutting us on goods that might be comparable .
But , it sure as HELL is n't China.Bought any milk products , lately , from China ?
Drywall ? Children 's toys ?
Clothing ? No wonder you post as Anonymous Coward - you have your head up your ass , or you are being paid by China to astroturf for China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I recently bought a made-in-China power tool for $50.
"Thou art a fool, and probably the son of fools.If you had bought that $50 dollar tool made-in-India, I would ask you how well the tool worked, and how long it lasted.
But, I know how well that $50 made-in-China power tool worked out.
It has 1/4 the power of the "comparable" American made tool, and it will last about 1/10 as long.In short, you are full of shit, because there is no "made-in-China equivalent".
Replace China with any of a dozen other nations, then you'll have my interest.
Korea, Taiwan, India, Vietnam - there are indeed a lot of Asian markets who are undercutting us on goods that might be comparable.
But, it sure as HELL isn't China.Bought any milk products, lately, from China?
Drywall?  Children's toys?
Clothing?No wonder you post as Anonymous Coward - you have your head up your ass, or you are being paid by China to astroturf for China.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943178</id>
	<title>Why should we be surprised</title>
	<author>Beowulfs\_Ghost</author>
	<datestamp>1257106020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The "top" people in both government and business are spoiled children.  From Bill Gates to GW Bush, they had everything handed to them, and when things got tough, their parents bailed them out.  In the socio-economic stratosphere of the US, it has never been about merit.  It's always been about money, and now we can see what that has bred.</p><p>We hear a lot about the sense of entitlement among the baby boomers, but it's almost always in the context of Medicare and welfare for the relatively poor.  Now we see what this sense of entitlement does on the grand scale.  It's ridiculous when GM assembly line workers expect health care in perpetuity.  It's mind blowing to see the same attitude applied to C level executives who think they are entitled to year over year growth, and bonuses, regardless of how bad things really are.</p><p>And things are bad.  The financial wizards of Wall St. have, almost literally, destroyed trillions of dollar in wealth over the last year.  None of them think they did anything wrong, and any who are taken to task for this colossal screw up will cry about how unjust it is.  When will people realize that handing the reigns of power to spoiled brats, who have no concept of the consequences of failure, is a stupid idea?  Doesn't look like they've learned it this time.  Maybe in 10 more years when the next economic crisis is screws everyone but the people who caused it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The " top " people in both government and business are spoiled children .
From Bill Gates to GW Bush , they had everything handed to them , and when things got tough , their parents bailed them out .
In the socio-economic stratosphere of the US , it has never been about merit .
It 's always been about money , and now we can see what that has bred.We hear a lot about the sense of entitlement among the baby boomers , but it 's almost always in the context of Medicare and welfare for the relatively poor .
Now we see what this sense of entitlement does on the grand scale .
It 's ridiculous when GM assembly line workers expect health care in perpetuity .
It 's mind blowing to see the same attitude applied to C level executives who think they are entitled to year over year growth , and bonuses , regardless of how bad things really are.And things are bad .
The financial wizards of Wall St. have , almost literally , destroyed trillions of dollar in wealth over the last year .
None of them think they did anything wrong , and any who are taken to task for this colossal screw up will cry about how unjust it is .
When will people realize that handing the reigns of power to spoiled brats , who have no concept of the consequences of failure , is a stupid idea ?
Does n't look like they 've learned it this time .
Maybe in 10 more years when the next economic crisis is screws everyone but the people who caused it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "top" people in both government and business are spoiled children.
From Bill Gates to GW Bush, they had everything handed to them, and when things got tough, their parents bailed them out.
In the socio-economic stratosphere of the US, it has never been about merit.
It's always been about money, and now we can see what that has bred.We hear a lot about the sense of entitlement among the baby boomers, but it's almost always in the context of Medicare and welfare for the relatively poor.
Now we see what this sense of entitlement does on the grand scale.
It's ridiculous when GM assembly line workers expect health care in perpetuity.
It's mind blowing to see the same attitude applied to C level executives who think they are entitled to year over year growth, and bonuses, regardless of how bad things really are.And things are bad.
The financial wizards of Wall St. have, almost literally, destroyed trillions of dollar in wealth over the last year.
None of them think they did anything wrong, and any who are taken to task for this colossal screw up will cry about how unjust it is.
When will people realize that handing the reigns of power to spoiled brats, who have no concept of the consequences of failure, is a stupid idea?
Doesn't look like they've learned it this time.
Maybe in 10 more years when the next economic crisis is screws everyone but the people who caused it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943702</id>
	<title>Noonan's Insura guy</title>
	<author>kilodelta</author>
	<datestamp>1257066480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Definitely an Ayn Rand adherent. They'll just pick up and leave. Oh my god, what are we going to do when the parasitic captains of industry just disappear? Yeah, like there aren't some of us ready to pick up the mantle.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Definitely an Ayn Rand adherent .
They 'll just pick up and leave .
Oh my god , what are we going to do when the parasitic captains of industry just disappear ?
Yeah , like there are n't some of us ready to pick up the mantle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Definitely an Ayn Rand adherent.
They'll just pick up and leave.
Oh my god, what are we going to do when the parasitic captains of industry just disappear?
Yeah, like there aren't some of us ready to pick up the mantle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29952992</id>
	<title>Re:News for nerds?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257190800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>China you can argue is a country that is going to at least make good on the money we give it</i>
<p>
Why would you think that, since they haven't been able to make good for the last 5000 years? (Except fireworks and paper money). How much longer are you going to give them?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>China you can argue is a country that is going to at least make good on the money we give it Why would you think that , since they have n't been able to make good for the last 5000 years ?
( Except fireworks and paper money ) .
How much longer are you going to give them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China you can argue is a country that is going to at least make good on the money we give it

Why would you think that, since they haven't been able to make good for the last 5000 years?
(Except fireworks and paper money).
How much longer are you going to give them?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29946430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29947318</id>
	<title>sounds like aniother deveils twist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257096960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>oh, and the road to hell is NOT paved with good intentions as the devil would have u believe</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>oh , and the road to hell is NOT paved with good intentions as the devil would have u believe</tokentext>
<sentencetext>oh, and the road to hell is NOT paved with good intentions as the devil would have u believe</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944710</id>
	<title>Obama hasn't been in office for 9 months!!</title>
	<author>ancient\_kings</author>
	<datestamp>1257073080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Give him and his "real Mcoy" cabinet some time to correct the literal and figurative destruction left by Fuck-Up Incorporated Bush and Cheney.
The American economy can recover if Obama has the guts to force criminal prosecutions of many of the "Old American Family" institutions and their bratty sons and daughters that have royally fucked this country up. I also see major cuts (and I mean MAJOR CUTS) in Defense in Obama's second term as president to Power Burst the American economy into overdrive. Watch and see...trust me... Mark this slashdot message for the future in 5 years.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Give him and his " real Mcoy " cabinet some time to correct the literal and figurative destruction left by Fuck-Up Incorporated Bush and Cheney .
The American economy can recover if Obama has the guts to force criminal prosecutions of many of the " Old American Family " institutions and their bratty sons and daughters that have royally fucked this country up .
I also see major cuts ( and I mean MAJOR CUTS ) in Defense in Obama 's second term as president to Power Burst the American economy into overdrive .
Watch and see...trust me... Mark this slashdot message for the future in 5 years .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Give him and his "real Mcoy" cabinet some time to correct the literal and figurative destruction left by Fuck-Up Incorporated Bush and Cheney.
The American economy can recover if Obama has the guts to force criminal prosecutions of many of the "Old American Family" institutions and their bratty sons and daughters that have royally fucked this country up.
I also see major cuts (and I mean MAJOR CUTS) in Defense in Obama's second term as president to Power Burst the American economy into overdrive.
Watch and see...trust me... Mark this slashdot message for the future in 5 years.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943114</id>
	<title>Re:News for nerds?</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1257105480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Stuff that matters.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stuff that matters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stuff that matters.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29942948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29959610</id>
	<title>Re:She's without hope, so we must be?</title>
	<author>spicate</author>
	<datestamp>1257181560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It is quite possible things might actually work better under real Libertarianism where Wall Street bankers get absolutely no assistance from the Fed, Treasury, Congress or the President.</p></div><p>What, exactly, do you think would happen if the government seriously deregulated and we had "real Libertarianism?" Do you think the wealthy would suddenly have LESS power? Pretty damn unlikely. The knowledge and power imbalance between major corporations and the average consumer is too great, and they have very little incentive to play nice.

The answer is to take back government and make it work, not throw up our hands and give up.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is quite possible things might actually work better under real Libertarianism where Wall Street bankers get absolutely no assistance from the Fed , Treasury , Congress or the President.What , exactly , do you think would happen if the government seriously deregulated and we had " real Libertarianism ?
" Do you think the wealthy would suddenly have LESS power ?
Pretty damn unlikely .
The knowledge and power imbalance between major corporations and the average consumer is too great , and they have very little incentive to play nice .
The answer is to take back government and make it work , not throw up our hands and give up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is quite possible things might actually work better under real Libertarianism where Wall Street bankers get absolutely no assistance from the Fed, Treasury, Congress or the President.What, exactly, do you think would happen if the government seriously deregulated and we had "real Libertarianism?
" Do you think the wealthy would suddenly have LESS power?
Pretty damn unlikely.
The knowledge and power imbalance between major corporations and the average consumer is too great, and they have very little incentive to play nice.
The answer is to take back government and make it work, not throw up our hands and give up.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943870</id>
	<title>Re:The "problem"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257067380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The US needs to accept that you need a healthy balance between the state and the individual</p></div><p>"Balance" is the wrong word, but yes.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>and that this balance can NEVER be achieved, you always will end up with a pendulum swinging back and forth.</p></div><p>Absolutely positively wrong.  It is completely possible to achieve balance.  With the right set of rules and by moving to a workable set of initial conditions, it is entirely possible to eliminate force from the system.  It requires a lot of changes, but it is entirely achievable.  Unfortunately, we are not moving in the direction of balance or of dampening the pendulum.  To move in that direction would be to move closer to the initial founding principles of this country.  Instead, we are speeding the pendulum up.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Things only go wrong if the pendulum is either hanging still or doesn't swing back.</p></div><p>No, no, no.  "Hanging still" is the ideal state.  I used to believe that it was not achievable.  In the decade that I have spent watching the pendulum swing, and considering this problem, it has become clear to me that it is in fact achievable.  Difficult, perhaps impossibly so, but theoretically possible.</p><p>There is one ideology.  It is not the "middle path" or anything resembling a mish-mash of competing ideologies.  It is a third way.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The US needs to accept that you need a healthy balance between the state and the individual " Balance " is the wrong word , but yes.and that this balance can NEVER be achieved , you always will end up with a pendulum swinging back and forth.Absolutely positively wrong .
It is completely possible to achieve balance .
With the right set of rules and by moving to a workable set of initial conditions , it is entirely possible to eliminate force from the system .
It requires a lot of changes , but it is entirely achievable .
Unfortunately , we are not moving in the direction of balance or of dampening the pendulum .
To move in that direction would be to move closer to the initial founding principles of this country .
Instead , we are speeding the pendulum up.Things only go wrong if the pendulum is either hanging still or does n't swing back.No , no , no .
" Hanging still " is the ideal state .
I used to believe that it was not achievable .
In the decade that I have spent watching the pendulum swing , and considering this problem , it has become clear to me that it is in fact achievable .
Difficult , perhaps impossibly so , but theoretically possible.There is one ideology .
It is not the " middle path " or anything resembling a mish-mash of competing ideologies .
It is a third way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US needs to accept that you need a healthy balance between the state and the individual"Balance" is the wrong word, but yes.and that this balance can NEVER be achieved, you always will end up with a pendulum swinging back and forth.Absolutely positively wrong.
It is completely possible to achieve balance.
With the right set of rules and by moving to a workable set of initial conditions, it is entirely possible to eliminate force from the system.
It requires a lot of changes, but it is entirely achievable.
Unfortunately, we are not moving in the direction of balance or of dampening the pendulum.
To move in that direction would be to move closer to the initial founding principles of this country.
Instead, we are speeding the pendulum up.Things only go wrong if the pendulum is either hanging still or doesn't swing back.No, no, no.
"Hanging still" is the ideal state.
I used to believe that it was not achievable.
In the decade that I have spent watching the pendulum swing, and considering this problem, it has become clear to me that it is in fact achievable.
Difficult, perhaps impossibly so, but theoretically possible.There is one ideology.
It is not the "middle path" or anything resembling a mish-mash of competing ideologies.
It is a third way.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943738</id>
	<title>Re:It's simply the consequence of corporate psycho</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257066660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Geez, sounds like you too, are a fan of the book, "Snakes in Suits" (All about psychopaths in business, government, etc.) Highly recommended.<br>(Mind you, it's too late now to prevent their collosal destruction of the world economy...but perhaps enough of them can be recognized and thrown out before they continue screwing over the world...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Geez , sounds like you too , are a fan of the book , " Snakes in Suits " ( All about psychopaths in business , government , etc .
) Highly recommended .
( Mind you , it 's too late now to prevent their collosal destruction of the world economy...but perhaps enough of them can be recognized and thrown out before they continue screwing over the world.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Geez, sounds like you too, are a fan of the book, "Snakes in Suits" (All about psychopaths in business, government, etc.
) Highly recommended.
(Mind you, it's too late now to prevent their collosal destruction of the world economy...but perhaps enough of them can be recognized and thrown out before they continue screwing over the world...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29949062</id>
	<title>Mythology of Wealth</title>
	<author>Paul Fernhout</author>
	<datestamp>1257167220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The Mythology of Wealth"<br><a href="http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/?q=node/402" title="conceptualguerilla.com">http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/?q=node/402</a> [conceptualguerilla.com]<br>"The Wrath of the Millionaire Wannabe's"<br><a href="http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/?q=node/47" title="conceptualguerilla.com">http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/?q=node/47</a> [conceptualguerilla.com]<br>On Education vs. Schooling:<br><a href="http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2003/Compulsory-Schooling-AnarchistMar03.htm" title="mindfully.org">http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2003/Compulsory-Schooling-AnarchistMar03.htm</a> [mindfully.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The Mythology of Wealth " http : //www.conceptualguerilla.com/ ? q = node/402 [ conceptualguerilla.com ] " The Wrath of the Millionaire Wannabe 's " http : //www.conceptualguerilla.com/ ? q = node/47 [ conceptualguerilla.com ] On Education vs. Schooling : http : //www.mindfully.org/Reform/2003/Compulsory-Schooling-AnarchistMar03.htm [ mindfully.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The Mythology of Wealth"http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/?q=node/402 [conceptualguerilla.com]"The Wrath of the Millionaire Wannabe's"http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/?q=node/47 [conceptualguerilla.com]On Education vs. Schooling:http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2003/Compulsory-Schooling-AnarchistMar03.htm [mindfully.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29949256</id>
	<title>Re:atlas yawned</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1257169920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your cynical comment actually turns out not to be true. A few exceptions off the top of my head:<br>Dennis Kucinich (D-OH 10) - Son of a truck driver, won his first political office right after graduating college, and has worked in politics ever since.<br>Howard Dean (former governor of VT, former DNC chair) - His career was in medicine.<br>Ron Paul (R-TX 14) - Another doctor who like Kucinich got into politics early<br>Bernie Sanders (S-VT) - son of immigrants, worked as a carpenter and journalist before entering politics.<br>Al Franken (D-MN) - Earned most of his fame and fortune via his comedy work.<br>Arnold Schwarzenegger - Bodybuilder, then actor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your cynical comment actually turns out not to be true .
A few exceptions off the top of my head : Dennis Kucinich ( D-OH 10 ) - Son of a truck driver , won his first political office right after graduating college , and has worked in politics ever since.Howard Dean ( former governor of VT , former DNC chair ) - His career was in medicine.Ron Paul ( R-TX 14 ) - Another doctor who like Kucinich got into politics earlyBernie Sanders ( S-VT ) - son of immigrants , worked as a carpenter and journalist before entering politics.Al Franken ( D-MN ) - Earned most of his fame and fortune via his comedy work.Arnold Schwarzenegger - Bodybuilder , then actor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your cynical comment actually turns out not to be true.
A few exceptions off the top of my head:Dennis Kucinich (D-OH 10) - Son of a truck driver, won his first political office right after graduating college, and has worked in politics ever since.Howard Dean (former governor of VT, former DNC chair) - His career was in medicine.Ron Paul (R-TX 14) - Another doctor who like Kucinich got into politics earlyBernie Sanders (S-VT) - son of immigrants, worked as a carpenter and journalist before entering politics.Al Franken (D-MN) - Earned most of his fame and fortune via his comedy work.Arnold Schwarzenegger - Bodybuilder, then actor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29950152</id>
	<title>Government works!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257177000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There are things government does well and things private individuals do well</p></div><p>The government is really, really good at depriving individuals of life, liberty, and property on a comprehensive basis.</p><p>In this country, the government efficiently rounded up Japanese people and sent them to concentration camps, leaving their property easily-plundered by other rapacious individuals who now had government permission to do just that.</p><p>This country's government currently imprisons more people than China, Cuba, and Russia in pursuit of punishing people for using drugs that the government does not approve of.  This policy has failed to eliminate or even curb drug use and the associated black market, but it does keep lots of people employed using money plundered from "taxpayers".</p><p>Other governments have done an even awesomer job of destroying other people's lives.  The Soviet government enslaved millions of millions of its own citizens (saving labor costs big time!) by accusing them of "crimes".</p><p>Or hell, the Cambodian government just outright killed anyone who looked too smart, but not before torturing them for a long time in S-21.  Rad!</p><p>The government sucks royally at everything else it does, but both "liberals" and "conservatives" like to pretend that using the government as a club, bayonet, or waterboard can influence behavior toward the mythical "Common Good" (which, in practice, means, "I'm good and you are bad").</p><p>What slays me is when people glibly talk about whether or not government "works".  Works for what?  For whom?  How do you determine if it works or not?  Those questions are never answered.  It's merely asserted that "government is working!"  Sure.  The "Cash for Clunkers" program "worked" -- cars were sold via government subsidy -- but what else happened?  Those questions are hard!  Let's just say it "worked" and be done with it!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are things government does well and things private individuals do wellThe government is really , really good at depriving individuals of life , liberty , and property on a comprehensive basis.In this country , the government efficiently rounded up Japanese people and sent them to concentration camps , leaving their property easily-plundered by other rapacious individuals who now had government permission to do just that.This country 's government currently imprisons more people than China , Cuba , and Russia in pursuit of punishing people for using drugs that the government does not approve of .
This policy has failed to eliminate or even curb drug use and the associated black market , but it does keep lots of people employed using money plundered from " taxpayers " .Other governments have done an even awesomer job of destroying other people 's lives .
The Soviet government enslaved millions of millions of its own citizens ( saving labor costs big time !
) by accusing them of " crimes " .Or hell , the Cambodian government just outright killed anyone who looked too smart , but not before torturing them for a long time in S-21 .
Rad ! The government sucks royally at everything else it does , but both " liberals " and " conservatives " like to pretend that using the government as a club , bayonet , or waterboard can influence behavior toward the mythical " Common Good " ( which , in practice , means , " I 'm good and you are bad " ) .What slays me is when people glibly talk about whether or not government " works " .
Works for what ?
For whom ?
How do you determine if it works or not ?
Those questions are never answered .
It 's merely asserted that " government is working !
" Sure .
The " Cash for Clunkers " program " worked " -- cars were sold via government subsidy -- but what else happened ?
Those questions are hard !
Let 's just say it " worked " and be done with it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are things government does well and things private individuals do wellThe government is really, really good at depriving individuals of life, liberty, and property on a comprehensive basis.In this country, the government efficiently rounded up Japanese people and sent them to concentration camps, leaving their property easily-plundered by other rapacious individuals who now had government permission to do just that.This country's government currently imprisons more people than China, Cuba, and Russia in pursuit of punishing people for using drugs that the government does not approve of.
This policy has failed to eliminate or even curb drug use and the associated black market, but it does keep lots of people employed using money plundered from "taxpayers".Other governments have done an even awesomer job of destroying other people's lives.
The Soviet government enslaved millions of millions of its own citizens (saving labor costs big time!
) by accusing them of "crimes".Or hell, the Cambodian government just outright killed anyone who looked too smart, but not before torturing them for a long time in S-21.
Rad!The government sucks royally at everything else it does, but both "liberals" and "conservatives" like to pretend that using the government as a club, bayonet, or waterboard can influence behavior toward the mythical "Common Good" (which, in practice, means, "I'm good and you are bad").What slays me is when people glibly talk about whether or not government "works".
Works for what?
For whom?
How do you determine if it works or not?
Those questions are never answered.
It's merely asserted that "government is working!
"  Sure.
The "Cash for Clunkers" program "worked" -- cars were sold via government subsidy -- but what else happened?
Those questions are hard!
Let's just say it "worked" and be done with it!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29975246</id>
	<title>Big problem</title>
	<author>mahadiga</author>
	<datestamp>1256981880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>America's <i>WIN-LOSE</i> culture is institutionalized to such an extent that WIN-WIN is considered <i>Un-American</i>. But the truth is <i>WIN-LOSE</i> is not <i>scalable</i> in the Globalized World.</htmltext>
<tokenext>America 's WIN-LOSE culture is institutionalized to such an extent that WIN-WIN is considered Un-American .
But the truth is WIN-LOSE is not scalable in the Globalized World .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>America's WIN-LOSE culture is institutionalized to such an extent that WIN-WIN is considered Un-American.
But the truth is WIN-LOSE is not scalable in the Globalized World.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29945550</id>
	<title>Re:WSJ full of Right-Wing Mantra</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1257079860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course, it could just as easily have been wealthy people moving to Detroit or Washington DC where the neighborhoods are closer knit and they will find that they tax payments going to more worthy causes.</p><p>One way or another, for whatever reason, New York lost that tax revenue.  About the only solution is either to tax everyone everywhere in the US the same (all states, all cities, one tax rate) or for all states and cities to share the tax revenue equally.  Then, no matter where anyone goes in the US it changes nothing.</p><p>I guess the other solution is just to stop people moving from higher tax areas to lower tax areas.  Make it so they can't get away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , it could just as easily have been wealthy people moving to Detroit or Washington DC where the neighborhoods are closer knit and they will find that they tax payments going to more worthy causes.One way or another , for whatever reason , New York lost that tax revenue .
About the only solution is either to tax everyone everywhere in the US the same ( all states , all cities , one tax rate ) or for all states and cities to share the tax revenue equally .
Then , no matter where anyone goes in the US it changes nothing.I guess the other solution is just to stop people moving from higher tax areas to lower tax areas .
Make it so they ca n't get away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, it could just as easily have been wealthy people moving to Detroit or Washington DC where the neighborhoods are closer knit and they will find that they tax payments going to more worthy causes.One way or another, for whatever reason, New York lost that tax revenue.
About the only solution is either to tax everyone everywhere in the US the same (all states, all cities, one tax rate) or for all states and cities to share the tax revenue equally.
Then, no matter where anyone goes in the US it changes nothing.I guess the other solution is just to stop people moving from higher tax areas to lower tax areas.
Make it so they can't get away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29945372</id>
	<title>Re:She's without hope, so we must be?</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1257078360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well, I'm middle aged, white, and live in New England. I'm hopeful. The way through looks obvious</p></div><p>If you are so hopeful, it may be because you don't see all the problems.  For example, how do we reduce the gaping deficit? That is something that could cause a complete monetary collapse within the next ten years. To fix it we either need to reduce spending or increase taxes, and there is no political will to do either of those. <br> <br>
I agree we should take care of those too poor to pay for health insurance, but we need to pay for it. At the rate we're going, there won't be a way to pay for it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I 'm middle aged , white , and live in New England .
I 'm hopeful .
The way through looks obviousIf you are so hopeful , it may be because you do n't see all the problems .
For example , how do we reduce the gaping deficit ?
That is something that could cause a complete monetary collapse within the next ten years .
To fix it we either need to reduce spending or increase taxes , and there is no political will to do either of those .
I agree we should take care of those too poor to pay for health insurance , but we need to pay for it .
At the rate we 're going , there wo n't be a way to pay for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I'm middle aged, white, and live in New England.
I'm hopeful.
The way through looks obviousIf you are so hopeful, it may be because you don't see all the problems.
For example, how do we reduce the gaping deficit?
That is something that could cause a complete monetary collapse within the next ten years.
To fix it we either need to reduce spending or increase taxes, and there is no political will to do either of those.
I agree we should take care of those too poor to pay for health insurance, but we need to pay for it.
At the rate we're going, there won't be a way to pay for it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29949096</id>
	<title>Re:She's without hope, so we must be?</title>
	<author>Paul Fernhout</author>
	<datestamp>1257167700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Very insightful: "government - which by its nature involves regulation, and public investment, and yes collecting taxes to pay for those activities". In a way, the USA had its greatest general prosperity when marginal tax rates were 91\% and the government was interfering heavily in the economy right after WWII, which lead to the Golden Era of the 1950s with many one-income blue collar families, the sort of "family values" many Republicans talk about. What does that tell us?<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin\_D.\_Roosevelt" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin\_D.\_Roosevelt</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Also related:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/11/two-income-trap" title="motherjones.com">http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/11/two-income-trap</a> [motherjones.com]</p><p>Ideally, we need to tax and redistribute as a basic income, given the income-through-jobs link is breaking down through out our society from automation and better design:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic\_income" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic\_income</a> [wikipedia.org]<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Triple\_Revolution" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Triple\_Revolution</a> [wikipedia.org]<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://educationanddemocracy.org/FSCfiles/C\_CC2a\_TripleRevolution.htm" title="educationa...ocracy.org">http://educationanddemocracy.org/FSCfiles/C\_CC2a\_TripleRevolution.htm</a> [educationa...ocracy.org]</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Very insightful : " government - which by its nature involves regulation , and public investment , and yes collecting taxes to pay for those activities " .
In a way , the USA had its greatest general prosperity when marginal tax rates were 91 \ % and the government was interfering heavily in the economy right after WWII , which lead to the Golden Era of the 1950s with many one-income blue collar families , the sort of " family values " many Republicans talk about .
What does that tell us ?
    http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin \ _D. \ _Roosevelt [ wikipedia.org ] Also related :     http : //www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/11/two-income-trap [ motherjones.com ] Ideally , we need to tax and redistribute as a basic income , given the income-through-jobs link is breaking down through out our society from automation and better design :     http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic \ _income [ wikipedia.org ]     http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The \ _Triple \ _Revolution [ wikipedia.org ]     http : //educationanddemocracy.org/FSCfiles/C \ _CC2a \ _TripleRevolution.htm [ educationa...ocracy.org ]    </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very insightful: "government - which by its nature involves regulation, and public investment, and yes collecting taxes to pay for those activities".
In a way, the USA had its greatest general prosperity when marginal tax rates were 91\% and the government was interfering heavily in the economy right after WWII, which lead to the Golden Era of the 1950s with many one-income blue collar families, the sort of "family values" many Republicans talk about.
What does that tell us?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin\_D.\_Roosevelt [wikipedia.org]Also related:
    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/11/two-income-trap [motherjones.com]Ideally, we need to tax and redistribute as a basic income, given the income-through-jobs link is breaking down through out our society from automation and better design:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic\_income [wikipedia.org]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Triple\_Revolution [wikipedia.org]
    http://educationanddemocracy.org/FSCfiles/C\_CC2a\_TripleRevolution.htm [educationa...ocracy.org]
   </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944662</id>
	<title>Re:The "problem"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257072720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed. Life isn't just black or white.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
Life is n't just black or white .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
Life isn't just black or white.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29948220</id>
	<title>'psycho' is one of the easy answers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257195180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's laziness when something isn't being done in time.<br>Lack of concentration is touted as the reason for many failures.<br>Greed neatly explains all needs one might have.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Problem is, easy answers are too easy. All they do is give vague good feel about things while accomplishing nothing. There's no value knowing some leaders are psychopaths. Except as a consolation prize for all the average people:</p><p>"too bad for you, but at least you're not a psycho! ain't that something!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:DDD"<br>"you have superhuman powers of not being lazy and keep onto all deadlines!"<br>"focus! concentrate! it's what bruce lee did and look how lightning fast he was!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's laziness when something is n't being done in time.Lack of concentration is touted as the reason for many failures.Greed neatly explains all needs one might have .
...Problem is , easy answers are too easy .
All they do is give vague good feel about things while accomplishing nothing .
There 's no value knowing some leaders are psychopaths .
Except as a consolation prize for all the average people : " too bad for you , but at least you 're not a psycho !
ai n't that something !
: DDD " " you have superhuman powers of not being lazy and keep onto all deadlines ! " " focus !
concentrate ! it 's what bruce lee did and look how lightning fast he was !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's laziness when something isn't being done in time.Lack of concentration is touted as the reason for many failures.Greed neatly explains all needs one might have.
...Problem is, easy answers are too easy.
All they do is give vague good feel about things while accomplishing nothing.
There's no value knowing some leaders are psychopaths.
Except as a consolation prize for all the average people:"too bad for you, but at least you're not a psycho!
ain't that something!
:DDD""you have superhuman powers of not being lazy and keep onto all deadlines!""focus!
concentrate! it's what bruce lee did and look how lightning fast he was!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29946976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29949798</id>
	<title>Re:News for nerds?</title>
	<author>Jhon</author>
	<datestamp>1257174960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>But, I know how well that $50 made-in-China power tool worked out. It has 1/4 the power of the "comparable" American made tool, and it will last about 1/10 as long.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>Buy to meet your needs.  If my need is a power tool to use maybe 20 times in 5 years, then that $50 tool is looking like a hell of a lot better investment than the $200.</p><p>If, however, my goal is to use something constantly without fear of needing to replace/repair it ever 6-12 months over that same 5 year period, then that $200 tool looks much better.</p><p>I drive a 1988 toyota pick-up (4-banger -- pretty good mpg).  I bought it because of it's reliability under heavy use.  Over the past 20+ years, it has, and continues to serve me.  Every year I own it is more money I save.  I also own a Skil power tool set.  I've used it maybe a dozen times in 4 years.  It has met my needs every time, but I doubt it would last if I used it daily -- or even every weekend.</p><p>Why over spend on equipment which will outlive my need of them?  It's as silly as spending on cheaper, less hardy equipment required for daily needs.  Either way you are tossing money out the window.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But , I know how well that $ 50 made-in-China power tool worked out .
It has 1/4 the power of the " comparable " American made tool , and it will last about 1/10 as long .
Buy to meet your needs .
If my need is a power tool to use maybe 20 times in 5 years , then that $ 50 tool is looking like a hell of a lot better investment than the $ 200.If , however , my goal is to use something constantly without fear of needing to replace/repair it ever 6-12 months over that same 5 year period , then that $ 200 tool looks much better.I drive a 1988 toyota pick-up ( 4-banger -- pretty good mpg ) .
I bought it because of it 's reliability under heavy use .
Over the past 20 + years , it has , and continues to serve me .
Every year I own it is more money I save .
I also own a Skil power tool set .
I 've used it maybe a dozen times in 4 years .
It has met my needs every time , but I doubt it would last if I used it daily -- or even every weekend.Why over spend on equipment which will outlive my need of them ?
It 's as silly as spending on cheaper , less hardy equipment required for daily needs .
Either way you are tossing money out the window .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> But, I know how well that $50 made-in-China power tool worked out.
It has 1/4 the power of the "comparable" American made tool, and it will last about 1/10 as long.
Buy to meet your needs.
If my need is a power tool to use maybe 20 times in 5 years, then that $50 tool is looking like a hell of a lot better investment than the $200.If, however, my goal is to use something constantly without fear of needing to replace/repair it ever 6-12 months over that same 5 year period, then that $200 tool looks much better.I drive a 1988 toyota pick-up (4-banger -- pretty good mpg).
I bought it because of it's reliability under heavy use.
Over the past 20+ years, it has, and continues to serve me.
Every year I own it is more money I save.
I also own a Skil power tool set.
I've used it maybe a dozen times in 4 years.
It has met my needs every time, but I doubt it would last if I used it daily -- or even every weekend.Why over spend on equipment which will outlive my need of them?
It's as silly as spending on cheaper, less hardy equipment required for daily needs.
Either way you are tossing money out the window.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29947432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29942948</id>
	<title>News for nerds?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257104100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29959578</id>
	<title>Re:She's without hope, so we must be?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257181140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Unfortunately I've come to the conclusion there is NO political/economic philosophy that actually works in practice. Every one devolves in to some small group acquiring all the wealth and power and screwing it out of everyone else."</p><p>Please go on a study tour to Scandinavia. There actually exists an economic philosophy that works, that philosophy is called "Screw-economic-philosophy-let's-just-do-stuff-that-works". And it sort of works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Unfortunately I 've come to the conclusion there is NO political/economic philosophy that actually works in practice .
Every one devolves in to some small group acquiring all the wealth and power and screwing it out of everyone else .
" Please go on a study tour to Scandinavia .
There actually exists an economic philosophy that works , that philosophy is called " Screw-economic-philosophy-let 's-just-do-stuff-that-works " .
And it sort of works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Unfortunately I've come to the conclusion there is NO political/economic philosophy that actually works in practice.
Every one devolves in to some small group acquiring all the wealth and power and screwing it out of everyone else.
"Please go on a study tour to Scandinavia.
There actually exists an economic philosophy that works, that philosophy is called "Screw-economic-philosophy-let's-just-do-stuff-that-works".
And it sort of works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943858</id>
	<title>Re:atlas yawned</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257067260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, they come from all walks of life, at least in the lower elected jobs (state and local reps). But they all have one thing in common: they all have their own agenda, not the public's. They say during their race for election that they are for the people, and they say good sounding words about that, but actions speak far louder than words. And unfortunately, we see their actions only after they are elected, and then we find out what fools we were to trust many of them. What we want them to do in office is act for the common good. We all, and they all, have different perceptions of what the common good is. And we all prioritize the pieces of the common good differently. But what we find out all too often is, they act for their own good first, and if the common good happens to be the same, then we get the common good. But if the common good is the opposite of their personal good, then they trample the common good.</p><p>Figuring out what the common good is is actually easy, and prioritizing is almost as easy. But that is not going to happen anytime soon.</p><p>I once worked for a big corporation which had the rule that if you were obstructing progress, interfering with the plan, you could be fired. But that s not going to happen in government, either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , they come from all walks of life , at least in the lower elected jobs ( state and local reps ) .
But they all have one thing in common : they all have their own agenda , not the public 's .
They say during their race for election that they are for the people , and they say good sounding words about that , but actions speak far louder than words .
And unfortunately , we see their actions only after they are elected , and then we find out what fools we were to trust many of them .
What we want them to do in office is act for the common good .
We all , and they all , have different perceptions of what the common good is .
And we all prioritize the pieces of the common good differently .
But what we find out all too often is , they act for their own good first , and if the common good happens to be the same , then we get the common good .
But if the common good is the opposite of their personal good , then they trample the common good.Figuring out what the common good is is actually easy , and prioritizing is almost as easy .
But that is not going to happen anytime soon.I once worked for a big corporation which had the rule that if you were obstructing progress , interfering with the plan , you could be fired .
But that s not going to happen in government , either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, they come from all walks of life, at least in the lower elected jobs (state and local reps).
But they all have one thing in common: they all have their own agenda, not the public's.
They say during their race for election that they are for the people, and they say good sounding words about that, but actions speak far louder than words.
And unfortunately, we see their actions only after they are elected, and then we find out what fools we were to trust many of them.
What we want them to do in office is act for the common good.
We all, and they all, have different perceptions of what the common good is.
And we all prioritize the pieces of the common good differently.
But what we find out all too often is, they act for their own good first, and if the common good happens to be the same, then we get the common good.
But if the common good is the opposite of their personal good, then they trample the common good.Figuring out what the common good is is actually easy, and prioritizing is almost as easy.
But that is not going to happen anytime soon.I once worked for a big corporation which had the rule that if you were obstructing progress, interfering with the plan, you could be fired.
But that s not going to happen in government, either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29958448</id>
	<title>Re:Threaten to stop the wheel of the world?</title>
	<author>Paul Fernhout</author>
	<datestamp>1257173400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is often trotted out by many Republicans, or Joe the Plumber, that we should live in terror of the rich going on strike, and it assumes that only a few people have what it takes to create businesses to enslave, excuse me, employ the rest of us. But the fact is more likely that without Joe the Plumber creating a vast plumbing monopoly that out-advertises everyone else, chances are the regular plumbers will still have work and may even get to keep more of the money paid for their services. See also:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; "The Mythology of Wealth"<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/?q=node/402" title="conceptualguerilla.com">http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/?q=node/402</a> [conceptualguerilla.com]<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; "Cheap Labor Conservatives Issues Guide"<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/?q=node/16" title="conceptualguerilla.com">http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/?q=node/16</a> [conceptualguerilla.com]<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is often trotted out by many Republicans , or Joe the Plumber , that we should live in terror of the rich going on strike , and it assumes that only a few people have what it takes to create businesses to enslave , excuse me , employ the rest of us .
But the fact is more likely that without Joe the Plumber creating a vast plumbing monopoly that out-advertises everyone else , chances are the regular plumbers will still have work and may even get to keep more of the money paid for their services .
See also :     " The Mythology of Wealth "     http : //www.conceptualguerilla.com/ ? q = node/402 [ conceptualguerilla.com ]     " Cheap Labor Conservatives Issues Guide "     http : //www.conceptualguerilla.com/ ? q = node/16 [ conceptualguerilla.com ]    </tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is often trotted out by many Republicans, or Joe the Plumber, that we should live in terror of the rich going on strike, and it assumes that only a few people have what it takes to create businesses to enslave, excuse me, employ the rest of us.
But the fact is more likely that without Joe the Plumber creating a vast plumbing monopoly that out-advertises everyone else, chances are the regular plumbers will still have work and may even get to keep more of the money paid for their services.
See also:
    "The Mythology of Wealth"
    http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/?q=node/402 [conceptualguerilla.com]
    "Cheap Labor Conservatives Issues Guide"
    http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/?q=node/16 [conceptualguerilla.com]
   </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944532</id>
	<title>Re:Fundamentally Broken System</title>
	<author>ciggieposeur</author>
	<datestamp>1257071820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As others pointed out, X\% growth is mathematically exponential growth.  But in answer to why it's impossible: available resources are finite.  At some point we will run out of a critical something:  land, minerals, surface area for solar power, fossil fuels, something.</p><p>The answer is "sustainable" economy, where the economic activity is focused only on replacements and improvements to existing things, and not massive production of new things.  Analogy:  our current exponential growth economy would choose to turn farmland into houses, while a sustainable economy would choose to rebuild abandoned houses into new houses.  In the former case you sacrifice farmland, in the latter you don't; in both cases homeowners get new state-of-the-art houses.</p><p>Unfortunately a sustainable economy absolutely requires net zero global population growth.  The only way to achieve that is mass use of contraception in its various forms, and the only to do that is to seriously undermine the power of organized religion on a global scale.  I don't expect to see that in my lifetime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As others pointed out , X \ % growth is mathematically exponential growth .
But in answer to why it 's impossible : available resources are finite .
At some point we will run out of a critical something : land , minerals , surface area for solar power , fossil fuels , something.The answer is " sustainable " economy , where the economic activity is focused only on replacements and improvements to existing things , and not massive production of new things .
Analogy : our current exponential growth economy would choose to turn farmland into houses , while a sustainable economy would choose to rebuild abandoned houses into new houses .
In the former case you sacrifice farmland , in the latter you do n't ; in both cases homeowners get new state-of-the-art houses.Unfortunately a sustainable economy absolutely requires net zero global population growth .
The only way to achieve that is mass use of contraception in its various forms , and the only to do that is to seriously undermine the power of organized religion on a global scale .
I do n't expect to see that in my lifetime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As others pointed out, X\% growth is mathematically exponential growth.
But in answer to why it's impossible: available resources are finite.
At some point we will run out of a critical something:  land, minerals, surface area for solar power, fossil fuels, something.The answer is "sustainable" economy, where the economic activity is focused only on replacements and improvements to existing things, and not massive production of new things.
Analogy:  our current exponential growth economy would choose to turn farmland into houses, while a sustainable economy would choose to rebuild abandoned houses into new houses.
In the former case you sacrifice farmland, in the latter you don't; in both cases homeowners get new state-of-the-art houses.Unfortunately a sustainable economy absolutely requires net zero global population growth.
The only way to achieve that is mass use of contraception in its various forms, and the only to do that is to seriously undermine the power of organized religion on a global scale.
I don't expect to see that in my lifetime.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943294</id>
	<title>Re:atlas yawned</title>
	<author>Moryath</author>
	<datestamp>1257106860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bullshit.</p><p>We have exactly three types of politicians: the ones who inherited money (didn't lift a fucking finger to earn it), the lawyers (the ones who make their living by making contracts so incomprehensibly complex that people have to hire lawyers just to read the damn things), and the racist fucks who get donations everytime they say something stupid (see also: Robert "KKK" Byrd, Sheila Jackson Lee, etc).</p><p>Ok, we have that one guy over there who isn't, but he's a used car salesman. Would you trust a used car salesman either?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bullshit.We have exactly three types of politicians : the ones who inherited money ( did n't lift a fucking finger to earn it ) , the lawyers ( the ones who make their living by making contracts so incomprehensibly complex that people have to hire lawyers just to read the damn things ) , and the racist fucks who get donations everytime they say something stupid ( see also : Robert " KKK " Byrd , Sheila Jackson Lee , etc ) .Ok , we have that one guy over there who is n't , but he 's a used car salesman .
Would you trust a used car salesman either ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bullshit.We have exactly three types of politicians: the ones who inherited money (didn't lift a fucking finger to earn it), the lawyers (the ones who make their living by making contracts so incomprehensibly complex that people have to hire lawyers just to read the damn things), and the racist fucks who get donations everytime they say something stupid (see also: Robert "KKK" Byrd, Sheila Jackson Lee, etc).Ok, we have that one guy over there who isn't, but he's a used car salesman.
Would you trust a used car salesman either?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944260</id>
	<title>Re:atlas yawned</title>
	<author>moortak</author>
	<datestamp>1257070080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bullshit

Kucinich for example none of the above.  There are plenty of other examples.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bullshit Kucinich for example none of the above .
There are plenty of other examples .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bullshit

Kucinich for example none of the above.
There are plenty of other examples.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29952284</id>
	<title>Re:Sociopaths and children of Sociopaths</title>
	<author>riondluz</author>
	<datestamp>1257187260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>traders are no more pathological than everyone who watches (and bets) on Monday Night Football or<br>any other sport. These are the A-types for whom everything is "can-do" and the 'game' is the<br>be-all and end-all of life's meaning.</p><p>I really think that this is what it's about for them. Not the money, though that's nice too,<br>and is unfortunately the measurement of their success(es).  It's being in the game, a player,<br>a chance to be a Master of the Universe. In a world where 95\% of the population doesn't matter.</p><p>This is just as true today as back in the 80's with the corporate raiders. They have no<br>feeling for or appreciation of the blow-back and fallout of their actions. Nor should they if the<br>Laws are crafted such that their only loyalty be to those like them.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>traders are no more pathological than everyone who watches ( and bets ) on Monday Night Football orany other sport .
These are the A-types for whom everything is " can-do " and the 'game ' is thebe-all and end-all of life 's meaning.I really think that this is what it 's about for them .
Not the money , though that 's nice too,and is unfortunately the measurement of their success ( es ) .
It 's being in the game , a player,a chance to be a Master of the Universe .
In a world where 95 \ % of the population does n't matter.This is just as true today as back in the 80 's with the corporate raiders .
They have nofeeling for or appreciation of the blow-back and fallout of their actions .
Nor should they if theLaws are crafted such that their only loyalty be to those like them .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>traders are no more pathological than everyone who watches (and bets) on Monday Night Football orany other sport.
These are the A-types for whom everything is "can-do" and the 'game' is thebe-all and end-all of life's meaning.I really think that this is what it's about for them.
Not the money, though that's nice too,and is unfortunately the measurement of their success(es).
It's being in the game, a player,a chance to be a Master of the Universe.
In a world where 95\% of the population doesn't matter.This is just as true today as back in the 80's with the corporate raiders.
They have nofeeling for or appreciation of the blow-back and fallout of their actions.
Nor should they if theLaws are crafted such that their only loyalty be to those like them.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29954654</id>
	<title>Re:She's without hope, so we must be?</title>
	<author>nsteinme</author>
	<datestamp>1257154860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You, sir, are a fool and a contributor to the worrisome trend in this country of increasing powerlessness. That you conclude that no political/economic philosophy can work in practice is deeply saddening. To me it is on par with a suicidal person saying "life's not worth living."<br> <br>

Our government here in the U.S. really isn't all the bad (or at least could be worse, jokes aside) but could make huge strides toward its ideal form with, for example, the following three simple yet groundbreaking reforms:<br> <br>

1.) Ban corporate contributions to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign\_finance\_reform" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">political campaigns</a> [wikipedia.org]. This places power over campaigns where it belongs - to individual Citizens. (Note: must close loopholes for "personal" donations from CEOs, etc.) <br> <br>

2.) Eliminate the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral\_vote#Arguments\_against\_the\_Electoral\_College" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">current "winner-take-all"</a> [wikipedia.org] electoral voting system. Replace with a Congressional District Method or something similar. This would allow 3rd parties to actually have a chance at getting even a small number of representatives on Congress, which is practically impossible under the current duopoly.
<br> <br>
3.) Legalize <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War\_on\_drugs#Criticism" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">all drugs</a> [wikipedia.org]. "A 2008 study by Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Miron has estimated that legalizing drugs would inject $76.8 billion a year into the U.S. economy." It would also dramatically reduce or eliminate gang/cartel-related violence by allowing these people to settle disputes and report crimes through legal means, e.g. the courts.
<br> <br>
The most important thing to remember is we are the only ones who can take the power back from the corporations and political groups who took it from us.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You , sir , are a fool and a contributor to the worrisome trend in this country of increasing powerlessness .
That you conclude that no political/economic philosophy can work in practice is deeply saddening .
To me it is on par with a suicidal person saying " life 's not worth living .
" Our government here in the U.S. really is n't all the bad ( or at least could be worse , jokes aside ) but could make huge strides toward its ideal form with , for example , the following three simple yet groundbreaking reforms : 1 .
) Ban corporate contributions to political campaigns [ wikipedia.org ] .
This places power over campaigns where it belongs - to individual Citizens .
( Note : must close loopholes for " personal " donations from CEOs , etc .
) 2 .
) Eliminate the current " winner-take-all " [ wikipedia.org ] electoral voting system .
Replace with a Congressional District Method or something similar .
This would allow 3rd parties to actually have a chance at getting even a small number of representatives on Congress , which is practically impossible under the current duopoly .
3. ) Legalize all drugs [ wikipedia.org ] .
" A 2008 study by Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Miron has estimated that legalizing drugs would inject $ 76.8 billion a year into the U.S .
economy. " It would also dramatically reduce or eliminate gang/cartel-related violence by allowing these people to settle disputes and report crimes through legal means , e.g .
the courts .
The most important thing to remember is we are the only ones who can take the power back from the corporations and political groups who took it from us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You, sir, are a fool and a contributor to the worrisome trend in this country of increasing powerlessness.
That you conclude that no political/economic philosophy can work in practice is deeply saddening.
To me it is on par with a suicidal person saying "life's not worth living.
" 

Our government here in the U.S. really isn't all the bad (or at least could be worse, jokes aside) but could make huge strides toward its ideal form with, for example, the following three simple yet groundbreaking reforms: 

1.
) Ban corporate contributions to political campaigns [wikipedia.org].
This places power over campaigns where it belongs - to individual Citizens.
(Note: must close loopholes for "personal" donations from CEOs, etc.
)  

2.
) Eliminate the current "winner-take-all" [wikipedia.org] electoral voting system.
Replace with a Congressional District Method or something similar.
This would allow 3rd parties to actually have a chance at getting even a small number of representatives on Congress, which is practically impossible under the current duopoly.
3.) Legalize all drugs [wikipedia.org].
"A 2008 study by Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Miron has estimated that legalizing drugs would inject $76.8 billion a year into the U.S.
economy." It would also dramatically reduce or eliminate gang/cartel-related violence by allowing these people to settle disputes and report crimes through legal means, e.g.
the courts.
The most important thing to remember is we are the only ones who can take the power back from the corporations and political groups who took it from us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29949206</id>
	<title>Re:The "problem"</title>
	<author>mahadiga</author>
	<datestamp>1257169140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly. We need <i>both</i> Socialism and Capitalism to build and sustain a great nation.
<ul>
<li> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage\_slavery" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Prevent Race to the  Bottom</a> [wikipedia.org] </li><li> <a href="http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/inmotiv.htm" title="osu.edu" rel="nofollow">Promote Race to the Top</a> [osu.edu] </li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
We need both Socialism and Capitalism to build and sustain a great nation .
Prevent Race to the Bottom [ wikipedia.org ] Promote Race to the Top [ osu.edu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
We need both Socialism and Capitalism to build and sustain a great nation.
Prevent Race to the  Bottom [wikipedia.org]  Promote Race to the Top [osu.edu] </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943856</id>
	<title>Re:Threaten to stop the wheel of the world?</title>
	<author>Atlantis-Rising</author>
	<datestamp>1257067200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sibling poster is fairly accurate. John Gault is an idiotic caricature created by someone with zero understanding of economics or human nature.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sibling poster is fairly accurate .
John Gault is an idiotic caricature created by someone with zero understanding of economics or human nature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sibling poster is fairly accurate.
John Gault is an idiotic caricature created by someone with zero understanding of economics or human nature.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943932</id>
	<title>Structural solutions here: basic income, etc.</title>
	<author>Paul Fernhout</author>
	<datestamp>1257067800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Many solutions are listed here:
<a href="http://www.beyondajoblessrecovery.org/2009/10/03/why-limited-demand-means-joblessness/" title="beyondajob...covery.org">"Why limited demand means joblessness (and what to do about it)"</a> [beyondajob...covery.org] <br>
"""<p>These are some ways to deal with increasing joblessness, even if our economy recovers for those who still have jobs or money, which will be explored in more depth over time:</p><ul>
<li>temporary measures like unemployment insurance and retraining funds, and when those fail, letting people live with relatives who still have jobs or be homeless (the USA now has <a href="http://www.upi.com/Top\_News/2009/09/06/Homeless-schoolchildren-numbers-surging/UPI-26831252273742/" title="upi.com">one million homeless schoolchildren</a> [upi.com], an amount that has doubled in the last two years);</li><li>government public works like in the 1930s (infrastructure, arts, research, medicine, etc.);</li><li>a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic\_income" title="wikipedia.org">basic income</a> [wikipedia.org] for everyone, essentially Social Security and Medicaid for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four\_Freedoms" title="wikipedia.org">all</a> [wikipedia.org] with no <a href="http://www.basicincome.org/bien/aboutbasicincome.html" title="basicincome.org">means testing</a> [basicincome.org];</li><li>improved local subsistence like with <a href="http://www.reprap.org/bin/view/Main/WebHome" title="reprap.org">3D</a> [reprap.org] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D\_printing" title="wikipedia.org">printing</a> [wikipedia.org] and organic gardening;</li><li>a <a href="http://p2pfoundation.net/The\_Foundation\_for\_P2P\_Alternatives" title="p2pfoundation.net">p2p</a> [p2pfoundation.net] gift economy (like Wikipedia and Debian GNU/Linux);</li><li>a shorter work week (like tried in France);</li><li> rethinking work to be more <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles\_Fourier" title="wikipedia.org">fun</a> [wikipedia.org] so it is done as <a href="http://www.whywork.org/rethinking/whywork/abolition.html" title="whywork.org">play</a> [whywork.org];</li><li>alternative currencies or other forms of exchange like barter or more formal rationing;</li><li>increasing advertising to entice people into more debt (one cause of the current economic crisis as <a href="http://www.capitalismhitsthefan.com/" title="capitalismhitsthefan.com">the debt bubble burst</a> [capitalismhitsthefan.com]);</li><li>intentionally producing shoddy merchandise or things with planned obsolescence, perhaps encouraged by promoting faddism in the culture;</li><li>more prisons (employs guards and keeps people out of the labor pool);</li><li>more schooling (employs guards/teachers and keeps people out of the labor pool) while <a href="http://www.newciv.org/whole/schoolteacher.txt" title="newciv.org">suppressing</a> [newciv.org] true education; and</li><li>more war (employs guards/soldiers, blows up and wastes abundance, and kills or disables workers to keep them out of the labor pool).</li></ul><p>Likely we will see a mix of all those in the future, and in fact, a mix of all those is what we have now (not that the last five options of advertising, faddism, schooling, prison, and war are recommended, even as our society currently relies on them heavily to destroy abundance and create <a href="http://www.whywork.org/rethinking/whywork/abolition.html" title="whywork.org">guarding</a> [whywork.org] jobs).  This web site will go into the details of all this over time. That list is defining the landscape of a jobless recovery, showing connections between things that dont usually seem connected. Like for example, why President Obama just suggested the school year should be <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090927/ap\_on\_re\_us/us\_more\_school" title="yahoo.com">longer</a> [yahoo.com] while our <a href="http://www.chrismercogliano.com/childhood.htm" title="chrismercogliano.com">best</a> [chrismercogliano.com] <a href="http://www.holtgws.com/" title="holtgws.com">educators</a> [holtgws.com] say <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian\_education\_system" title="wikipedia.org">compulsory</a> [wikipedia.org] <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20071014123355/http://www.social-ecology.org/article.php?story=20031028151034651" title="archive.org">school</a> [archive.org] as we know it <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ogCc8ObiwQ" title="youtube.com">should</a> [youtube.com] <a href="http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/toc1.htm" title="johntaylorgatto.com">disappear</a> [johntaylorgatto.com] <a href="http://www.greenmoneyjournal.com/article.mpl?articleid=195newsletterid=1" title="greenmoneyjournal.com">entirely</a> [greenmoneyjournal.com].</p><p>The important thing to remember is that joblessness is not necessarily a bad thing. It means people have more time for family, friends, hobbies, and volunteerism. What is bad about formal un</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many solutions are listed here : " Why limited demand means joblessness ( and what to do about it ) " [ beyondajob...covery.org ] " " " These are some ways to deal with increasing joblessness , even if our economy recovers for those who still have jobs or money , which will be explored in more depth over time : temporary measures like unemployment insurance and retraining funds , and when those fail , letting people live with relatives who still have jobs or be homeless ( the USA now has one million homeless schoolchildren [ upi.com ] , an amount that has doubled in the last two years ) ; government public works like in the 1930s ( infrastructure , arts , research , medicine , etc .
) ; a basic income [ wikipedia.org ] for everyone , essentially Social Security and Medicaid for all [ wikipedia.org ] with no means testing [ basicincome.org ] ; improved local subsistence like with 3D [ reprap.org ] printing [ wikipedia.org ] and organic gardening ; a p2p [ p2pfoundation.net ] gift economy ( like Wikipedia and Debian GNU/Linux ) ; a shorter work week ( like tried in France ) ; rethinking work to be more fun [ wikipedia.org ] so it is done as play [ whywork.org ] ; alternative currencies or other forms of exchange like barter or more formal rationing ; increasing advertising to entice people into more debt ( one cause of the current economic crisis as the debt bubble burst [ capitalismhitsthefan.com ] ) ; intentionally producing shoddy merchandise or things with planned obsolescence , perhaps encouraged by promoting faddism in the culture ; more prisons ( employs guards and keeps people out of the labor pool ) ; more schooling ( employs guards/teachers and keeps people out of the labor pool ) while suppressing [ newciv.org ] true education ; andmore war ( employs guards/soldiers , blows up and wastes abundance , and kills or disables workers to keep them out of the labor pool ) .Likely we will see a mix of all those in the future , and in fact , a mix of all those is what we have now ( not that the last five options of advertising , faddism , schooling , prison , and war are recommended , even as our society currently relies on them heavily to destroy abundance and create guarding [ whywork.org ] jobs ) .
This web site will go into the details of all this over time .
That list is defining the landscape of a jobless recovery , showing connections between things that dont usually seem connected .
Like for example , why President Obama just suggested the school year should be longer [ yahoo.com ] while our best [ chrismercogliano.com ] educators [ holtgws.com ] say compulsory [ wikipedia.org ] school [ archive.org ] as we know it should [ youtube.com ] disappear [ johntaylorgatto.com ] entirely [ greenmoneyjournal.com ] .The important thing to remember is that joblessness is not necessarily a bad thing .
It means people have more time for family , friends , hobbies , and volunteerism .
What is bad about formal un</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many solutions are listed here:
"Why limited demand means joblessness (and what to do about it)" [beyondajob...covery.org] 
"""These are some ways to deal with increasing joblessness, even if our economy recovers for those who still have jobs or money, which will be explored in more depth over time:
temporary measures like unemployment insurance and retraining funds, and when those fail, letting people live with relatives who still have jobs or be homeless (the USA now has one million homeless schoolchildren [upi.com], an amount that has doubled in the last two years);government public works like in the 1930s (infrastructure, arts, research, medicine, etc.
);a basic income [wikipedia.org] for everyone, essentially Social Security and Medicaid for all [wikipedia.org] with no means testing [basicincome.org];improved local subsistence like with 3D [reprap.org] printing [wikipedia.org] and organic gardening;a p2p [p2pfoundation.net] gift economy (like Wikipedia and Debian GNU/Linux);a shorter work week (like tried in France); rethinking work to be more fun [wikipedia.org] so it is done as play [whywork.org];alternative currencies or other forms of exchange like barter or more formal rationing;increasing advertising to entice people into more debt (one cause of the current economic crisis as the debt bubble burst [capitalismhitsthefan.com]);intentionally producing shoddy merchandise or things with planned obsolescence, perhaps encouraged by promoting faddism in the culture;more prisons (employs guards and keeps people out of the labor pool);more schooling (employs guards/teachers and keeps people out of the labor pool) while suppressing [newciv.org] true education; andmore war (employs guards/soldiers, blows up and wastes abundance, and kills or disables workers to keep them out of the labor pool).Likely we will see a mix of all those in the future, and in fact, a mix of all those is what we have now (not that the last five options of advertising, faddism, schooling, prison, and war are recommended, even as our society currently relies on them heavily to destroy abundance and create guarding [whywork.org] jobs).
This web site will go into the details of all this over time.
That list is defining the landscape of a jobless recovery, showing connections between things that dont usually seem connected.
Like for example, why President Obama just suggested the school year should be longer [yahoo.com] while our best [chrismercogliano.com] educators [holtgws.com] say compulsory [wikipedia.org] school [archive.org] as we know it should [youtube.com] disappear [johntaylorgatto.com] entirely [greenmoneyjournal.com].The important thing to remember is that joblessness is not necessarily a bad thing.
It means people have more time for family, friends, hobbies, and volunteerism.
What is bad about formal un</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29949122</id>
	<title>Re:She's without hope, so we must be?</title>
	<author>Paul Fernhout</author>
	<datestamp>1257168060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On regulators being captured by special interests, see: <a href="http://www.capitalismhitsthefan.com/" title="capitalismhitsthefan.com">http://www.capitalismhitsthefan.com/</a> [capitalismhitsthefan.com] or this related presentation: <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7382297202053077236" title="google.com">http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7382297202053077236</a> [google.com]</p><p>For other ideas, see:<br>"Why limited demand means joblessness (and what to do about it)"<br><a href="http://www.beyondajoblessrecovery.org/2009/10/03/why-limited-demand-means-joblessness/" title="beyondajob...covery.org">http://www.beyondajoblessrecovery.org/2009/10/03/why-limited-demand-means-joblessness/</a> [beyondajob...covery.org]</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On regulators being captured by special interests , see : http : //www.capitalismhitsthefan.com/ [ capitalismhitsthefan.com ] or this related presentation : http : //video.google.com/videoplay ? docid = 7382297202053077236 [ google.com ] For other ideas , see : " Why limited demand means joblessness ( and what to do about it ) " http : //www.beyondajoblessrecovery.org/2009/10/03/why-limited-demand-means-joblessness/ [ beyondajob...covery.org ]    </tokentext>
<sentencetext>On regulators being captured by special interests, see: http://www.capitalismhitsthefan.com/ [capitalismhitsthefan.com] or this related presentation: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7382297202053077236 [google.com]For other ideas, see:"Why limited demand means joblessness (and what to do about it)"http://www.beyondajoblessrecovery.org/2009/10/03/why-limited-demand-means-joblessness/ [beyondajob...covery.org]
   </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943508</id>
	<title>Bullshit</title>
	<author>Latinhypercube</author>
	<datestamp>1257108540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Only a naive idiot would believe that Goldman Sachs actions were accidental or lacking foresight. These are the best minds in the country, they are specialists in predicting market trends and they pretty much invented most of the toxic assets that crippled everyone ELSE, while the profited.... A coincidence ? I don't think so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Only a naive idiot would believe that Goldman Sachs actions were accidental or lacking foresight .
These are the best minds in the country , they are specialists in predicting market trends and they pretty much invented most of the toxic assets that crippled everyone ELSE , while the profited.... A coincidence ?
I do n't think so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only a naive idiot would believe that Goldman Sachs actions were accidental or lacking foresight.
These are the best minds in the country, they are specialists in predicting market trends and they pretty much invented most of the toxic assets that crippled everyone ELSE, while the profited.... A coincidence ?
I don't think so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29959616</id>
	<title>Re:The "problem"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257181620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WHAT??? Are you saying the world is a COMPLEX PLACE?? I simply refuse to believe anything that does not allow we to spout off simplistic knee-jerk statements!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WHAT ? ? ?
Are you saying the world is a COMPLEX PLACE ? ?
I simply refuse to believe anything that does not allow we to spout off simplistic knee-jerk statements !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WHAT???
Are you saying the world is a COMPLEX PLACE??
I simply refuse to believe anything that does not allow we to spout off simplistic knee-jerk statements!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29952784</id>
	<title>Re:She's without hope, so we must be?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257189840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Unfortunately I've come to the conclusion there is NO political/economic philosophy that actually works in practice. Every one devolves in to some small group acquiring all the wealth and power and screwing it out of everyone else. In some systems its party members and bureaucrats, in others it politicians, and in others its bankers and CEO's. As Shakespeare thoroughly outlines a long time ago, we are a species with vicious tendencies that spiral completely out of control in the people who aspire to power and wealth and there seems to be no way to stop those people.</p></div><p>That's why capitalism with a relatively unregulated market works. It channels the selfish efforts of those sorts of people towards building things of value rather than parasitically leaching from others.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately I 've come to the conclusion there is NO political/economic philosophy that actually works in practice .
Every one devolves in to some small group acquiring all the wealth and power and screwing it out of everyone else .
In some systems its party members and bureaucrats , in others it politicians , and in others its bankers and CEO 's .
As Shakespeare thoroughly outlines a long time ago , we are a species with vicious tendencies that spiral completely out of control in the people who aspire to power and wealth and there seems to be no way to stop those people.That 's why capitalism with a relatively unregulated market works .
It channels the selfish efforts of those sorts of people towards building things of value rather than parasitically leaching from others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately I've come to the conclusion there is NO political/economic philosophy that actually works in practice.
Every one devolves in to some small group acquiring all the wealth and power and screwing it out of everyone else.
In some systems its party members and bureaucrats, in others it politicians, and in others its bankers and CEO's.
As Shakespeare thoroughly outlines a long time ago, we are a species with vicious tendencies that spiral completely out of control in the people who aspire to power and wealth and there seems to be no way to stop those people.That's why capitalism with a relatively unregulated market works.
It channels the selfish efforts of those sorts of people towards building things of value rather than parasitically leaching from others.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944450</id>
	<title>Re:News for nerds?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257071340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; These are the people who (amongst other things) think offshoring technology is a good idea</p><p>It arguably *is* a good idea.  If you can hire 3 engineers in India for the price of one in the USA, then yes, it harms that one in the USA, but it helps *three* in India.  I'm operating from the assumption that an Indian is just as valuable as an American, so there's a net gain of two people finding good jobs.  If your premise is that Americans are more important than everyone else in the world, then you might reach a different conclusion.</p><p>It's also better even for the rest of the USA.  I recently bought a made-in-China power tool for $50.  The made-in-USA equivalent cost over $200.  So yes, it harms the few people making those tools in the USA, but not only does it help the person in China making them, it means that far more people in the USA can afford the tool at all.  It increases the standard of living of all the people who were not involved in producing that tool in the USA, *and* it increases the standard of living of the people in China who did produce it.</p><p>So yes, there are tradeoffs; some are harmed, but more are helped than harmed.  Overall, offshoring is a benefit in the aggregate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; These are the people who ( amongst other things ) think offshoring technology is a good ideaIt arguably * is * a good idea .
If you can hire 3 engineers in India for the price of one in the USA , then yes , it harms that one in the USA , but it helps * three * in India .
I 'm operating from the assumption that an Indian is just as valuable as an American , so there 's a net gain of two people finding good jobs .
If your premise is that Americans are more important than everyone else in the world , then you might reach a different conclusion.It 's also better even for the rest of the USA .
I recently bought a made-in-China power tool for $ 50 .
The made-in-USA equivalent cost over $ 200 .
So yes , it harms the few people making those tools in the USA , but not only does it help the person in China making them , it means that far more people in the USA can afford the tool at all .
It increases the standard of living of all the people who were not involved in producing that tool in the USA , * and * it increases the standard of living of the people in China who did produce it.So yes , there are tradeoffs ; some are harmed , but more are helped than harmed .
Overall , offshoring is a benefit in the aggregate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; These are the people who (amongst other things) think offshoring technology is a good ideaIt arguably *is* a good idea.
If you can hire 3 engineers in India for the price of one in the USA, then yes, it harms that one in the USA, but it helps *three* in India.
I'm operating from the assumption that an Indian is just as valuable as an American, so there's a net gain of two people finding good jobs.
If your premise is that Americans are more important than everyone else in the world, then you might reach a different conclusion.It's also better even for the rest of the USA.
I recently bought a made-in-China power tool for $50.
The made-in-USA equivalent cost over $200.
So yes, it harms the few people making those tools in the USA, but not only does it help the person in China making them, it means that far more people in the USA can afford the tool at all.
It increases the standard of living of all the people who were not involved in producing that tool in the USA, *and* it increases the standard of living of the people in China who did produce it.So yes, there are tradeoffs; some are harmed, but more are helped than harmed.
Overall, offshoring is a benefit in the aggregate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943806</id>
	<title>Re:She's without hope, so we must be?</title>
	<author>mindbrane</author>
	<datestamp>1257066960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's based on government, businesses, and individuals each doing our part. Yes, government should not go too far in controlling businesses; but in return businesses have to back way off, as they've gone much too far in recent years into endeavoring to control government.</p></div><p>In principle, I agree, but practically I think we're up against more intractable, fundamental problems requiring much effort and time to resolve. Historically there's endless material available to quote addressing the incompetence of government, greed and the lust for power, and, IMHO, it's profoundly based in our natures, but we're also up against a new storyline that's changing the way we think, evaluate and solve our problems. Humanism began, IIRC, in renaissance Italy, in a city state (Florence?) that wanted an education programme that would produce informed citizens able to competently participate in government of the city state. From Humanism to the Enlightenment the west developed a classically based education system that borrowed heavily from Greek and Roman sources. From the Enlightenment ideas came that informed our modern democracies; but modern science, also birthed during the enlightenment, has currently given us a fundamental shift in context and values that seems to have generated a sophist, relativists set of values challenging the historical, classical values inherent in Humanism and democracy.</p><p>In a way I'm becoming an apologist for the living generations because I've begun to think we are facing old problems with new values and new solution sets that will require considerable time and effort to implement within the tested structures of modern democracies. Modern science and it's findings are becoming a backbone for much of the policies of modern democracies but there are some serious repercussions. Modern science, inadvertently, challenges historical religious beliefs and to many seems to put in the place of religious morals a relativistic set of values that foster sophistry wherein morals and principles are replaced by political clout, statistics and media spin. Science in tandem with the principles of modern democracies have to address problems the marriage of science and democracy have in large part engendered.</p><p>Anthropology speaks of 3 generations as a window of sorts through which history can be viewed. 3 generations, spanning 90 years, allows for an immediacy and intimacy of contact between the generations that permits, for want of a better word, an empathy that might give greater insight and resolution to current problems. Currently the Boomers, those born in the 80's and their off spring are facing problems that require science and it's findings be given much weight but are also faced with a spectre of relativism that engenders less of the kind of individual responsibility the old value system carried with it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's based on government , businesses , and individuals each doing our part .
Yes , government should not go too far in controlling businesses ; but in return businesses have to back way off , as they 've gone much too far in recent years into endeavoring to control government.In principle , I agree , but practically I think we 're up against more intractable , fundamental problems requiring much effort and time to resolve .
Historically there 's endless material available to quote addressing the incompetence of government , greed and the lust for power , and , IMHO , it 's profoundly based in our natures , but we 're also up against a new storyline that 's changing the way we think , evaluate and solve our problems .
Humanism began , IIRC , in renaissance Italy , in a city state ( Florence ?
) that wanted an education programme that would produce informed citizens able to competently participate in government of the city state .
From Humanism to the Enlightenment the west developed a classically based education system that borrowed heavily from Greek and Roman sources .
From the Enlightenment ideas came that informed our modern democracies ; but modern science , also birthed during the enlightenment , has currently given us a fundamental shift in context and values that seems to have generated a sophist , relativists set of values challenging the historical , classical values inherent in Humanism and democracy.In a way I 'm becoming an apologist for the living generations because I 've begun to think we are facing old problems with new values and new solution sets that will require considerable time and effort to implement within the tested structures of modern democracies .
Modern science and it 's findings are becoming a backbone for much of the policies of modern democracies but there are some serious repercussions .
Modern science , inadvertently , challenges historical religious beliefs and to many seems to put in the place of religious morals a relativistic set of values that foster sophistry wherein morals and principles are replaced by political clout , statistics and media spin .
Science in tandem with the principles of modern democracies have to address problems the marriage of science and democracy have in large part engendered.Anthropology speaks of 3 generations as a window of sorts through which history can be viewed .
3 generations , spanning 90 years , allows for an immediacy and intimacy of contact between the generations that permits , for want of a better word , an empathy that might give greater insight and resolution to current problems .
Currently the Boomers , those born in the 80 's and their off spring are facing problems that require science and it 's findings be given much weight but are also faced with a spectre of relativism that engenders less of the kind of individual responsibility the old value system carried with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's based on government, businesses, and individuals each doing our part.
Yes, government should not go too far in controlling businesses; but in return businesses have to back way off, as they've gone much too far in recent years into endeavoring to control government.In principle, I agree, but practically I think we're up against more intractable, fundamental problems requiring much effort and time to resolve.
Historically there's endless material available to quote addressing the incompetence of government, greed and the lust for power, and, IMHO, it's profoundly based in our natures, but we're also up against a new storyline that's changing the way we think, evaluate and solve our problems.
Humanism began, IIRC, in renaissance Italy, in a city state (Florence?
) that wanted an education programme that would produce informed citizens able to competently participate in government of the city state.
From Humanism to the Enlightenment the west developed a classically based education system that borrowed heavily from Greek and Roman sources.
From the Enlightenment ideas came that informed our modern democracies; but modern science, also birthed during the enlightenment, has currently given us a fundamental shift in context and values that seems to have generated a sophist, relativists set of values challenging the historical, classical values inherent in Humanism and democracy.In a way I'm becoming an apologist for the living generations because I've begun to think we are facing old problems with new values and new solution sets that will require considerable time and effort to implement within the tested structures of modern democracies.
Modern science and it's findings are becoming a backbone for much of the policies of modern democracies but there are some serious repercussions.
Modern science, inadvertently, challenges historical religious beliefs and to many seems to put in the place of religious morals a relativistic set of values that foster sophistry wherein morals and principles are replaced by political clout, statistics and media spin.
Science in tandem with the principles of modern democracies have to address problems the marriage of science and democracy have in large part engendered.Anthropology speaks of 3 generations as a window of sorts through which history can be viewed.
3 generations, spanning 90 years, allows for an immediacy and intimacy of contact between the generations that permits, for want of a better word, an empathy that might give greater insight and resolution to current problems.
Currently the Boomers, those born in the 80's and their off spring are facing problems that require science and it's findings be given much weight but are also faced with a spectre of relativism that engenders less of the kind of individual responsibility the old value system carried with it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943966</id>
	<title>Re:She's without hope, so we must be?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257068100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When the "Luxury Tax" slapped a 10\% fee on big boats, surprise, all the big boat sales moved offshore.</p><p>If this fat cat from "Big Insura" wants to retire because he's getting taxed 55 or 60\%, guess what... there's someone willing to take his place.  The world doesn't stop turning because some old rich guys don't like the new rules.  We might dishearten them until they take their yachts and move offshore, and we might lose their tax income, but that doesn't mean that they'll be missed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When the " Luxury Tax " slapped a 10 \ % fee on big boats , surprise , all the big boat sales moved offshore.If this fat cat from " Big Insura " wants to retire because he 's getting taxed 55 or 60 \ % , guess what... there 's someone willing to take his place .
The world does n't stop turning because some old rich guys do n't like the new rules .
We might dishearten them until they take their yachts and move offshore , and we might lose their tax income , but that does n't mean that they 'll be missed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the "Luxury Tax" slapped a 10\% fee on big boats, surprise, all the big boat sales moved offshore.If this fat cat from "Big Insura" wants to retire because he's getting taxed 55 or 60\%, guess what... there's someone willing to take his place.
The world doesn't stop turning because some old rich guys don't like the new rules.
We might dishearten them until they take their yachts and move offshore, and we might lose their tax income, but that doesn't mean that they'll be missed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29950210</id>
	<title>Re:Why should we be surprised</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1257177300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And things are bad. The financial wizards of Wall St. have, almost literally, destroyed trillions of dollar in wealth over the last year.</p></div><p>How much of that wealth really existed? And what share of the blame you assign to "financial wizards" actually goes to government interference? My view is that society (including the financial wizards and easy credit from governments) created trillions in imaginary wealth. Recently, that imaginary wealth went away, along with some real wealth (well, wealth that normally would have stayed around after such a crisis) as society in general had its capital poorly distributed (redistribution required to account for a new economic outlook takes some effort and money to do).<br> <br>

Another key aspect that's being ignored here is that the organizations that bred the financial wizards got rescued. Why not go crazy when government is around to bail you out? You can be sure that they'll remember this lesson the next time they have the choice.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And things are bad .
The financial wizards of Wall St. have , almost literally , destroyed trillions of dollar in wealth over the last year.How much of that wealth really existed ?
And what share of the blame you assign to " financial wizards " actually goes to government interference ?
My view is that society ( including the financial wizards and easy credit from governments ) created trillions in imaginary wealth .
Recently , that imaginary wealth went away , along with some real wealth ( well , wealth that normally would have stayed around after such a crisis ) as society in general had its capital poorly distributed ( redistribution required to account for a new economic outlook takes some effort and money to do ) .
Another key aspect that 's being ignored here is that the organizations that bred the financial wizards got rescued .
Why not go crazy when government is around to bail you out ?
You can be sure that they 'll remember this lesson the next time they have the choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And things are bad.
The financial wizards of Wall St. have, almost literally, destroyed trillions of dollar in wealth over the last year.How much of that wealth really existed?
And what share of the blame you assign to "financial wizards" actually goes to government interference?
My view is that society (including the financial wizards and easy credit from governments) created trillions in imaginary wealth.
Recently, that imaginary wealth went away, along with some real wealth (well, wealth that normally would have stayed around after such a crisis) as society in general had its capital poorly distributed (redistribution required to account for a new economic outlook takes some effort and money to do).
Another key aspect that's being ignored here is that the organizations that bred the financial wizards got rescued.
Why not go crazy when government is around to bail you out?
You can be sure that they'll remember this lesson the next time they have the choice.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943096</id>
	<title>Illinois Wants Insurers to Cover Prayer Treatments</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257105360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-tc-health-religion-1031-1101nov01,0,7735579.story" title="chicagotribune.com">Should prayers be covered?</a> [chicagotribune.com]: "As the health care battle moved forward last week, Phil Davis, a senior Christian Science church official, hurriedly delivered bundles of letters to Senate offices promoting a little-noticed proposal in the legislation requiring insurers to consider covering the church's prayer treatments just as they do other medical expenses. Critics say the proposal would essentially put Christian Science prayer treatments on the same footing as science-based medical care by prohibiting discrimination against "religious and spiritual health care."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Should prayers be covered ?
[ chicagotribune.com ] : " As the health care battle moved forward last week , Phil Davis , a senior Christian Science church official , hurriedly delivered bundles of letters to Senate offices promoting a little-noticed proposal in the legislation requiring insurers to consider covering the church 's prayer treatments just as they do other medical expenses .
Critics say the proposal would essentially put Christian Science prayer treatments on the same footing as science-based medical care by prohibiting discrimination against " religious and spiritual health care .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Should prayers be covered?
[chicagotribune.com]: "As the health care battle moved forward last week, Phil Davis, a senior Christian Science church official, hurriedly delivered bundles of letters to Senate offices promoting a little-noticed proposal in the legislation requiring insurers to consider covering the church's prayer treatments just as they do other medical expenses.
Critics say the proposal would essentially put Christian Science prayer treatments on the same footing as science-based medical care by prohibiting discrimination against "religious and spiritual health care.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943424</id>
	<title>Re:News for nerds?</title>
	<author>ObsessiveMathsFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1257107940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This article is the definitive proof that nerds are being governed by brash jocks with tunnel vision. I'd say this qualifies as a classic Slashdot article.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This article is the definitive proof that nerds are being governed by brash jocks with tunnel vision .
I 'd say this qualifies as a classic Slashdot article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article is the definitive proof that nerds are being governed by brash jocks with tunnel vision.
I'd say this qualifies as a classic Slashdot article.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29942948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29948868</id>
	<title>Re:She's without hope, so we must be?</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1257164100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You kind of have to wonder why the conservative Republicans complain so much about big government because for at least the last 10 years, and really a lot longer than that, they have been the most adept at exploiting it for their own gain.</p></div><p>Even liberal icon Michael Moore disagrees with you. Did you see <em>Sicko</em>? The difference between republicans and democrats is that democrats cost more to buy off.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You kind of have to wonder why the conservative Republicans complain so much about big government because for at least the last 10 years , and really a lot longer than that , they have been the most adept at exploiting it for their own gain.Even liberal icon Michael Moore disagrees with you .
Did you see Sicko ?
The difference between republicans and democrats is that democrats cost more to buy off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You kind of have to wonder why the conservative Republicans complain so much about big government because for at least the last 10 years, and really a lot longer than that, they have been the most adept at exploiting it for their own gain.Even liberal icon Michael Moore disagrees with you.
Did you see Sicko?
The difference between republicans and democrats is that democrats cost more to buy off.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29949078</id>
	<title>As California goes, so goes the nation?</title>
	<author>Paul Fernhout</author>
	<datestamp>1257167340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is really insightful. As California goes, into a depression and insolvency from an ideological inability to tax and regulate and invest in the public good, so goes the nation? Some alternative ideas:<br>
&nbsp; "Why limited demand means joblessness (and what to do about it)"<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://www.beyondajoblessrecovery.org/2009/10/03/why-limited-demand-means-joblessness/" title="beyondajob...covery.org">http://www.beyondajoblessrecovery.org/2009/10/03/why-limited-demand-means-joblessness/</a> [beyondajob...covery.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is really insightful .
As California goes , into a depression and insolvency from an ideological inability to tax and regulate and invest in the public good , so goes the nation ?
Some alternative ideas :   " Why limited demand means joblessness ( and what to do about it ) "     http : //www.beyondajoblessrecovery.org/2009/10/03/why-limited-demand-means-joblessness/ [ beyondajob...covery.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is really insightful.
As California goes, into a depression and insolvency from an ideological inability to tax and regulate and invest in the public good, so goes the nation?
Some alternative ideas:
  "Why limited demand means joblessness (and what to do about it)"
    http://www.beyondajoblessrecovery.org/2009/10/03/why-limited-demand-means-joblessness/ [beyondajob...covery.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29942988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29947304</id>
	<title>Re:Sociopaths and children of Sociopaths</title>
	<author>QuestionsNotAnswers</author>
	<datestamp>1257096840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unfortunately for you, the sociopaths we need to worry about are smart enough to avoid your list of signs. They are aware of the signals (after all they tend to have to deal with other sociopaths), and so the sociopaths make sure they don't measure abnormally high as sociopaths!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately for you , the sociopaths we need to worry about are smart enough to avoid your list of signs .
They are aware of the signals ( after all they tend to have to deal with other sociopaths ) , and so the sociopaths make sure they do n't measure abnormally high as sociopaths !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately for you, the sociopaths we need to worry about are smart enough to avoid your list of signs.
They are aware of the signals (after all they tend to have to deal with other sociopaths), and so the sociopaths make sure they don't measure abnormally high as sociopaths!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29947122</id>
	<title>Solution is simple, though not easy!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257094920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Re-elect No-One.  Ever, no Senator, no Representative.  Senators sit for 6 years, Representatives for 2.  Re-elect No-one, ever.  Except that we are so afraid of our own shadow that looking onto a future known to be so seriously flawed REMAINS more attractive that the unknown alternative of getting the elite out of office.</p><p>It is YOUR OWN fault.  No one else is to blame.  Re-elect No-One, Ever!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Re-elect No-One .
Ever , no Senator , no Representative .
Senators sit for 6 years , Representatives for 2 .
Re-elect No-one , ever .
Except that we are so afraid of our own shadow that looking onto a future known to be so seriously flawed REMAINS more attractive that the unknown alternative of getting the elite out of office.It is YOUR OWN fault .
No one else is to blame .
Re-elect No-One , Ever !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Re-elect No-One.
Ever, no Senator, no Representative.
Senators sit for 6 years, Representatives for 2.
Re-elect No-one, ever.
Except that we are so afraid of our own shadow that looking onto a future known to be so seriously flawed REMAINS more attractive that the unknown alternative of getting the elite out of office.It is YOUR OWN fault.
No one else is to blame.
Re-elect No-One, Ever!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943622</id>
	<title>Re:atlas yawned</title>
	<author>amRadioHed</author>
	<datestamp>1257066000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the ones who make their living by making contracts so incomprehensibly complex that people have to hire lawyers just to read the damn things</p></div><p>Kind of like programmers right? Contracts have to be precise and often complex in order to express what is intended.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the ones who make their living by making contracts so incomprehensibly complex that people have to hire lawyers just to read the damn thingsKind of like programmers right ?
Contracts have to be precise and often complex in order to express what is intended .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the ones who make their living by making contracts so incomprehensibly complex that people have to hire lawyers just to read the damn thingsKind of like programmers right?
Contracts have to be precise and often complex in order to express what is intended.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944178</id>
	<title>Re:The "problem"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257069540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You make the assumption that Fox News is actually in the news business. If you look at it as though it were in the entertainment business or that it's actually a vehicle to sell advertisements, then their best option is to say or do whatever will put the most viewers in front of those ads. Glenn Beck isn't crazy or stupid, he just knows that spouting off the inane crap that he does will give him a wider audience which looks good to the people who pay his salary.</p><p>I just don't care enough about the news that I should be forced to pay for it through tax dollars. If there are sufficiently many sources of news, the odds are that one of them will cover some event that the others miss. Internet and blogging will see to this more so than any government or corporate funding of the news ever will. If large corporate news dies off, it will have deserved it. State sponsored news won't die off even if it should.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You make the assumption that Fox News is actually in the news business .
If you look at it as though it were in the entertainment business or that it 's actually a vehicle to sell advertisements , then their best option is to say or do whatever will put the most viewers in front of those ads .
Glenn Beck is n't crazy or stupid , he just knows that spouting off the inane crap that he does will give him a wider audience which looks good to the people who pay his salary.I just do n't care enough about the news that I should be forced to pay for it through tax dollars .
If there are sufficiently many sources of news , the odds are that one of them will cover some event that the others miss .
Internet and blogging will see to this more so than any government or corporate funding of the news ever will .
If large corporate news dies off , it will have deserved it .
State sponsored news wo n't die off even if it should .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You make the assumption that Fox News is actually in the news business.
If you look at it as though it were in the entertainment business or that it's actually a vehicle to sell advertisements, then their best option is to say or do whatever will put the most viewers in front of those ads.
Glenn Beck isn't crazy or stupid, he just knows that spouting off the inane crap that he does will give him a wider audience which looks good to the people who pay his salary.I just don't care enough about the news that I should be forced to pay for it through tax dollars.
If there are sufficiently many sources of news, the odds are that one of them will cover some event that the others miss.
Internet and blogging will see to this more so than any government or corporate funding of the news ever will.
If large corporate news dies off, it will have deserved it.
State sponsored news won't die off even if it should.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944040</id>
	<title>Cringley knows less about finance than tech</title>
	<author>sjbe</author>
	<datestamp>1257068520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cringley should stick to technology since he clearly knows even less about finance than tech.</p><p>From TFA:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Trading relies on finding and exploiting inefficiencies in the system while investing grows the economy.  Trading is a parasite on investing.  I&rsquo;m not saying to ban it, I AM saying that technology has enabled outfits like Goldman to be such efficient parasites that they threaten the survival of their hosts.</p></div><p>What he's really talking about is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speculation" title="wikipedia.org">speculation</a> [wikipedia.org].  Despite speculators being the traditional scapegoat (frequently deservedly) whenever there is a problem with the financial system, a certain amount of speculation is arguably healthy.  Speculators make certain critical markets <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidity" title="wikipedia.org">liquid</a> [wikipedia.org] when they otherwise would not be.  If you want to see the effect of no liquidity, you only have to look at our recent financial meltdown when the banks stopped lending.  Liquidity is critical and speculation is frequently the grease that lets the machinery do its job.</p><p>Where Cringley is wrong in his argument is that technology has only a minor role in why we have the current financial situation.  The current financial situation is complicated but was caused by a lack of controls, outdated regulation, excessive leverage and a lack of transparency among other causes.  We have access to new financial instruments for which we have not yet developed adequate regulations.  Our current fiscal crisis looks very much like a classic <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidity\_trap" title="wikipedia.org">liquidity trap</a> [wikipedia.org].  Interest rates are about as low as they can go so further injections of cash will not lower interest rates and stimulate investment.  Technology played no more than a minor supporting role.  Factors such as the elimination of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall\_Act" title="wikipedia.org">Glass-Steagall</a> [wikipedia.org], inaccurate credit ratings, speculation, excessive leverage, low interest rates and others were at the root of the problem and these have nothing fundamentally to do with technology.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I&rsquo;ve talked with these guys and they are clueless about the implications of their work.</p></div><p>I have more than a few friends who are in investment banking and NONE of them are clueless about the implications of their work.  Their incentives are misaligned with the public good sometimes but they are well aware of that fact.  It's rather like knowing that the smokestack in your factory is polluting the environment.  Just because you are aware of it doesn't mean you are in a position to do anything about the problem.  The folks at Goldman and Morgan Stanley are smart.  VERY smart.  They understand the macro-economic implications of what they are doing for the most part.  When they don't get it, it's usually the case that few others understood the problem either.  That doesn't mean they are blameless but I wouldn't for a second call them clueless.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>This process builds financial bubbles until they pop then it is left to the despised government to fix things.  But what if government runs out of options?</p> </div><p>Then you have a long and protracted depression.  Sometimes civil unrest if it is severe enough.  Governments aren't omnipotent and their ability to influence the economy has always had limits.  Financial bubbles are a regular occurrence.  No amount of government regulation or intervention can stop all of them.  But we can learn from past mistakes.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Remember the work of Black and Scholes that underlay the staggering growth of derivative securities was based on thermodynamics. We use principles from one area in another to good effect, but what makes an efficient heat exchanger can make a deadly security.</p></div><p>Only if one is stupid enough not to understand the limitations of Black-Scholes which only works under a huge pile of assumptions that exist in very narrow and rare circumstances.  Black-Scholes isn't responsible for our current mess.  Black-Scholes is an equation.  It can be used wisely or unwisely.  We can encourage wise use but sometimes we seem to need to learn things the hard way.  The business cycle is just that, a cycle.  It goes up and sometimes it comes down.  The average time between recessions is between 4-7 years.  We've had a series of longer than usual economic expansions and it's not surprising that we had a contraction.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cringley should stick to technology since he clearly knows even less about finance than tech.From TFA : Trading relies on finding and exploiting inefficiencies in the system while investing grows the economy .
Trading is a parasite on investing .
I    m not saying to ban it , I AM saying that technology has enabled outfits like Goldman to be such efficient parasites that they threaten the survival of their hosts.What he 's really talking about is speculation [ wikipedia.org ] .
Despite speculators being the traditional scapegoat ( frequently deservedly ) whenever there is a problem with the financial system , a certain amount of speculation is arguably healthy .
Speculators make certain critical markets liquid [ wikipedia.org ] when they otherwise would not be .
If you want to see the effect of no liquidity , you only have to look at our recent financial meltdown when the banks stopped lending .
Liquidity is critical and speculation is frequently the grease that lets the machinery do its job.Where Cringley is wrong in his argument is that technology has only a minor role in why we have the current financial situation .
The current financial situation is complicated but was caused by a lack of controls , outdated regulation , excessive leverage and a lack of transparency among other causes .
We have access to new financial instruments for which we have not yet developed adequate regulations .
Our current fiscal crisis looks very much like a classic liquidity trap [ wikipedia.org ] .
Interest rates are about as low as they can go so further injections of cash will not lower interest rates and stimulate investment .
Technology played no more than a minor supporting role .
Factors such as the elimination of Glass-Steagall [ wikipedia.org ] , inaccurate credit ratings , speculation , excessive leverage , low interest rates and others were at the root of the problem and these have nothing fundamentally to do with technology.I    ve talked with these guys and they are clueless about the implications of their work.I have more than a few friends who are in investment banking and NONE of them are clueless about the implications of their work .
Their incentives are misaligned with the public good sometimes but they are well aware of that fact .
It 's rather like knowing that the smokestack in your factory is polluting the environment .
Just because you are aware of it does n't mean you are in a position to do anything about the problem .
The folks at Goldman and Morgan Stanley are smart .
VERY smart .
They understand the macro-economic implications of what they are doing for the most part .
When they do n't get it , it 's usually the case that few others understood the problem either .
That does n't mean they are blameless but I would n't for a second call them clueless.This process builds financial bubbles until they pop then it is left to the despised government to fix things .
But what if government runs out of options ?
Then you have a long and protracted depression .
Sometimes civil unrest if it is severe enough .
Governments are n't omnipotent and their ability to influence the economy has always had limits .
Financial bubbles are a regular occurrence .
No amount of government regulation or intervention can stop all of them .
But we can learn from past mistakes.Remember the work of Black and Scholes that underlay the staggering growth of derivative securities was based on thermodynamics .
We use principles from one area in another to good effect , but what makes an efficient heat exchanger can make a deadly security.Only if one is stupid enough not to understand the limitations of Black-Scholes which only works under a huge pile of assumptions that exist in very narrow and rare circumstances .
Black-Scholes is n't responsible for our current mess .
Black-Scholes is an equation .
It can be used wisely or unwisely .
We can encourage wise use but sometimes we seem to need to learn things the hard way .
The business cycle is just that , a cycle .
It goes up and sometimes it comes down .
The average time between recessions is between 4-7 years .
We 've had a series of longer than usual economic expansions and it 's not surprising that we had a contraction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cringley should stick to technology since he clearly knows even less about finance than tech.From TFA:Trading relies on finding and exploiting inefficiencies in the system while investing grows the economy.
Trading is a parasite on investing.
I’m not saying to ban it, I AM saying that technology has enabled outfits like Goldman to be such efficient parasites that they threaten the survival of their hosts.What he's really talking about is speculation [wikipedia.org].
Despite speculators being the traditional scapegoat (frequently deservedly) whenever there is a problem with the financial system, a certain amount of speculation is arguably healthy.
Speculators make certain critical markets liquid [wikipedia.org] when they otherwise would not be.
If you want to see the effect of no liquidity, you only have to look at our recent financial meltdown when the banks stopped lending.
Liquidity is critical and speculation is frequently the grease that lets the machinery do its job.Where Cringley is wrong in his argument is that technology has only a minor role in why we have the current financial situation.
The current financial situation is complicated but was caused by a lack of controls, outdated regulation, excessive leverage and a lack of transparency among other causes.
We have access to new financial instruments for which we have not yet developed adequate regulations.
Our current fiscal crisis looks very much like a classic liquidity trap [wikipedia.org].
Interest rates are about as low as they can go so further injections of cash will not lower interest rates and stimulate investment.
Technology played no more than a minor supporting role.
Factors such as the elimination of Glass-Steagall [wikipedia.org], inaccurate credit ratings, speculation, excessive leverage, low interest rates and others were at the root of the problem and these have nothing fundamentally to do with technology.I’ve talked with these guys and they are clueless about the implications of their work.I have more than a few friends who are in investment banking and NONE of them are clueless about the implications of their work.
Their incentives are misaligned with the public good sometimes but they are well aware of that fact.
It's rather like knowing that the smokestack in your factory is polluting the environment.
Just because you are aware of it doesn't mean you are in a position to do anything about the problem.
The folks at Goldman and Morgan Stanley are smart.
VERY smart.
They understand the macro-economic implications of what they are doing for the most part.
When they don't get it, it's usually the case that few others understood the problem either.
That doesn't mean they are blameless but I wouldn't for a second call them clueless.This process builds financial bubbles until they pop then it is left to the despised government to fix things.
But what if government runs out of options?
Then you have a long and protracted depression.
Sometimes civil unrest if it is severe enough.
Governments aren't omnipotent and their ability to influence the economy has always had limits.
Financial bubbles are a regular occurrence.
No amount of government regulation or intervention can stop all of them.
But we can learn from past mistakes.Remember the work of Black and Scholes that underlay the staggering growth of derivative securities was based on thermodynamics.
We use principles from one area in another to good effect, but what makes an efficient heat exchanger can make a deadly security.Only if one is stupid enough not to understand the limitations of Black-Scholes which only works under a huge pile of assumptions that exist in very narrow and rare circumstances.
Black-Scholes isn't responsible for our current mess.
Black-Scholes is an equation.
It can be used wisely or unwisely.
We can encourage wise use but sometimes we seem to need to learn things the hard way.
The business cycle is just that, a cycle.
It goes up and sometimes it comes down.
The average time between recessions is between 4-7 years.
We've had a series of longer than usual economic expansions and it's not surprising that we had a contraction.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29945466</id>
	<title>Re:atlas yawned</title>
	<author>hemp</author>
	<datestamp>1257079020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Carter was a Navel Academy graduate and a Nuclear Engineer.  I rank that a lot higher than MBA from Harvard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Carter was a Navel Academy graduate and a Nuclear Engineer .
I rank that a lot higher than MBA from Harvard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Carter was a Navel Academy graduate and a Nuclear Engineer.
I rank that a lot higher than MBA from Harvard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943646</id>
	<title>mod parent up!</title>
	<author>BitHive</author>
	<datestamp>1257066180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>His insight is apparently annoying to some people, so they need to read it again,</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>His insight is apparently annoying to some people , so they need to read it again,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>His insight is apparently annoying to some people, so they need to read it again,</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29946716</id>
	<title>Re:It's simply the consequence of corporate psycho</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257090600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>with the few exceptions of people like Warren Buffet, corporations are run by highly functional psychopaths.</i><br>As long as we're naming names of good guys, don't forget <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron\_Feuerstein" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Aaron Feuerstein</a> [wikipedia.org],<br><a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/03/60minutes/main561656.shtml" title="cbsnews.com" rel="nofollow">The Mensch Of Malden Mills</a> [cbsnews.com]</p><p>gewg\_</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>with the few exceptions of people like Warren Buffet , corporations are run by highly functional psychopaths.As long as we 're naming names of good guys , do n't forget Aaron Feuerstein [ wikipedia.org ] ,The Mensch Of Malden Mills [ cbsnews.com ] gewg \ _</tokentext>
<sentencetext>with the few exceptions of people like Warren Buffet, corporations are run by highly functional psychopaths.As long as we're naming names of good guys, don't forget Aaron Feuerstein [wikipedia.org],The Mensch Of Malden Mills [cbsnews.com]gewg\_</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29961564</id>
	<title>Re:i'm uncomfortable with this idea</title>
	<author>mahadiga</author>
	<datestamp>1257247740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>MBA = Manipulate + Use
<br>
Sociopath = Manipulate + Use + Dump</htmltext>
<tokenext>MBA = Manipulate + Use Sociopath = Manipulate + Use + Dump</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MBA = Manipulate + Use

Sociopath = Manipulate + Use + Dump</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29946976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943110</id>
	<title>Re:News for nerds?</title>
	<author>Austerity Empowers</author>
	<datestamp>1257105480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These are the people who (amongst other things) think offshoring technology is a good idea. They don't see the danger, and they don't worry about the implications. Money is money.</p><p>It's news that affects nerds at least.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These are the people who ( amongst other things ) think offshoring technology is a good idea .
They do n't see the danger , and they do n't worry about the implications .
Money is money.It 's news that affects nerds at least .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These are the people who (amongst other things) think offshoring technology is a good idea.
They don't see the danger, and they don't worry about the implications.
Money is money.It's news that affects nerds at least.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29942948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29946682</id>
	<title>Re:Cap-and-Trade Law: Good for Bankers, Bad for U.</title>
	<author>Eskarel</author>
	<datestamp>1257090300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FFS I'm tired of every country giving this argument.</p><p>Yes, in the grand scheme of things, no country on its own can make a difference to global emissions, but if every country does their part, that will make a massive difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FFS I 'm tired of every country giving this argument.Yes , in the grand scheme of things , no country on its own can make a difference to global emissions , but if every country does their part , that will make a massive difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FFS I'm tired of every country giving this argument.Yes, in the grand scheme of things, no country on its own can make a difference to global emissions, but if every country does their part, that will make a massive difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943520</id>
	<title>Re:atlas yawned</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257108540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>i don't buy noonan's premise. most elected officials i know (and i know hundreds) don't come from any so-called privileged "leadership class," whatever that is, they come instead from nearly all walks of life and bring with them the experience of extremely diverse backgrounds, including poverty and marginalization.</p></div><p>Every presidential nominee since 1988 has graduated from either Harvard or Yale. More than 25\% of the 108th Congress was from the Ivy League. Twenty percent of Congress attended private schools before college. Fifteen current Representatives attended community colleges. No Senators did so.

</p><p>The average Senator has more than $15,000,000 in disclosed assets; the average Representative, more than $5,000,000; in fairness, the wealthiest in Congress have hundreds of millions, while the poorest have millions in liabilities. (Most also have considerable assets they aren't required to report, such as private home values.) A few Reps come from backgrounds of poverty, and quite a few more are from blue-collar families. All current Senators, as far as I can tell reasonably quickly, have backgrounds of upper-middle-class or higher.

</p><p>I'm sure state and local politicians have more diverse backgrounds, but at the federal level there's unquestionably a tendency toward lifelong wealth and privilege.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>i do n't buy noonan 's premise .
most elected officials i know ( and i know hundreds ) do n't come from any so-called privileged " leadership class , " whatever that is , they come instead from nearly all walks of life and bring with them the experience of extremely diverse backgrounds , including poverty and marginalization.Every presidential nominee since 1988 has graduated from either Harvard or Yale .
More than 25 \ % of the 108th Congress was from the Ivy League .
Twenty percent of Congress attended private schools before college .
Fifteen current Representatives attended community colleges .
No Senators did so .
The average Senator has more than $ 15,000,000 in disclosed assets ; the average Representative , more than $ 5,000,000 ; in fairness , the wealthiest in Congress have hundreds of millions , while the poorest have millions in liabilities .
( Most also have considerable assets they are n't required to report , such as private home values .
) A few Reps come from backgrounds of poverty , and quite a few more are from blue-collar families .
All current Senators , as far as I can tell reasonably quickly , have backgrounds of upper-middle-class or higher .
I 'm sure state and local politicians have more diverse backgrounds , but at the federal level there 's unquestionably a tendency toward lifelong wealth and privilege .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i don't buy noonan's premise.
most elected officials i know (and i know hundreds) don't come from any so-called privileged "leadership class," whatever that is, they come instead from nearly all walks of life and bring with them the experience of extremely diverse backgrounds, including poverty and marginalization.Every presidential nominee since 1988 has graduated from either Harvard or Yale.
More than 25\% of the 108th Congress was from the Ivy League.
Twenty percent of Congress attended private schools before college.
Fifteen current Representatives attended community colleges.
No Senators did so.
The average Senator has more than $15,000,000 in disclosed assets; the average Representative, more than $5,000,000; in fairness, the wealthiest in Congress have hundreds of millions, while the poorest have millions in liabilities.
(Most also have considerable assets they aren't required to report, such as private home values.
) A few Reps come from backgrounds of poverty, and quite a few more are from blue-collar families.
All current Senators, as far as I can tell reasonably quickly, have backgrounds of upper-middle-class or higher.
I'm sure state and local politicians have more diverse backgrounds, but at the federal level there's unquestionably a tendency toward lifelong wealth and privilege.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943666</id>
	<title>Re:She's without hope, so we must be?</title>
	<author>demonlapin</author>
	<datestamp>1257066300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm middle aged, white, and living in the deep south - and I would have hated Jeff Davis' government. But I don't like the one I have, either, because mine doesn't work.  I had an insight about this a year or two ago, one that I haven't seen addressed anywhere else - my friends who are liberals grew up, largely, in places where government works, while the conservatives grew up in places where it doesn't.  I suppose if I lived somewhere with safe, effective public schools, low crime, and so forth, I might not mind taxes.  As it is, though, I have to pay for all of that once in taxes and again in private form.  So I try to vote for smaller government, as hard as that is, because I think that smaller government wastes less money.  I think that the line about "any government that can give you anything you want can also take it away" is a very good reason to keep government from getting power in the first place.  <br> <br>Large businesses have lots of money, and they will inevitably be able to turn regulation to their advantage - that's regulatory capture.  (Viz. Mattel and the recent law about testing all toys - the big makers can run their own testing labs, while people on Etsy can't.)  That's not to say we should give up, but that not all regulation is good - and we should be cautious when people come along saying that this tool, this method, will ensure that bad things will never again happen.  I think the administration is utterly wrong about how to fix things, but seeing as they aren't counting on me to get reelected, my opinion's not worth much.  So I'll ask you: what do you think is the "obvious" way through?  Are you so confident that you can create a loophole-free regulatory scheme?  Is that even what you meant?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm middle aged , white , and living in the deep south - and I would have hated Jeff Davis ' government .
But I do n't like the one I have , either , because mine does n't work .
I had an insight about this a year or two ago , one that I have n't seen addressed anywhere else - my friends who are liberals grew up , largely , in places where government works , while the conservatives grew up in places where it does n't .
I suppose if I lived somewhere with safe , effective public schools , low crime , and so forth , I might not mind taxes .
As it is , though , I have to pay for all of that once in taxes and again in private form .
So I try to vote for smaller government , as hard as that is , because I think that smaller government wastes less money .
I think that the line about " any government that can give you anything you want can also take it away " is a very good reason to keep government from getting power in the first place .
Large businesses have lots of money , and they will inevitably be able to turn regulation to their advantage - that 's regulatory capture .
( Viz. Mattel and the recent law about testing all toys - the big makers can run their own testing labs , while people on Etsy ca n't .
) That 's not to say we should give up , but that not all regulation is good - and we should be cautious when people come along saying that this tool , this method , will ensure that bad things will never again happen .
I think the administration is utterly wrong about how to fix things , but seeing as they are n't counting on me to get reelected , my opinion 's not worth much .
So I 'll ask you : what do you think is the " obvious " way through ?
Are you so confident that you can create a loophole-free regulatory scheme ?
Is that even what you meant ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm middle aged, white, and living in the deep south - and I would have hated Jeff Davis' government.
But I don't like the one I have, either, because mine doesn't work.
I had an insight about this a year or two ago, one that I haven't seen addressed anywhere else - my friends who are liberals grew up, largely, in places where government works, while the conservatives grew up in places where it doesn't.
I suppose if I lived somewhere with safe, effective public schools, low crime, and so forth, I might not mind taxes.
As it is, though, I have to pay for all of that once in taxes and again in private form.
So I try to vote for smaller government, as hard as that is, because I think that smaller government wastes less money.
I think that the line about "any government that can give you anything you want can also take it away" is a very good reason to keep government from getting power in the first place.
Large businesses have lots of money, and they will inevitably be able to turn regulation to their advantage - that's regulatory capture.
(Viz. Mattel and the recent law about testing all toys - the big makers can run their own testing labs, while people on Etsy can't.
)  That's not to say we should give up, but that not all regulation is good - and we should be cautious when people come along saying that this tool, this method, will ensure that bad things will never again happen.
I think the administration is utterly wrong about how to fix things, but seeing as they aren't counting on me to get reelected, my opinion's not worth much.
So I'll ask you: what do you think is the "obvious" way through?
Are you so confident that you can create a loophole-free regulatory scheme?
Is that even what you meant?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29946026</id>
	<title>Re: Yes it's complicated</title>
	<author>Punctuated\_Equilibri</author>
	<datestamp>1257084660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Too many responses oversimplify.  The system is incredibly complex and interconnected.  Some intellectual humility is called for, what exactly would you propose, do you understand why the idea of throwing out all creeps from positions of power is not a workable plan?
<p>
Further, for all the suckiness of the American system, and however you rate GW Bush on the scale of jackasses, a good case could be made that the American system is the best in the world, when you factor everything in.  Yeah, I like Canada and the Scandinavian countries, too, but the case can be made.
</p><p>
If you want to boggle at how bad things can get, contemplate Zimbabwe or North Korea for a while.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Too many responses oversimplify .
The system is incredibly complex and interconnected .
Some intellectual humility is called for , what exactly would you propose , do you understand why the idea of throwing out all creeps from positions of power is not a workable plan ?
Further , for all the suckiness of the American system , and however you rate GW Bush on the scale of jackasses , a good case could be made that the American system is the best in the world , when you factor everything in .
Yeah , I like Canada and the Scandinavian countries , too , but the case can be made .
If you want to boggle at how bad things can get , contemplate Zimbabwe or North Korea for a while .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too many responses oversimplify.
The system is incredibly complex and interconnected.
Some intellectual humility is called for, what exactly would you propose, do you understand why the idea of throwing out all creeps from positions of power is not a workable plan?
Further, for all the suckiness of the American system, and however you rate GW Bush on the scale of jackasses, a good case could be made that the American system is the best in the world, when you factor everything in.
Yeah, I like Canada and the Scandinavian countries, too, but the case can be made.
If you want to boggle at how bad things can get, contemplate Zimbabwe or North Korea for a while.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943040</id>
	<title>Why are they still employed?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257104880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If any employee caused this kind of damage the customers/consumers would sue and employees would be terminated.  Yet in this case, we have companies (and hence employees) that are "too big|valuable|important too fail" so they get bailed out.</p><p>If I did this at my company (I manage a large mainframe storage environment at a recognizable financial institution on WallStreet), say by blowing away a ton of customer data, I can guarantee I would be walked to the door before the end of the day.</p><p>People in peer departments of mine (like those than manage the networks, server admins etc) that have no input to the investment direction of this company's holdings, have lost bonuses, haven't been able to purchase equipment and staff has been cut.  We had nothing to do with this bullsh!t, and yet us like the rest of American's are having to suffer while the MBAs reap in the dollars that the Federal Gov't is handing out.</p><p>I wish I could get a $200k bonus for blowing away a PetaByte of mainframe storage.  Maybe I'll go power off the z10 and see if Obama will bail out my unemployed ass.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If any employee caused this kind of damage the customers/consumers would sue and employees would be terminated .
Yet in this case , we have companies ( and hence employees ) that are " too big | valuable | important too fail " so they get bailed out.If I did this at my company ( I manage a large mainframe storage environment at a recognizable financial institution on WallStreet ) , say by blowing away a ton of customer data , I can guarantee I would be walked to the door before the end of the day.People in peer departments of mine ( like those than manage the networks , server admins etc ) that have no input to the investment direction of this company 's holdings , have lost bonuses , have n't been able to purchase equipment and staff has been cut .
We had nothing to do with this bullsh ! t , and yet us like the rest of American 's are having to suffer while the MBAs reap in the dollars that the Federal Gov't is handing out.I wish I could get a $ 200k bonus for blowing away a PetaByte of mainframe storage .
Maybe I 'll go power off the z10 and see if Obama will bail out my unemployed ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If any employee caused this kind of damage the customers/consumers would sue and employees would be terminated.
Yet in this case, we have companies (and hence employees) that are "too big|valuable|important too fail" so they get bailed out.If I did this at my company (I manage a large mainframe storage environment at a recognizable financial institution on WallStreet), say by blowing away a ton of customer data, I can guarantee I would be walked to the door before the end of the day.People in peer departments of mine (like those than manage the networks, server admins etc) that have no input to the investment direction of this company's holdings, have lost bonuses, haven't been able to purchase equipment and staff has been cut.
We had nothing to do with this bullsh!t, and yet us like the rest of American's are having to suffer while the MBAs reap in the dollars that the Federal Gov't is handing out.I wish I could get a $200k bonus for blowing away a PetaByte of mainframe storage.
Maybe I'll go power off the z10 and see if Obama will bail out my unemployed ass.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29945570</id>
	<title>one slight problem - Bush INCREASED regulations</title>
	<author>Alan R Light</author>
	<datestamp>1257079980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One problem with your hypothesis:  Regulations for the financial sector (and all sectors) dramatically INCREASED during the Bush administration.

</p><p>Sure, Noonan's article is full of the usual partisan crap that comes out from the losing side in the last election, but it is nevertheless true.  She does at least note that no one is looking to the Republicans for a solution either.

</p><p>But I think she misses an awful lot:

</p><p>First, there are many reasons why people have lost hope in America, and economics is just one small part of it.  The moralistic laws passed by both parties to try to force everyone to adhere to their belief systems - whether religious or secular - are also responsible for a great deal of revulsion at what America has become.  Truth is, there's no great difference between the person who tells you to profess a certain dogma or die, and the person who tells you that you'd better buckle up or face a hefty fine.  They're both assholes out to tell others what they must do.  Certainly there's room for persuasion and facilitating (making easy) good choices, but all the "leadership" on both left and right is committed to the idea that Americans must not be free.

</p><p>Second, there IS a great deal of real OPTIMISM among many educated people - it's just that that optimism is somewhat retarded by the idiocies being perpetrated by government.

</p><p>There is much to be optimistic about - we stand on the edge of what could be a golden age, if we can just get past the idiots who have hijacked the political and economic systems of the world for their own benefit.  If we could prune back the cartels that dominate the financial, medical, and academic sectors (among others) and introduce freedom to compete and to cooperate without undue and burdensome regulations, then the future is very bright indeed.

</p><p>But it looks like it might not be happening in America.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One problem with your hypothesis : Regulations for the financial sector ( and all sectors ) dramatically INCREASED during the Bush administration .
Sure , Noonan 's article is full of the usual partisan crap that comes out from the losing side in the last election , but it is nevertheless true .
She does at least note that no one is looking to the Republicans for a solution either .
But I think she misses an awful lot : First , there are many reasons why people have lost hope in America , and economics is just one small part of it .
The moralistic laws passed by both parties to try to force everyone to adhere to their belief systems - whether religious or secular - are also responsible for a great deal of revulsion at what America has become .
Truth is , there 's no great difference between the person who tells you to profess a certain dogma or die , and the person who tells you that you 'd better buckle up or face a hefty fine .
They 're both assholes out to tell others what they must do .
Certainly there 's room for persuasion and facilitating ( making easy ) good choices , but all the " leadership " on both left and right is committed to the idea that Americans must not be free .
Second , there IS a great deal of real OPTIMISM among many educated people - it 's just that that optimism is somewhat retarded by the idiocies being perpetrated by government .
There is much to be optimistic about - we stand on the edge of what could be a golden age , if we can just get past the idiots who have hijacked the political and economic systems of the world for their own benefit .
If we could prune back the cartels that dominate the financial , medical , and academic sectors ( among others ) and introduce freedom to compete and to cooperate without undue and burdensome regulations , then the future is very bright indeed .
But it looks like it might not be happening in America .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One problem with your hypothesis:  Regulations for the financial sector (and all sectors) dramatically INCREASED during the Bush administration.
Sure, Noonan's article is full of the usual partisan crap that comes out from the losing side in the last election, but it is nevertheless true.
She does at least note that no one is looking to the Republicans for a solution either.
But I think she misses an awful lot:

First, there are many reasons why people have lost hope in America, and economics is just one small part of it.
The moralistic laws passed by both parties to try to force everyone to adhere to their belief systems - whether religious or secular - are also responsible for a great deal of revulsion at what America has become.
Truth is, there's no great difference between the person who tells you to profess a certain dogma or die, and the person who tells you that you'd better buckle up or face a hefty fine.
They're both assholes out to tell others what they must do.
Certainly there's room for persuasion and facilitating (making easy) good choices, but all the "leadership" on both left and right is committed to the idea that Americans must not be free.
Second, there IS a great deal of real OPTIMISM among many educated people - it's just that that optimism is somewhat retarded by the idiocies being perpetrated by government.
There is much to be optimistic about - we stand on the edge of what could be a golden age, if we can just get past the idiots who have hijacked the political and economic systems of the world for their own benefit.
If we could prune back the cartels that dominate the financial, medical, and academic sectors (among others) and introduce freedom to compete and to cooperate without undue and burdensome regulations, then the future is very bright indeed.
But it looks like it might not be happening in America.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944592</id>
	<title>Re:Money for Something</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257072240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"We should stop putting value on the work of those who make money from money, from paper instruments, rather we should value money for goods. As a socialist, I applaud takeovers;"</p><p>1917 called and they want their sophomoric, marxist ideology back</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" We should stop putting value on the work of those who make money from money , from paper instruments , rather we should value money for goods .
As a socialist , I applaud takeovers ; " 1917 called and they want their sophomoric , marxist ideology back</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We should stop putting value on the work of those who make money from money, from paper instruments, rather we should value money for goods.
As a socialist, I applaud takeovers;"1917 called and they want their sophomoric, marxist ideology back</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29942966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29954256</id>
	<title>Re:She's without hope, so we must be?</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1257153060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It couldn't be any worse than what we have now.</p></div><p>Careful there, mate. Yes, it could. It could be a lot worse.</p><p>For instance, pretend the FDIC and credit union equivalent didn't exist. What would happen if the news broke that the bank / credit union you have your checking and savings account either went bust or was at risk of going bust? Here's a hint: we don't have to guess at this, because that's exactly what happened in 1929.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It could n't be any worse than what we have now.Careful there , mate .
Yes , it could .
It could be a lot worse.For instance , pretend the FDIC and credit union equivalent did n't exist .
What would happen if the news broke that the bank / credit union you have your checking and savings account either went bust or was at risk of going bust ?
Here 's a hint : we do n't have to guess at this , because that 's exactly what happened in 1929 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It couldn't be any worse than what we have now.Careful there, mate.
Yes, it could.
It could be a lot worse.For instance, pretend the FDIC and credit union equivalent didn't exist.
What would happen if the news broke that the bank / credit union you have your checking and savings account either went bust or was at risk of going bust?
Here's a hint: we don't have to guess at this, because that's exactly what happened in 1929.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29952864</id>
	<title>Re:atlas yawned</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1257190200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Look at the last few presidential campaigns. Lot of privileged people groomed for and pursuing higher office. For example, there's G.W. Bush, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama. Maybe they have to work a bit at first. But then opportunity after opportunity is thrown at them. These are selected by the politically powerful of the time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Look at the last few presidential campaigns .
Lot of privileged people groomed for and pursuing higher office .
For example , there 's G.W .
Bush , John Kerry , Hillary Clinton , and Barack Obama .
Maybe they have to work a bit at first .
But then opportunity after opportunity is thrown at them .
These are selected by the politically powerful of the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look at the last few presidential campaigns.
Lot of privileged people groomed for and pursuing higher office.
For example, there's G.W.
Bush, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama.
Maybe they have to work a bit at first.
But then opportunity after opportunity is thrown at them.
These are selected by the politically powerful of the time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943018</id>
	<title>Yet another right-wing nihilism hit piece</title>
	<author>mellon</author>
	<datestamp>1257104760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Basically, the thesis of this piece is the same thing the right wing has been pushing since Reagan's time: government can't work.   Nothing that comes out of government can ever be good.   We might as well just give up.</p><p>Maybe she's right, but history isn't on her side.   So this sounds more like sour grapes: Peggy has no hope, because her people have no relevance, and she doesn't like who's in power.   So she hopes we will listen to her and lose hope as well, because that way nobody will have hope.   Not the Republicans, not the Democrats, not the independents, not the geeks.   In that nihilistic world, her folks can waltz in and take over the government and keep pouring our tax dollars into their pockets the way they did under Reagan and both Bushes.   Government doesn't work.   Might as well send your tax money to Halliburton and Xe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Basically , the thesis of this piece is the same thing the right wing has been pushing since Reagan 's time : government ca n't work .
Nothing that comes out of government can ever be good .
We might as well just give up.Maybe she 's right , but history is n't on her side .
So this sounds more like sour grapes : Peggy has no hope , because her people have no relevance , and she does n't like who 's in power .
So she hopes we will listen to her and lose hope as well , because that way nobody will have hope .
Not the Republicans , not the Democrats , not the independents , not the geeks .
In that nihilistic world , her folks can waltz in and take over the government and keep pouring our tax dollars into their pockets the way they did under Reagan and both Bushes .
Government does n't work .
Might as well send your tax money to Halliburton and Xe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Basically, the thesis of this piece is the same thing the right wing has been pushing since Reagan's time: government can't work.
Nothing that comes out of government can ever be good.
We might as well just give up.Maybe she's right, but history isn't on her side.
So this sounds more like sour grapes: Peggy has no hope, because her people have no relevance, and she doesn't like who's in power.
So she hopes we will listen to her and lose hope as well, because that way nobody will have hope.
Not the Republicans, not the Democrats, not the independents, not the geeks.
In that nihilistic world, her folks can waltz in and take over the government and keep pouring our tax dollars into their pockets the way they did under Reagan and both Bushes.
Government doesn't work.
Might as well send your tax money to Halliburton and Xe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29945424</id>
	<title>Not all the experts missed the looming crisis.</title>
	<author>Fizzol</author>
	<datestamp>1257078720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Some of them saw it coming. They were ignored by the Bush administration and mocked on Fox News.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of them saw it coming .
They were ignored by the Bush administration and mocked on Fox News .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of them saw it coming.
They were ignored by the Bush administration and mocked on Fox News.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29948968</id>
	<title>Re:She's without hope, so we must be?</title>
	<author>Dr Damage I</author>
	<datestamp>1257165660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"Chances are a few banks like JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs would still end up running the world under Libertarianism"</p></div></blockquote><p>the entities you refer to owe their existence to the notion that the owners of those entities ought to be shielded from liability for the actions of that entity (that's what the addendum "ltd" at the end of the name means: "liability limited by shares").  Do you assume that under a purely libertarian system, the shareholders of such entities would not be held responsible for the conduct of their business as they currently are not? if so, why?</p><p>Personal responsibility is a big theme in libertarian circles.  The notion that personal responsibility can/should be limited simply by paying a fee and appointing a board of directors (the fall guys) is hardly a libertarian idea.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Chances are a few banks like JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs would still end up running the world under Libertarianism " the entities you refer to owe their existence to the notion that the owners of those entities ought to be shielded from liability for the actions of that entity ( that 's what the addendum " ltd " at the end of the name means : " liability limited by shares " ) .
Do you assume that under a purely libertarian system , the shareholders of such entities would not be held responsible for the conduct of their business as they currently are not ?
if so , why ? Personal responsibility is a big theme in libertarian circles .
The notion that personal responsibility can/should be limited simply by paying a fee and appointing a board of directors ( the fall guys ) is hardly a libertarian idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Chances are a few banks like JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs would still end up running the world under Libertarianism"the entities you refer to owe their existence to the notion that the owners of those entities ought to be shielded from liability for the actions of that entity (that's what the addendum "ltd" at the end of the name means: "liability limited by shares").
Do you assume that under a purely libertarian system, the shareholders of such entities would not be held responsible for the conduct of their business as they currently are not?
if so, why?Personal responsibility is a big theme in libertarian circles.
The notion that personal responsibility can/should be limited simply by paying a fee and appointing a board of directors (the fall guys) is hardly a libertarian idea.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943074</id>
	<title>Peggy Noonan</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257105180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who cares what Peggy Noonan says. It's just a dig at the youngish democrats around the president.</p><p>When the republican children of abundance get in the executive, they could appoint truly privileged twits: the Liz Cheneys, the Megan McCains and Peggy Noonan would have no problem with them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who cares what Peggy Noonan says .
It 's just a dig at the youngish democrats around the president.When the republican children of abundance get in the executive , they could appoint truly privileged twits : the Liz Cheneys , the Megan McCains and Peggy Noonan would have no problem with them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who cares what Peggy Noonan says.
It's just a dig at the youngish democrats around the president.When the republican children of abundance get in the executive, they could appoint truly privileged twits: the Liz Cheneys, the Megan McCains and Peggy Noonan would have no problem with them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944146</id>
	<title>They were more evil than negligent</title>
	<author>dontmakemethink</author>
	<datestamp>1257069240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The 'architect' of the bailout, Henry Paulson, left as the CEO of Goldman Sachs to become Bush's Secretary of the Treasury in just 2006.  It is widely believed that <a href="http://rawstory.com/2009/10/hank-paulsons-secret-2008-meeting-goldman-sachs-revealed/" title="rawstory.com">Paulson exploited conflicts of interest, putting his former firm ahead of its competition</a> [rawstory.com], leaving the others in ruin.  The link is a reasonably brief good read.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The 'architect ' of the bailout , Henry Paulson , left as the CEO of Goldman Sachs to become Bush 's Secretary of the Treasury in just 2006 .
It is widely believed that Paulson exploited conflicts of interest , putting his former firm ahead of its competition [ rawstory.com ] , leaving the others in ruin .
The link is a reasonably brief good read .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 'architect' of the bailout, Henry Paulson, left as the CEO of Goldman Sachs to become Bush's Secretary of the Treasury in just 2006.
It is widely believed that Paulson exploited conflicts of interest, putting his former firm ahead of its competition [rawstory.com], leaving the others in ruin.
The link is a reasonably brief good read.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944132</id>
	<title>Who's fault is it ?</title>
	<author>rdtreefrog</author>
	<datestamp>1257069180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Articles such as this that place blame the elected suffer the lack of responsibility that is the core of the problems. Try to get an honest person elected, and see how far you get. Elections in this country are no more than a popularity contest, an overly complicated beauty pageant. The winner? The one whose flashy smile best matches their swim suite. This was no more apparent than media's hounding of Sara Palin, not for her IQ, or her ingenuity or leadership, but for the quality and cost of her suits.

It doesn't start or end at the top. The last presidential election, I tried to dedicate my skills and experience in IT to help the local 'support our candidate' team. Of course, the person in charge of the local office ran a web design company they wanted to advertise using our candidates page, so my offer went unheard. I did canvas the streets, and speak to whoever would listen. But this was certainly not the best use of my time considering the web and email systems for the office were rolled out 1 week prior to the election. This kind of in-fighting and "where's mine" attitude has built the current situation, not the leaders who take advantage of the end result.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Articles such as this that place blame the elected suffer the lack of responsibility that is the core of the problems .
Try to get an honest person elected , and see how far you get .
Elections in this country are no more than a popularity contest , an overly complicated beauty pageant .
The winner ?
The one whose flashy smile best matches their swim suite .
This was no more apparent than media 's hounding of Sara Palin , not for her IQ , or her ingenuity or leadership , but for the quality and cost of her suits .
It does n't start or end at the top .
The last presidential election , I tried to dedicate my skills and experience in IT to help the local 'support our candidate ' team .
Of course , the person in charge of the local office ran a web design company they wanted to advertise using our candidates page , so my offer went unheard .
I did canvas the streets , and speak to whoever would listen .
But this was certainly not the best use of my time considering the web and email systems for the office were rolled out 1 week prior to the election .
This kind of in-fighting and " where 's mine " attitude has built the current situation , not the leaders who take advantage of the end result .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Articles such as this that place blame the elected suffer the lack of responsibility that is the core of the problems.
Try to get an honest person elected, and see how far you get.
Elections in this country are no more than a popularity contest, an overly complicated beauty pageant.
The winner?
The one whose flashy smile best matches their swim suite.
This was no more apparent than media's hounding of Sara Palin, not for her IQ, or her ingenuity or leadership, but for the quality and cost of her suits.
It doesn't start or end at the top.
The last presidential election, I tried to dedicate my skills and experience in IT to help the local 'support our candidate' team.
Of course, the person in charge of the local office ran a web design company they wanted to advertise using our candidates page, so my offer went unheard.
I did canvas the streets, and speak to whoever would listen.
But this was certainly not the best use of my time considering the web and email systems for the office were rolled out 1 week prior to the election.
This kind of in-fighting and "where's mine" attitude has built the current situation, not the leaders who take advantage of the end result.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29947974</id>
	<title>You must be joking.</title>
	<author>v(*\_*)vvvv</author>
	<datestamp>1257104580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I sense sarcasm, but I need to make this point.</p><p>This article is definitive proof of someone with no definitive proof using the faucets given to them as a journalist to demonize a class of people whom she has little ties with and knows absolutely nothing about. Maybe she forgives on Sundays, but every other day of the week, it appears she's throwing punches.</p><p>Considering such hear-say proof will mess with all equations. That is exactly what most of us do, because we do not know better, and how we end up hanging the innocent in the name of justice and faith. Years later we shudder at our own ignorance, and promise we'll do better. That pretty much sums up the history of civilization, and if you think that somehow ends with us, then you are part of the problem.</p><p>That is what this article is evidence of.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I sense sarcasm , but I need to make this point.This article is definitive proof of someone with no definitive proof using the faucets given to them as a journalist to demonize a class of people whom she has little ties with and knows absolutely nothing about .
Maybe she forgives on Sundays , but every other day of the week , it appears she 's throwing punches.Considering such hear-say proof will mess with all equations .
That is exactly what most of us do , because we do not know better , and how we end up hanging the innocent in the name of justice and faith .
Years later we shudder at our own ignorance , and promise we 'll do better .
That pretty much sums up the history of civilization , and if you think that somehow ends with us , then you are part of the problem.That is what this article is evidence of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I sense sarcasm, but I need to make this point.This article is definitive proof of someone with no definitive proof using the faucets given to them as a journalist to demonize a class of people whom she has little ties with and knows absolutely nothing about.
Maybe she forgives on Sundays, but every other day of the week, it appears she's throwing punches.Considering such hear-say proof will mess with all equations.
That is exactly what most of us do, because we do not know better, and how we end up hanging the innocent in the name of justice and faith.
Years later we shudder at our own ignorance, and promise we'll do better.
That pretty much sums up the history of civilization, and if you think that somehow ends with us, then you are part of the problem.That is what this article is evidence of.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943390</id>
	<title>Socialism and capitalism both suck.</title>
	<author>NoYob</author>
	<datestamp>1257107700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As someone who likes to get paid, I want a return to the time before the Masters Of The Universe ruled our financial institutions.</p></div><p>When do you think that was?</p><p>The Industrial Revolution with the Robber Barons who would hire "security" firms to shoot labor if they stepped out of line? When everyone worked 12 hour days 6 days a week to work to get behind?</p><p>Or back in the big landowner days when peons like me would be working the land and just working to get behind?</p><p>Or before that when we were hunter gatherers? </p><p>I don't think there's anywhere or anytime to back to when things were better. The only way things will get better is <i>if</i> we as a species progress. Our economic system won't improve until we humans improve. In other words, I think it's humanly impossible to have a better economic system than the quasi-capitalistic one that we have developed in the West. And no, I think Socialism is a bigger waste than capitalism. </p><p>So far, and I think for the rest of the time humanity exists, capitalism is the best economic system we are capable of having. Humans are just not emotionally capable of anything better.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone who likes to get paid , I want a return to the time before the Masters Of The Universe ruled our financial institutions.When do you think that was ? The Industrial Revolution with the Robber Barons who would hire " security " firms to shoot labor if they stepped out of line ?
When everyone worked 12 hour days 6 days a week to work to get behind ? Or back in the big landowner days when peons like me would be working the land and just working to get behind ? Or before that when we were hunter gatherers ?
I do n't think there 's anywhere or anytime to back to when things were better .
The only way things will get better is if we as a species progress .
Our economic system wo n't improve until we humans improve .
In other words , I think it 's humanly impossible to have a better economic system than the quasi-capitalistic one that we have developed in the West .
And no , I think Socialism is a bigger waste than capitalism .
So far , and I think for the rest of the time humanity exists , capitalism is the best economic system we are capable of having .
Humans are just not emotionally capable of anything better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone who likes to get paid, I want a return to the time before the Masters Of The Universe ruled our financial institutions.When do you think that was?The Industrial Revolution with the Robber Barons who would hire "security" firms to shoot labor if they stepped out of line?
When everyone worked 12 hour days 6 days a week to work to get behind?Or back in the big landowner days when peons like me would be working the land and just working to get behind?Or before that when we were hunter gatherers?
I don't think there's anywhere or anytime to back to when things were better.
The only way things will get better is if we as a species progress.
Our economic system won't improve until we humans improve.
In other words, I think it's humanly impossible to have a better economic system than the quasi-capitalistic one that we have developed in the West.
And no, I think Socialism is a bigger waste than capitalism.
So far, and I think for the rest of the time humanity exists, capitalism is the best economic system we are capable of having.
Humans are just not emotionally capable of anything better.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29942966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29953196</id>
	<title>Re:Money for Something</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1257191820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We should stop putting value on the work of those who make money from money, from paper instruments, rather we should value money for goods.</p></div><p>We already do this. Nobody just makes money from money. They make money because they provide something of value.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We should stop putting value on the work of those who make money from money , from paper instruments , rather we should value money for goods.We already do this .
Nobody just makes money from money .
They make money because they provide something of value .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We should stop putting value on the work of those who make money from money, from paper instruments, rather we should value money for goods.We already do this.
Nobody just makes money from money.
They make money because they provide something of value.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29942966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29942988</id>
	<title>Re:Come to California...</title>
	<author>Afforess</author>
	<datestamp>1257104520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, Come to Michigan.<br>
<br>
We've been in our own self-made depression for over a decade.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , Come to Michigan .
We 've been in our own self-made depression for over a decade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, Come to Michigan.
We've been in our own self-made depression for over a decade.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29942956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944792</id>
	<title>WSJ full of Right-Wing Mantra</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1257073620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The WSJ article is highly un-balanced. While it talks repeatedly about the "sins" of too much government, it barely mentioned the role that deregulation played in the current mess.</p><p>Here's an exmaple:</p><blockquote><div><p>This week the New York Post carried a report that 1.5 million people had left high-tax New York state between 2000 and 2008, more than a million of them from even higher-tax New York City.</p></div></blockquote><p>The implication made is that they left mostly because of taxes. However, they never justify that with a reason-for-leaving survey, etc. They simply run with that assumption. The WSJ does this often, as do most Murdock-own publications.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The WSJ article is highly un-balanced .
While it talks repeatedly about the " sins " of too much government , it barely mentioned the role that deregulation played in the current mess.Here 's an exmaple : This week the New York Post carried a report that 1.5 million people had left high-tax New York state between 2000 and 2008 , more than a million of them from even higher-tax New York City.The implication made is that they left mostly because of taxes .
However , they never justify that with a reason-for-leaving survey , etc .
They simply run with that assumption .
The WSJ does this often , as do most Murdock-own publications .
     </tokentext>
<sentencetext>The WSJ article is highly un-balanced.
While it talks repeatedly about the "sins" of too much government, it barely mentioned the role that deregulation played in the current mess.Here's an exmaple:This week the New York Post carried a report that 1.5 million people had left high-tax New York state between 2000 and 2008, more than a million of them from even higher-tax New York City.The implication made is that they left mostly because of taxes.
However, they never justify that with a reason-for-leaving survey, etc.
They simply run with that assumption.
The WSJ does this often, as do most Murdock-own publications.
     
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29946526</id>
	<title>Yet another right-wing nihilism hit piece EXACTLY</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257088980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><div class="quote"><p><b>"Government doesn't work. Might as well send your tax money to Halliburton..."</b> - by mellon (7048) on Sunday November 01, @01:46PM (#29943018) Homepage</p></div><p>Then, also? THERE IS THIS:</p><p>As old Amschel Rothschild so pithily said, <b>"Permit me to issue a nation's currency, and I care not who makes its laws"</b> &amp; who owns the FED in part? READ ON!</p><p>That IS what the game is, after all, ALL about (as the 'end game' here)... interested? READ ON, because they're in the list below (AND, they're out for CONTROL, not just money).</p><p>ON MOST POLITICIANS (except for Mr. Barack Obama, HOPEFULLY):</p><p>They're BOUGHT &amp; PAID FOR, after all (as to our "elected officials") - except, that we have Mr. Barack Obama who is "DOWN ON THE BANKS" now, &amp; with GOOD REASON!</p><p>I mean, hey - <b>LOOK @ ANY MAJOR CORPORATIONS CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS - they "hedge their bets", &amp; contribute to BOTH parties, so they can't lose either way, no matter WHO wins!</b></p><p>Interested? READ ON:</p><p>That housing bubble many here speak of for instance/example? IT ALWAYS BOILS DOWN TO UNSCRUPULOUS bank officers extending loans!</p><p>I say that, because after all, why just extend 10 honest well calculated low risk loans (where the folks asking for a mortgage CAN afford to make the payments over time, which said loan officer gets a piece of each payment mind you), when you can extend 100 potentially BOGUS ones (where folks just cannot afford it)?</p><p>It's more profitable to extend it to folks that CAN'T afford it, especially on "variable rate mortgages" where they can alter the rate @ ANY TIME... this ends up with banks profiting by this practice, &amp; getting the house in the end, anyhow as a "bonus", in the end of it all, &amp; THAT IS THE "END GAME" here, period.</p><p><b>I've heard republicans TRY to blame it on the "Community Reform Bill" which made banks try to put folks into homes, so they gain responsibility, and WANT/NEED to hold a job</b> (tough to do considering how much OFFSHORING was allowed, especially in the MIS/IS/IT field) <b>and to turn them into tax payers too.</b></p><p><b>It will still "boil down" to that unscrupulous loan officer, &amp; variable rate mortgages AND THE FACT THAT OFFSHORING PUTS TONS OF US OUT OF A JOB!</b></p><p><b>Who wins? The banks.</b></p><p>APK</p><p>P.S.=&gt; You guys ought to read <b>"The Secrets of the Temple" by William Greider</b>, &amp; <b>also see "Zeitgeist"</b> (obtainable online, &amp; the "infamous they" tried to get it taken down no less)... <b>it will OPEN YOUR EYES/ABRES LOS OJOS people, as to how screwed up our current "fractional reserve banking system" + "fiat money' based monetary system, really TRULY is.</b></p><p><b>It's geared to PUT YOUR ASS INTO DEBT, making a you "good slave" people.</b></p><p><b>Ever heard the saying "Most men lead lives of quiet desperation"? Welcome to the 21st century people... it's most of you, out of FEAR for your job, your family, YOUR LIFE!</b></p><p>We do NOT need the "federal reserve" period. It is no more "federal" than Fed-Ex is - it is, in reality, a consortium of banks, who kept their identities secret for decades, &amp; they did so, no less (their identities WERE SECRET @ the formation of "the fed"), but no more... they are:</p><p>Goldman Sachs Bank of New York.<br>Rothschild Banks of London and Berlin<br>Israel Moses Sieff Banks of Italy<br>Warburg Bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam<br>Lehman Brothers Bank of New York<br>Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York<br>Lazard Brothers Bank of Paris<br>Chase Manhattan Bank of New York</p><p><b>There has been much speculation about who owns the Federal Reserve Corporation. It has been one of the best kept secrets of the century, because the Federal Reserve Act Act of 1913 provided that the names of the owner banks be kept secret. However, R. E. McMaster publisher of the newsletter The Reaper, asked his Swiss banking contacts which banks hold the controlling stock in the Federal Reserve Corporation.</b></p><p>The answer IS above!</p><p>By the way - You can thank the good "Jeremiah Cornelius", a member here, for getting us that info., by the by (great guy, I don't see him here too much anymore, but he's a good man).</p><p><b>"Follow the money" people, &amp;, you HAVE THE CULPRITS... they are no longer that "shadowy man behind the curtain", but are now IDENTIFIABLE</b> (per that list above) <b>&amp; they are FAR FROM "CLUELESS" about their 'social experiment' via "financial innovation"</b> (crookery spelled sideways imo), <b>that they are performing on us all, for CONTROL</b> (not just for ca$h people)...</p><p>Thank goodness <b>Mr. Obama is onto their games, is all I can say!</b></p><p><b>Andrew Jackson did the same thing: There was a CENTRALIZED BANK in his day, &amp; there were economic problems. He dismantled it, &amp; the problems went away. Then, Woodrow Wilson was "coerced" into allowing the creation of today's FED &amp; what do we have? This chaos!</b></p><p>Woodrow Wilson even said, pretty much this -&gt; "I have just signed a pact with the devil" in allowing the FED to be created (think about THAT)... apk</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Government does n't work .
Might as well send your tax money to Halliburton... " - by mellon ( 7048 ) on Sunday November 01 , @ 01 : 46PM ( # 29943018 ) HomepageThen , also ?
THERE IS THIS : As old Amschel Rothschild so pithily said , " Permit me to issue a nation 's currency , and I care not who makes its laws " &amp; who owns the FED in part ?
READ ON ! That IS what the game is , after all , ALL about ( as the 'end game ' here ) ... interested ? READ ON , because they 're in the list below ( AND , they 're out for CONTROL , not just money ) .ON MOST POLITICIANS ( except for Mr. Barack Obama , HOPEFULLY ) : They 're BOUGHT &amp; PAID FOR , after all ( as to our " elected officials " ) - except , that we have Mr. Barack Obama who is " DOWN ON THE BANKS " now , &amp; with GOOD REASON ! I mean , hey - LOOK @ ANY MAJOR CORPORATIONS CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS - they " hedge their bets " , &amp; contribute to BOTH parties , so they ca n't lose either way , no matter WHO wins ! Interested ?
READ ON : That housing bubble many here speak of for instance/example ?
IT ALWAYS BOILS DOWN TO UNSCRUPULOUS bank officers extending loans ! I say that , because after all , why just extend 10 honest well calculated low risk loans ( where the folks asking for a mortgage CAN afford to make the payments over time , which said loan officer gets a piece of each payment mind you ) , when you can extend 100 potentially BOGUS ones ( where folks just can not afford it ) ? It 's more profitable to extend it to folks that CA N'T afford it , especially on " variable rate mortgages " where they can alter the rate @ ANY TIME... this ends up with banks profiting by this practice , &amp; getting the house in the end , anyhow as a " bonus " , in the end of it all , &amp; THAT IS THE " END GAME " here , period.I 've heard republicans TRY to blame it on the " Community Reform Bill " which made banks try to put folks into homes , so they gain responsibility , and WANT/NEED to hold a job ( tough to do considering how much OFFSHORING was allowed , especially in the MIS/IS/IT field ) and to turn them into tax payers too.It will still " boil down " to that unscrupulous loan officer , &amp; variable rate mortgages AND THE FACT THAT OFFSHORING PUTS TONS OF US OUT OF A JOB ! Who wins ?
The banks.APKP.S. = &gt; You guys ought to read " The Secrets of the Temple " by William Greider , &amp; also see " Zeitgeist " ( obtainable online , &amp; the " infamous they " tried to get it taken down no less ) ... it will OPEN YOUR EYES/ABRES LOS OJOS people , as to how screwed up our current " fractional reserve banking system " + " fiat money ' based monetary system , really TRULY is.It 's geared to PUT YOUR ASS INTO DEBT , making a you " good slave " people.Ever heard the saying " Most men lead lives of quiet desperation " ?
Welcome to the 21st century people... it 's most of you , out of FEAR for your job , your family , YOUR LIFE ! We do NOT need the " federal reserve " period .
It is no more " federal " than Fed-Ex is - it is , in reality , a consortium of banks , who kept their identities secret for decades , &amp; they did so , no less ( their identities WERE SECRET @ the formation of " the fed " ) , but no more... they are : Goldman Sachs Bank of New York.Rothschild Banks of London and BerlinIsrael Moses Sieff Banks of ItalyWarburg Bank of Hamburg and AmsterdamLehman Brothers Bank of New YorkKuhn Loeb Bank of New YorkLazard Brothers Bank of ParisChase Manhattan Bank of New YorkThere has been much speculation about who owns the Federal Reserve Corporation .
It has been one of the best kept secrets of the century , because the Federal Reserve Act Act of 1913 provided that the names of the owner banks be kept secret .
However , R. E. McMaster publisher of the newsletter The Reaper , asked his Swiss banking contacts which banks hold the controlling stock in the Federal Reserve Corporation.The answer IS above ! By the way - You can thank the good " Jeremiah Cornelius " , a member here , for getting us that info. , by the by ( great guy , I do n't see him here too much anymore , but he 's a good man ) .
" Follow the money " people , &amp; , you HAVE THE CULPRITS... they are no longer that " shadowy man behind the curtain " , but are now IDENTIFIABLE ( per that list above ) &amp; they are FAR FROM " CLUELESS " about their 'social experiment ' via " financial innovation " ( crookery spelled sideways imo ) , that they are performing on us all , for CONTROL ( not just for ca $ h people ) ...Thank goodness Mr. Obama is onto their games , is all I can say ! Andrew Jackson did the same thing : There was a CENTRALIZED BANK in his day , &amp; there were economic problems .
He dismantled it , &amp; the problems went away .
Then , Woodrow Wilson was " coerced " into allowing the creation of today 's FED &amp; what do we have ?
This chaos ! Woodrow Wilson even said , pretty much this - &gt; " I have just signed a pact with the devil " in allowing the FED to be created ( think about THAT ) ... apk</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Government doesn't work.
Might as well send your tax money to Halliburton..." - by mellon (7048) on Sunday November 01, @01:46PM (#29943018) HomepageThen, also?
THERE IS THIS:As old Amschel Rothschild so pithily said, "Permit me to issue a nation's currency, and I care not who makes its laws" &amp; who owns the FED in part?
READ ON!That IS what the game is, after all, ALL about (as the 'end game' here)... interested? READ ON, because they're in the list below (AND, they're out for CONTROL, not just money).ON MOST POLITICIANS (except for Mr. Barack Obama, HOPEFULLY):They're BOUGHT &amp; PAID FOR, after all (as to our "elected officials") - except, that we have Mr. Barack Obama who is "DOWN ON THE BANKS" now, &amp; with GOOD REASON!I mean, hey - LOOK @ ANY MAJOR CORPORATIONS CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS - they "hedge their bets", &amp; contribute to BOTH parties, so they can't lose either way, no matter WHO wins!Interested?
READ ON:That housing bubble many here speak of for instance/example?
IT ALWAYS BOILS DOWN TO UNSCRUPULOUS bank officers extending loans!I say that, because after all, why just extend 10 honest well calculated low risk loans (where the folks asking for a mortgage CAN afford to make the payments over time, which said loan officer gets a piece of each payment mind you), when you can extend 100 potentially BOGUS ones (where folks just cannot afford it)?It's more profitable to extend it to folks that CAN'T afford it, especially on "variable rate mortgages" where they can alter the rate @ ANY TIME... this ends up with banks profiting by this practice, &amp; getting the house in the end, anyhow as a "bonus", in the end of it all, &amp; THAT IS THE "END GAME" here, period.I've heard republicans TRY to blame it on the "Community Reform Bill" which made banks try to put folks into homes, so they gain responsibility, and WANT/NEED to hold a job (tough to do considering how much OFFSHORING was allowed, especially in the MIS/IS/IT field) and to turn them into tax payers too.It will still "boil down" to that unscrupulous loan officer, &amp; variable rate mortgages AND THE FACT THAT OFFSHORING PUTS TONS OF US OUT OF A JOB!Who wins?
The banks.APKP.S.=&gt; You guys ought to read "The Secrets of the Temple" by William Greider, &amp; also see "Zeitgeist" (obtainable online, &amp; the "infamous they" tried to get it taken down no less)... it will OPEN YOUR EYES/ABRES LOS OJOS people, as to how screwed up our current "fractional reserve banking system" + "fiat money' based monetary system, really TRULY is.It's geared to PUT YOUR ASS INTO DEBT, making a you "good slave" people.Ever heard the saying "Most men lead lives of quiet desperation"?
Welcome to the 21st century people... it's most of you, out of FEAR for your job, your family, YOUR LIFE!We do NOT need the "federal reserve" period.
It is no more "federal" than Fed-Ex is - it is, in reality, a consortium of banks, who kept their identities secret for decades, &amp; they did so, no less (their identities WERE SECRET @ the formation of "the fed"), but no more... they are:Goldman Sachs Bank of New York.Rothschild Banks of London and BerlinIsrael Moses Sieff Banks of ItalyWarburg Bank of Hamburg and AmsterdamLehman Brothers Bank of New YorkKuhn Loeb Bank of New YorkLazard Brothers Bank of ParisChase Manhattan Bank of New YorkThere has been much speculation about who owns the Federal Reserve Corporation.
It has been one of the best kept secrets of the century, because the Federal Reserve Act Act of 1913 provided that the names of the owner banks be kept secret.
However, R. E. McMaster publisher of the newsletter The Reaper, asked his Swiss banking contacts which banks hold the controlling stock in the Federal Reserve Corporation.The answer IS above!By the way - You can thank the good "Jeremiah Cornelius", a member here, for getting us that info., by the by (great guy, I don't see him here too much anymore, but he's a good man).
"Follow the money" people, &amp;, you HAVE THE CULPRITS... they are no longer that "shadowy man behind the curtain", but are now IDENTIFIABLE (per that list above) &amp; they are FAR FROM "CLUELESS" about their 'social experiment' via "financial innovation" (crookery spelled sideways imo), that they are performing on us all, for CONTROL (not just for ca$h people)...Thank goodness Mr. Obama is onto their games, is all I can say!Andrew Jackson did the same thing: There was a CENTRALIZED BANK in his day, &amp; there were economic problems.
He dismantled it, &amp; the problems went away.
Then, Woodrow Wilson was "coerced" into allowing the creation of today's FED &amp; what do we have?
This chaos!Woodrow Wilson even said, pretty much this -&gt; "I have just signed a pact with the devil" in allowing the FED to be created (think about THAT)... apk
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943102</id>
	<title>Fundamentally Broken System</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257105360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The current global economic system seems to be fundamentally broken - it requires endless exponential growth in order for old debts plus interest to be paid off by new money, backed by goods and services to maintain that new money's value. I fear that until this system is re-designed from the bottom up it cannot be sustained for very much longer. I think the current turmoil is evidence for this.</p><p>I'd recommend watching <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2550156453790090544#" title="google.com">Money As Debt</a> [google.com] for more insight on this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The current global economic system seems to be fundamentally broken - it requires endless exponential growth in order for old debts plus interest to be paid off by new money , backed by goods and services to maintain that new money 's value .
I fear that until this system is re-designed from the bottom up it can not be sustained for very much longer .
I think the current turmoil is evidence for this.I 'd recommend watching Money As Debt [ google.com ] for more insight on this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The current global economic system seems to be fundamentally broken - it requires endless exponential growth in order for old debts plus interest to be paid off by new money, backed by goods and services to maintain that new money's value.
I fear that until this system is re-designed from the bottom up it cannot be sustained for very much longer.
I think the current turmoil is evidence for this.I'd recommend watching Money As Debt [google.com] for more insight on this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29947362</id>
	<title>Corruption Labeled as Lobbying in United States</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257097380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The United States is the only country I know of that labels Corruption as "Lobbying."

The same way that conscription is labeled as a "Draft."

Where citizens suppress dissent as a "Patriotic Duty."

Where capitalism is the excuse for corporatism.

I propose there to be a death penalty for corruption of a public official. A democracy is built on the idea of rule by the people of the people and for the people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The United States is the only country I know of that labels Corruption as " Lobbying .
" The same way that conscription is labeled as a " Draft .
" Where citizens suppress dissent as a " Patriotic Duty .
" Where capitalism is the excuse for corporatism .
I propose there to be a death penalty for corruption of a public official .
A democracy is built on the idea of rule by the people of the people and for the people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The United States is the only country I know of that labels Corruption as "Lobbying.
"

The same way that conscription is labeled as a "Draft.
"

Where citizens suppress dissent as a "Patriotic Duty.
"

Where capitalism is the excuse for corporatism.
I propose there to be a death penalty for corruption of a public official.
A democracy is built on the idea of rule by the people of the people and for the people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943082</id>
	<title>Listen to Peggy Noonan ?</title>
	<author>mbone</author>
	<datestamp>1257105240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think not.</p><p>If she said the Sun was shining outside, I would grab my umbrella and raincoat and worry about flash floods.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think not.If she said the Sun was shining outside , I would grab my umbrella and raincoat and worry about flash floods .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think not.If she said the Sun was shining outside, I would grab my umbrella and raincoat and worry about flash floods.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944870</id>
	<title>Re:Come to California...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257074220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The hard way?</p><p>Senate Bill SB-2099 will require us to put on our 2009 1040 federal tax form all guns that you have or own.</p><p>It will require fingerprints and a tax of $50 per gun.</p><p>This bill was introduced on February 24, 2009, by the Obama staff.  BUT, this bill will only become public knowledge 30 days after the new law becomes effective!  This is an amendment to the Internal Revenue Act of 1986.  This means that the Finance Committee has passed this without the Senate voting on it at all.  Trust Obama?  You must be kidding!</p><p>The full text of the IRS amendment is on the U.S. Senate homepage: www.senate.gov.  You can find the bill by doing a search by the bill number, SB-2099.  You know who to call; I strongly suggest you do.  Please send a copy of this e-mail to every gun owner you know.</p><p>Text of H.R.45 as Introduced in House: Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009: www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/text</p><p>Obama's Congress is now starting on the firearms confiscation bill.  If it passes, gun owners will become criminals if you don't fully comply.</p><p>It has begun.... Whatever Obama's "Secret Master Plan" is... this is just the 'tip of the iceberg!'</p><p>Very Important for you to be aware of a new bill HR 45 introduced into the House. This is the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing &amp; Record of Sale Act of 2009.</p><p>Even gun shop owners didn't know about this because the government is trying to fly it under the radar as a 'minor' IRS revision, and, as usual, the 'political' lawmakers did not read this bill before signing and approving it!</p><p>To find out about this - go to any government website and type in HR 45 or Goggle HR 45 Blair Holt Firearm Licensing &amp; Record of Sales Act of 2009.  You will get all the information.</p><p>Basically this would make it illegal to own a firearm - any rifle with a clip or ANY pistol unless:  1) It is registered  2) You are fingerprinted  3) You supply a current Driver's License  4) You supply your Social Security number  5) You will submit to a physical &amp; mental evaluation at any time of their choosing</p><p>Each update change or ownership through private or public sale must be reported and costs $25.  Failure to do so you automatically lose the right to own a firearm and are subject up to a year in jail.</p><p>There is a child provision clause on page 16 section 305 stating a child-access provision.  Gun must be locked and inaccessible to any child under 18.  They would have the right to come and inspect that you are storing your gun safely away from accessibility to children and fine is punishable for up to 5 years in prison.</p><p>If you think this is a joke - go to the website and take your pick of many options to read this.  It is long and lengthy.  But, more and more people are becoming aware of this.  Pass the word along.  Any hunters in your family pass this along.</p><p>This is just a "termite" approach to complete confiscation of guns and disarming of our society to the point we have no defense - chip away a little here and there until the goal is accomplished before anyone realizes it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The hard way ? Senate Bill SB-2099 will require us to put on our 2009 1040 federal tax form all guns that you have or own.It will require fingerprints and a tax of $ 50 per gun.This bill was introduced on February 24 , 2009 , by the Obama staff .
BUT , this bill will only become public knowledge 30 days after the new law becomes effective !
This is an amendment to the Internal Revenue Act of 1986 .
This means that the Finance Committee has passed this without the Senate voting on it at all .
Trust Obama ?
You must be kidding ! The full text of the IRS amendment is on the U.S. Senate homepage : www.senate.gov .
You can find the bill by doing a search by the bill number , SB-2099 .
You know who to call ; I strongly suggest you do .
Please send a copy of this e-mail to every gun owner you know.Text of H.R.45 as Introduced in House : Blair Holt 's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 : www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/textObama 's Congress is now starting on the firearms confiscation bill .
If it passes , gun owners will become criminals if you do n't fully comply.It has begun.... Whatever Obama 's " Secret Master Plan " is... this is just the 'tip of the iceberg !
'Very Important for you to be aware of a new bill HR 45 introduced into the House .
This is the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing &amp; Record of Sale Act of 2009.Even gun shop owners did n't know about this because the government is trying to fly it under the radar as a 'minor ' IRS revision , and , as usual , the 'political ' lawmakers did not read this bill before signing and approving it ! To find out about this - go to any government website and type in HR 45 or Goggle HR 45 Blair Holt Firearm Licensing &amp; Record of Sales Act of 2009 .
You will get all the information.Basically this would make it illegal to own a firearm - any rifle with a clip or ANY pistol unless : 1 ) It is registered 2 ) You are fingerprinted 3 ) You supply a current Driver 's License 4 ) You supply your Social Security number 5 ) You will submit to a physical &amp; mental evaluation at any time of their choosingEach update change or ownership through private or public sale must be reported and costs $ 25 .
Failure to do so you automatically lose the right to own a firearm and are subject up to a year in jail.There is a child provision clause on page 16 section 305 stating a child-access provision .
Gun must be locked and inaccessible to any child under 18 .
They would have the right to come and inspect that you are storing your gun safely away from accessibility to children and fine is punishable for up to 5 years in prison.If you think this is a joke - go to the website and take your pick of many options to read this .
It is long and lengthy .
But , more and more people are becoming aware of this .
Pass the word along .
Any hunters in your family pass this along.This is just a " termite " approach to complete confiscation of guns and disarming of our society to the point we have no defense - chip away a little here and there until the goal is accomplished before anyone realizes it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The hard way?Senate Bill SB-2099 will require us to put on our 2009 1040 federal tax form all guns that you have or own.It will require fingerprints and a tax of $50 per gun.This bill was introduced on February 24, 2009, by the Obama staff.
BUT, this bill will only become public knowledge 30 days after the new law becomes effective!
This is an amendment to the Internal Revenue Act of 1986.
This means that the Finance Committee has passed this without the Senate voting on it at all.
Trust Obama?
You must be kidding!The full text of the IRS amendment is on the U.S. Senate homepage: www.senate.gov.
You can find the bill by doing a search by the bill number, SB-2099.
You know who to call; I strongly suggest you do.
Please send a copy of this e-mail to every gun owner you know.Text of H.R.45 as Introduced in House: Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009: www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/textObama's Congress is now starting on the firearms confiscation bill.
If it passes, gun owners will become criminals if you don't fully comply.It has begun.... Whatever Obama's "Secret Master Plan" is... this is just the 'tip of the iceberg!
'Very Important for you to be aware of a new bill HR 45 introduced into the House.
This is the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing &amp; Record of Sale Act of 2009.Even gun shop owners didn't know about this because the government is trying to fly it under the radar as a 'minor' IRS revision, and, as usual, the 'political' lawmakers did not read this bill before signing and approving it!To find out about this - go to any government website and type in HR 45 or Goggle HR 45 Blair Holt Firearm Licensing &amp; Record of Sales Act of 2009.
You will get all the information.Basically this would make it illegal to own a firearm - any rifle with a clip or ANY pistol unless:  1) It is registered  2) You are fingerprinted  3) You supply a current Driver's License  4) You supply your Social Security number  5) You will submit to a physical &amp; mental evaluation at any time of their choosingEach update change or ownership through private or public sale must be reported and costs $25.
Failure to do so you automatically lose the right to own a firearm and are subject up to a year in jail.There is a child provision clause on page 16 section 305 stating a child-access provision.
Gun must be locked and inaccessible to any child under 18.
They would have the right to come and inspect that you are storing your gun safely away from accessibility to children and fine is punishable for up to 5 years in prison.If you think this is a joke - go to the website and take your pick of many options to read this.
It is long and lengthy.
But, more and more people are becoming aware of this.
Pass the word along.
Any hunters in your family pass this along.This is just a "termite" approach to complete confiscation of guns and disarming of our society to the point we have no defense - chip away a little here and there until the goal is accomplished before anyone realizes it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29942988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29948510</id>
	<title>Re:News for nerds?</title>
	<author>dintech</author>
	<datestamp>1257157200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Disclaimer: I work in an investment bank.</p><p>No, generally these are not the kind of people who think offshoring is a good idea. Traders want IT staff close by. Preferably close enough to shout at them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Disclaimer : I work in an investment bank.No , generally these are not the kind of people who think offshoring is a good idea .
Traders want IT staff close by .
Preferably close enough to shout at them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disclaimer: I work in an investment bank.No, generally these are not the kind of people who think offshoring is a good idea.
Traders want IT staff close by.
Preferably close enough to shout at them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944322</id>
	<title>If our leaders are fearless...</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1257070440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...why do they pee themselves every time they hear word "terror"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...why do they pee themselves every time they hear word " terror " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...why do they pee themselves every time they hear word "terror"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943126</id>
	<title>only the peons are clueless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257105600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure the guys at the top realize that taking trillions from the government is going to have some effect. But why should they care? In the short term they have little to lose and much to gain. In the long term it might not be the best course of action, but they can't stop because if one rich thief stops pillaging the country then another one will just take his place right? The only way this will change is if the thieves start being held accountable. For instance, if the lower classes get pissed off enough to start torching mansions. So far, Americans are too fat, dumb, and happy to rein in the ruling class.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure the guys at the top realize that taking trillions from the government is going to have some effect .
But why should they care ?
In the short term they have little to lose and much to gain .
In the long term it might not be the best course of action , but they ca n't stop because if one rich thief stops pillaging the country then another one will just take his place right ?
The only way this will change is if the thieves start being held accountable .
For instance , if the lower classes get pissed off enough to start torching mansions .
So far , Americans are too fat , dumb , and happy to rein in the ruling class .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure the guys at the top realize that taking trillions from the government is going to have some effect.
But why should they care?
In the short term they have little to lose and much to gain.
In the long term it might not be the best course of action, but they can't stop because if one rich thief stops pillaging the country then another one will just take his place right?
The only way this will change is if the thieves start being held accountable.
For instance, if the lower classes get pissed off enough to start torching mansions.
So far, Americans are too fat, dumb, and happy to rein in the ruling class.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943490</id>
	<title>Re:She's without hope, so we must be?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257108420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Typical liberal, completely clueless about reality. The Republican party has been growing faster and bigger than ever before. Continue to be in denial though. It will only help us obliterate you in 2010 and 2012.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Typical liberal , completely clueless about reality .
The Republican party has been growing faster and bigger than ever before .
Continue to be in denial though .
It will only help us obliterate you in 2010 and 2012 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Typical liberal, completely clueless about reality.
The Republican party has been growing faster and bigger than ever before.
Continue to be in denial though.
It will only help us obliterate you in 2010 and 2012.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29948120</id>
	<title>Re:i'm uncomfortable with this idea</title>
	<author>damburger</author>
	<datestamp>1257193320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wrong, we are not all psychopaths. Only 1\% of the population are psychopaths. You might well be amongst them, but do not project that onto the rest of us.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wrong , we are not all psychopaths .
Only 1 \ % of the population are psychopaths .
You might well be amongst them , but do not project that onto the rest of us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wrong, we are not all psychopaths.
Only 1\% of the population are psychopaths.
You might well be amongst them, but do not project that onto the rest of us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29946976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944424</id>
	<title>Re:Threaten to stop the wheel of the world?</title>
	<author>Mr. Slippery</author>
	<datestamp>1257071100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"They don't understand that if they start to tax me so that I'm paying 60\%, 55\%, I'll stop."</p></div></blockquote><p>Top marginal tax rates <a href="http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php" title="truthandpolitics.org" rel="nofollow">were around 90\% during the 1950s, and 50\% or higher during most of the 1980s</a> [truthandpolitics.org].

</p><p>The economy, and the nation, survived.

</p><p>It's time to restore taxation on the aristocrats. Raise the top marginal rates, restore the inheritance tax, and tax capital gains the same as earned income.</p><blockquote><div><p>Who is John Galt?</p></div></blockquote><p>He's a fictional character in a sophomoric novel that takes place in a fantasy world with less relevance to our own than Tolkien's Middle Earth.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" They do n't understand that if they start to tax me so that I 'm paying 60 \ % , 55 \ % , I 'll stop .
" Top marginal tax rates were around 90 \ % during the 1950s , and 50 \ % or higher during most of the 1980s [ truthandpolitics.org ] .
The economy , and the nation , survived .
It 's time to restore taxation on the aristocrats .
Raise the top marginal rates , restore the inheritance tax , and tax capital gains the same as earned income.Who is John Galt ? He 's a fictional character in a sophomoric novel that takes place in a fantasy world with less relevance to our own than Tolkien 's Middle Earth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"They don't understand that if they start to tax me so that I'm paying 60\%, 55\%, I'll stop.
"Top marginal tax rates were around 90\% during the 1950s, and 50\% or higher during most of the 1980s [truthandpolitics.org].
The economy, and the nation, survived.
It's time to restore taxation on the aristocrats.
Raise the top marginal rates, restore the inheritance tax, and tax capital gains the same as earned income.Who is John Galt?He's a fictional character in a sophomoric novel that takes place in a fantasy world with less relevance to our own than Tolkien's Middle Earth.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29947224</id>
	<title>Re:Why should we be surprised</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1257096180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those at the top expect MUCH MUCH more than the lower and middle class. The lower and middle class expect a safety net where they can always eat, always have a place for them and their families to live and always get necessary healthcare.</p><p>Those at the top expect to always make more in a single year than most make in a lifetime. They expect to always have 2 nice houses and to never ever have to think about what anything costs. They expect to be able to fail repeatedly and feel no pain. They expect to be able to do such a crappy job that the company is poised to go down in flames and not only keep their job until ready to quit, but to get a big fat bonus as well. Often a bonus large enough to support a middle class family for a decade or more.</p><p>It's easy to spew economic platitudes like "you win some, you lose some", to treat mass layoffs like they're a gift from heaven, and to proclaim universal healthcare and welfare to be foolish luxuries when you're in a position to never in your lifetime ever wonder how you'll pay the mortgage, buy food, or afford life saving medical care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those at the top expect MUCH MUCH more than the lower and middle class .
The lower and middle class expect a safety net where they can always eat , always have a place for them and their families to live and always get necessary healthcare.Those at the top expect to always make more in a single year than most make in a lifetime .
They expect to always have 2 nice houses and to never ever have to think about what anything costs .
They expect to be able to fail repeatedly and feel no pain .
They expect to be able to do such a crappy job that the company is poised to go down in flames and not only keep their job until ready to quit , but to get a big fat bonus as well .
Often a bonus large enough to support a middle class family for a decade or more.It 's easy to spew economic platitudes like " you win some , you lose some " , to treat mass layoffs like they 're a gift from heaven , and to proclaim universal healthcare and welfare to be foolish luxuries when you 're in a position to never in your lifetime ever wonder how you 'll pay the mortgage , buy food , or afford life saving medical care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those at the top expect MUCH MUCH more than the lower and middle class.
The lower and middle class expect a safety net where they can always eat, always have a place for them and their families to live and always get necessary healthcare.Those at the top expect to always make more in a single year than most make in a lifetime.
They expect to always have 2 nice houses and to never ever have to think about what anything costs.
They expect to be able to fail repeatedly and feel no pain.
They expect to be able to do such a crappy job that the company is poised to go down in flames and not only keep their job until ready to quit, but to get a big fat bonus as well.
Often a bonus large enough to support a middle class family for a decade or more.It's easy to spew economic platitudes like "you win some, you lose some", to treat mass layoffs like they're a gift from heaven, and to proclaim universal healthcare and welfare to be foolish luxuries when you're in a position to never in your lifetime ever wonder how you'll pay the mortgage, buy food, or afford life saving medical care.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944528</id>
	<title>Re:Fundamentally Broken System</title>
	<author>benjamindees</author>
	<datestamp>1257071820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why is endless growth impossible... The solar system contains a mind-bogglingly huge amount of resources we could use</p></div><p>When we hit the limit of the resources available on Earth, the global economy will contract and billions of people will die before even a small fraction of them are able to escape to exploit resources available elsewhere in the solar system.  Look at Europe prior to settling the Americas:  poverty, disease, warfare.  It wasn't called the dark ages for nothing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is endless growth impossible... The solar system contains a mind-bogglingly huge amount of resources we could useWhen we hit the limit of the resources available on Earth , the global economy will contract and billions of people will die before even a small fraction of them are able to escape to exploit resources available elsewhere in the solar system .
Look at Europe prior to settling the Americas : poverty , disease , warfare .
It was n't called the dark ages for nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is endless growth impossible... The solar system contains a mind-bogglingly huge amount of resources we could useWhen we hit the limit of the resources available on Earth, the global economy will contract and billions of people will die before even a small fraction of them are able to escape to exploit resources available elsewhere in the solar system.
Look at Europe prior to settling the Americas:  poverty, disease, warfare.
It wasn't called the dark ages for nothing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943138</id>
	<title>She's without hope, so we must be?</title>
	<author>wytcld</author>
	<datestamp>1257105720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>They are not offering a new path, they are only offering old paths&mdash;spend more, regulate more, tax more in an attempt to make us more healthy locally and nationally. And in the long term everyone&mdash;well, not those in government, but most everyone else&mdash;seems to know that won't work. It's not a way out. It's not a path through.</p></div></blockquote><p>Okay, so in pretty Peggy's view anything that government does by way of <i>governing</i> won't work. (Didn't she write Reagan's line, "Government <i>is</i> the problem"?) Since Democrats to some extent believe government can be, and should be, effective - well, we should just give up on this. We should become disheartened as Democrats. If "most everyone else" knows that government - which by its nature involves regulation, and public investment, and yes collecting taxes to pay for those activities - is "not a path through," we're left asking "Who is this 'everyone else'?" Pretty clearly it's the shrinking demographic which still identifies as Republican: prevalently old, white, and living in the Deep South - people who last liked government when it was run by Jefferson Davis.</p><p>Well, I'm middle aged, white, and live in New England. I'm hopeful. The way through looks obvious, and I see an administration with a fairly good vision of it - even if they're not going nearly far enough in regulating Peggy's friends on the street her Journal's named after. It's so brightly obvious, it's almost blinding. It's based on government, businesses, and individuals each doing our part. Yes, government should not go too far in controlling businesses; but in return businesses have to back way off, as they've gone much too far in recent years into endeavoring to control government. Why do people like Peggy never worry when businesses control government too much?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are not offering a new path , they are only offering old paths    spend more , regulate more , tax more in an attempt to make us more healthy locally and nationally .
And in the long term everyone    well , not those in government , but most everyone else    seems to know that wo n't work .
It 's not a way out .
It 's not a path through.Okay , so in pretty Peggy 's view anything that government does by way of governing wo n't work .
( Did n't she write Reagan 's line , " Government is the problem " ?
) Since Democrats to some extent believe government can be , and should be , effective - well , we should just give up on this .
We should become disheartened as Democrats .
If " most everyone else " knows that government - which by its nature involves regulation , and public investment , and yes collecting taxes to pay for those activities - is " not a path through , " we 're left asking " Who is this 'everyone else ' ?
" Pretty clearly it 's the shrinking demographic which still identifies as Republican : prevalently old , white , and living in the Deep South - people who last liked government when it was run by Jefferson Davis.Well , I 'm middle aged , white , and live in New England .
I 'm hopeful .
The way through looks obvious , and I see an administration with a fairly good vision of it - even if they 're not going nearly far enough in regulating Peggy 's friends on the street her Journal 's named after .
It 's so brightly obvious , it 's almost blinding .
It 's based on government , businesses , and individuals each doing our part .
Yes , government should not go too far in controlling businesses ; but in return businesses have to back way off , as they 've gone much too far in recent years into endeavoring to control government .
Why do people like Peggy never worry when businesses control government too much ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are not offering a new path, they are only offering old paths—spend more, regulate more, tax more in an attempt to make us more healthy locally and nationally.
And in the long term everyone—well, not those in government, but most everyone else—seems to know that won't work.
It's not a way out.
It's not a path through.Okay, so in pretty Peggy's view anything that government does by way of governing won't work.
(Didn't she write Reagan's line, "Government is the problem"?
) Since Democrats to some extent believe government can be, and should be, effective - well, we should just give up on this.
We should become disheartened as Democrats.
If "most everyone else" knows that government - which by its nature involves regulation, and public investment, and yes collecting taxes to pay for those activities - is "not a path through," we're left asking "Who is this 'everyone else'?
" Pretty clearly it's the shrinking demographic which still identifies as Republican: prevalently old, white, and living in the Deep South - people who last liked government when it was run by Jefferson Davis.Well, I'm middle aged, white, and live in New England.
I'm hopeful.
The way through looks obvious, and I see an administration with a fairly good vision of it - even if they're not going nearly far enough in regulating Peggy's friends on the street her Journal's named after.
It's so brightly obvious, it's almost blinding.
It's based on government, businesses, and individuals each doing our part.
Yes, government should not go too far in controlling businesses; but in return businesses have to back way off, as they've gone much too far in recent years into endeavoring to control government.
Why do people like Peggy never worry when businesses control government too much?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944448</id>
	<title>Re:atlas yawned</title>
	<author>istewart</author>
	<datestamp>1257071280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think that's quite a fair assertion to make. Local elected officials' hands are generally tied by policies set at the national and state levels. California is a strong example of this. Someone up above mentioned the extreme imbalance of tax payments made to the federal government vs. returns received. And I have experienced firsthand the enforced impotence of well-meaning school district officials in repairing severely outdated school plants due to positively Byzantine and constantly shifting state funding rules (which are typically rigged to benefit huge districts like Los Angeles). These are but two examples. The social engineering policies that define our society are set at the highest levels, and the power brokers at those levels do indeed come from an elite background or are validated by the elites who control the political and financial machinery. Populists and guys next door can make it to national office, usually in the House of Representatives, but they quickly learn to toe their party's line or be marginalized.</p><p>The American republic may have a system vaguely resembling democracy, but it is hardly participatory, and that is where the populist rage you decry comes from. It is especially intensified by the ease of individual interconnectivity that modern information technology enables. As these interconnected individuals come to feel more disempowered, their rhetoric becomes more intense. The same thing happened with liberals under Bush.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think that 's quite a fair assertion to make .
Local elected officials ' hands are generally tied by policies set at the national and state levels .
California is a strong example of this .
Someone up above mentioned the extreme imbalance of tax payments made to the federal government vs. returns received .
And I have experienced firsthand the enforced impotence of well-meaning school district officials in repairing severely outdated school plants due to positively Byzantine and constantly shifting state funding rules ( which are typically rigged to benefit huge districts like Los Angeles ) .
These are but two examples .
The social engineering policies that define our society are set at the highest levels , and the power brokers at those levels do indeed come from an elite background or are validated by the elites who control the political and financial machinery .
Populists and guys next door can make it to national office , usually in the House of Representatives , but they quickly learn to toe their party 's line or be marginalized.The American republic may have a system vaguely resembling democracy , but it is hardly participatory , and that is where the populist rage you decry comes from .
It is especially intensified by the ease of individual interconnectivity that modern information technology enables .
As these interconnected individuals come to feel more disempowered , their rhetoric becomes more intense .
The same thing happened with liberals under Bush .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think that's quite a fair assertion to make.
Local elected officials' hands are generally tied by policies set at the national and state levels.
California is a strong example of this.
Someone up above mentioned the extreme imbalance of tax payments made to the federal government vs. returns received.
And I have experienced firsthand the enforced impotence of well-meaning school district officials in repairing severely outdated school plants due to positively Byzantine and constantly shifting state funding rules (which are typically rigged to benefit huge districts like Los Angeles).
These are but two examples.
The social engineering policies that define our society are set at the highest levels, and the power brokers at those levels do indeed come from an elite background or are validated by the elites who control the political and financial machinery.
Populists and guys next door can make it to national office, usually in the House of Representatives, but they quickly learn to toe their party's line or be marginalized.The American republic may have a system vaguely resembling democracy, but it is hardly participatory, and that is where the populist rage you decry comes from.
It is especially intensified by the ease of individual interconnectivity that modern information technology enables.
As these interconnected individuals come to feel more disempowered, their rhetoric becomes more intense.
The same thing happened with liberals under Bush.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29945384</id>
	<title>Re:Why should we be surprised</title>
	<author>Lost Race</author>
	<datestamp>1257078480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While there's no denying that the financial wizards of Wall Street are either monumentally incompetent or outright criminal, I don't think it's realistic to say that they destroyed trillions of dollars of wealth in the last year. Much of the "wealth" that they destroyed in this "economic meltdown" was illusory -- the US economy has been running on empty for a long time, and we've covered that by spending borrowed money  and running a variety of ponzi schemes to make it look like we had some reserves. The house of cards finally started to fall apart last year and we all realized those terabucks in the bank/portfolio were just bookkeeping errors.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While there 's no denying that the financial wizards of Wall Street are either monumentally incompetent or outright criminal , I do n't think it 's realistic to say that they destroyed trillions of dollars of wealth in the last year .
Much of the " wealth " that they destroyed in this " economic meltdown " was illusory -- the US economy has been running on empty for a long time , and we 've covered that by spending borrowed money and running a variety of ponzi schemes to make it look like we had some reserves .
The house of cards finally started to fall apart last year and we all realized those terabucks in the bank/portfolio were just bookkeeping errors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While there's no denying that the financial wizards of Wall Street are either monumentally incompetent or outright criminal, I don't think it's realistic to say that they destroyed trillions of dollars of wealth in the last year.
Much of the "wealth" that they destroyed in this "economic meltdown" was illusory -- the US economy has been running on empty for a long time, and we've covered that by spending borrowed money  and running a variety of ponzi schemes to make it look like we had some reserves.
The house of cards finally started to fall apart last year and we all realized those terabucks in the bank/portfolio were just bookkeeping errors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29951034</id>
	<title>Re:The "problem"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257181440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Socialism did not build America.<br>Private property, and a as level a playing field as anywhere else in the world did.<br>We have already reached the point no return, give me food, shelter, and medical care, what the f*ck do I need a job for.......</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Socialism did not build America.Private property , and a as level a playing field as anywhere else in the world did.We have already reached the point no return , give me food , shelter , and medical care , what the f * ck do I need a job for...... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Socialism did not build America.Private property, and a as level a playing field as anywhere else in the world did.We have already reached the point no return, give me food, shelter, and medical care, what the f*ck do I need a job for.......</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943194</id>
	<title>It's simply the consequence of corporate psychopat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257106140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Psychopaths have the desire to reach leadership positions because that way, they can gain the most profit for themselves (not just monetary profit), and they also have the best tools to reach leadership positions, by manipulating others - something psychopaths excel at.</p><p>Psychopathic executives will not blink to destroy their own company, a whole industry, or cause food poisoning, water and air pollution, lower the standard of living of hundreds of millions - as long as they have profit out of it. Wake up, guys, with the few exceptions of people like Warren Buffet, corporations are run by highly functional psychopaths.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Psychopaths have the desire to reach leadership positions because that way , they can gain the most profit for themselves ( not just monetary profit ) , and they also have the best tools to reach leadership positions , by manipulating others - something psychopaths excel at.Psychopathic executives will not blink to destroy their own company , a whole industry , or cause food poisoning , water and air pollution , lower the standard of living of hundreds of millions - as long as they have profit out of it .
Wake up , guys , with the few exceptions of people like Warren Buffet , corporations are run by highly functional psychopaths .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Psychopaths have the desire to reach leadership positions because that way, they can gain the most profit for themselves (not just monetary profit), and they also have the best tools to reach leadership positions, by manipulating others - something psychopaths excel at.Psychopathic executives will not blink to destroy their own company, a whole industry, or cause food poisoning, water and air pollution, lower the standard of living of hundreds of millions - as long as they have profit out of it.
Wake up, guys, with the few exceptions of people like Warren Buffet, corporations are run by highly functional psychopaths.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943810</id>
	<title>Re:atlas yawned</title>
	<author>demachina</author>
	<datestamp>1257066960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think she was talking about the Wall Street bankers and stock brokers who disproportionately come from wealthy families, go to prep schools, get degrees from ivy league schools and then go work at Goldman Sachs, Citi and JP Morgan.  They also end being treasury secretaries, on the Federal Reserve and New York Fed (which is the body that actually runs Wall Street though its more like Wall Street runs it) and the President's economic advisors.</p><p>If you remember the <a href="http://www.distressedvolatility.com/2009/08/hedge-fund-manager-andrew-lahdes.html" title="distressedvolatility.com">resignation letter</a> [distressedvolatility.com] of Andrew Lahde after making a killing of the ivy leaguers and quitting rich:</p><p>"The low hanging fruit, i.e. idiots whose parents paid for prep school, Yale, and then the Harvard MBA, was there for the taking. These people who were (often) truly not worthy of the education they received (or supposedly received) rose to the top of companies such as AIG, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers and all levels of our government. All of this behavior supporting the Aristocracy, only ended up making it easier for me to find people stupid enough to take the other side of my trades. God bless America."</p><p>The U.S. Senate also tends to be a rich kids club and is also the place that tends to do the most looking out for the rich, since one senator can often block legislation in the public interest to the benefit of special interest.  John McCain for instance wasn't really rich enough so once he got out of Vietnam he dumped the wife that had stood by him while he was a POW and married a more attractive women who happened to be an heir to a sizable fortune of an Arizona beer distributor, and who were politically connected enough in Arizon to get him elected to the Senate.</p><p>And of course the Bush clan are the epitome of the stereotype though they've only been a part of America's new aristocracy for about a century.</p><p>One reason Carter, Clinton and Obama were so skewered in the White House is the rich WASP/Jewish aristocracy considers them to be poor trash and not worthy of running their piggy bank.  Clinton and Obama in particular had stellar educations but were born to poverty so aren't acceptable by "the establishment".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think she was talking about the Wall Street bankers and stock brokers who disproportionately come from wealthy families , go to prep schools , get degrees from ivy league schools and then go work at Goldman Sachs , Citi and JP Morgan .
They also end being treasury secretaries , on the Federal Reserve and New York Fed ( which is the body that actually runs Wall Street though its more like Wall Street runs it ) and the President 's economic advisors.If you remember the resignation letter [ distressedvolatility.com ] of Andrew Lahde after making a killing of the ivy leaguers and quitting rich : " The low hanging fruit , i.e .
idiots whose parents paid for prep school , Yale , and then the Harvard MBA , was there for the taking .
These people who were ( often ) truly not worthy of the education they received ( or supposedly received ) rose to the top of companies such as AIG , Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers and all levels of our government .
All of this behavior supporting the Aristocracy , only ended up making it easier for me to find people stupid enough to take the other side of my trades .
God bless America .
" The U.S. Senate also tends to be a rich kids club and is also the place that tends to do the most looking out for the rich , since one senator can often block legislation in the public interest to the benefit of special interest .
John McCain for instance was n't really rich enough so once he got out of Vietnam he dumped the wife that had stood by him while he was a POW and married a more attractive women who happened to be an heir to a sizable fortune of an Arizona beer distributor , and who were politically connected enough in Arizon to get him elected to the Senate.And of course the Bush clan are the epitome of the stereotype though they 've only been a part of America 's new aristocracy for about a century.One reason Carter , Clinton and Obama were so skewered in the White House is the rich WASP/Jewish aristocracy considers them to be poor trash and not worthy of running their piggy bank .
Clinton and Obama in particular had stellar educations but were born to poverty so are n't acceptable by " the establishment " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think she was talking about the Wall Street bankers and stock brokers who disproportionately come from wealthy families, go to prep schools, get degrees from ivy league schools and then go work at Goldman Sachs, Citi and JP Morgan.
They also end being treasury secretaries, on the Federal Reserve and New York Fed (which is the body that actually runs Wall Street though its more like Wall Street runs it) and the President's economic advisors.If you remember the resignation letter [distressedvolatility.com] of Andrew Lahde after making a killing of the ivy leaguers and quitting rich:"The low hanging fruit, i.e.
idiots whose parents paid for prep school, Yale, and then the Harvard MBA, was there for the taking.
These people who were (often) truly not worthy of the education they received (or supposedly received) rose to the top of companies such as AIG, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers and all levels of our government.
All of this behavior supporting the Aristocracy, only ended up making it easier for me to find people stupid enough to take the other side of my trades.
God bless America.
"The U.S. Senate also tends to be a rich kids club and is also the place that tends to do the most looking out for the rich, since one senator can often block legislation in the public interest to the benefit of special interest.
John McCain for instance wasn't really rich enough so once he got out of Vietnam he dumped the wife that had stood by him while he was a POW and married a more attractive women who happened to be an heir to a sizable fortune of an Arizona beer distributor, and who were politically connected enough in Arizon to get him elected to the Senate.And of course the Bush clan are the epitome of the stereotype though they've only been a part of America's new aristocracy for about a century.One reason Carter, Clinton and Obama were so skewered in the White House is the rich WASP/Jewish aristocracy considers them to be poor trash and not worthy of running their piggy bank.
Clinton and Obama in particular had stellar educations but were born to poverty so aren't acceptable by "the establishment".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943272</id>
	<title>Clueless?  Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257106620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This McClatchy <a href="http://www.miamiherald.com/509/story/1310367.html" title="miamiherald.com" rel="nofollow">investigation</a> [miamiherald.com] suggests otherwise.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This McClatchy investigation [ miamiherald.com ] suggests otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This McClatchy investigation [miamiherald.com] suggests otherwise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29945678</id>
	<title>Re:News for nerds?</title>
	<author>physburn</author>
	<datestamp>1257081180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Absolutely, Fear is the enemy of clear thinking. Fear leads to rash decisions. Fear is an easy way
to manipulate the populas into obeying. The article
shows that the despotic politians, are woried that
the happy middle class can no longer to be controlled by the cheap intimation tatics.
<p>
---
</p><p>
<a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/blogs/Libertarianism/feed.html" title="feeddistiller.com">Libertarianism</a> [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ <a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/" title="feeddistiller.com">Feed Distiller</a> [feeddistiller.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolutely , Fear is the enemy of clear thinking .
Fear leads to rash decisions .
Fear is an easy way to manipulate the populas into obeying .
The article shows that the despotic politians , are woried that the happy middle class can no longer to be controlled by the cheap intimation tatics .
--- Libertarianism [ feeddistiller.com ] Feed @ Feed Distiller [ feeddistiller.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolutely, Fear is the enemy of clear thinking.
Fear leads to rash decisions.
Fear is an easy way
to manipulate the populas into obeying.
The article
shows that the despotic politians, are woried that
the happy middle class can no longer to be controlled by the cheap intimation tatics.
---

Libertarianism [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29946886</id>
	<title>Re:Why are they still employed?</title>
	<author>debrain</author>
	<datestamp>1257092340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If any employee caused this kind of damage the customers/consumers would sue and employees would be terminated. Yet in this case, we have companies (and hence employees) that are "too big|valuable|important too fail" so they get bailed out.</p></div><p>It has been observed that companies that are "too big to fail" will, instead of attempting to remedy or avoid their calamity, ensure their own disaster on the basis that the have a guaranteed bail-out. This perverse incentive is one form of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral\_hazard" title="wikipedia.org">moral hazard</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>In essence, being too big to fail has become a form of (unpaid for/externalized) insurance against failure because you can rely on the taxpayer to bail you out. The likelihood (and amount) of a bailout increases with the magnitude of your failure.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If any employee caused this kind of damage the customers/consumers would sue and employees would be terminated .
Yet in this case , we have companies ( and hence employees ) that are " too big | valuable | important too fail " so they get bailed out.It has been observed that companies that are " too big to fail " will , instead of attempting to remedy or avoid their calamity , ensure their own disaster on the basis that the have a guaranteed bail-out .
This perverse incentive is one form of the moral hazard [ wikipedia.org ] .In essence , being too big to fail has become a form of ( unpaid for/externalized ) insurance against failure because you can rely on the taxpayer to bail you out .
The likelihood ( and amount ) of a bailout increases with the magnitude of your failure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If any employee caused this kind of damage the customers/consumers would sue and employees would be terminated.
Yet in this case, we have companies (and hence employees) that are "too big|valuable|important too fail" so they get bailed out.It has been observed that companies that are "too big to fail" will, instead of attempting to remedy or avoid their calamity, ensure their own disaster on the basis that the have a guaranteed bail-out.
This perverse incentive is one form of the moral hazard [wikipedia.org].In essence, being too big to fail has become a form of (unpaid for/externalized) insurance against failure because you can rely on the taxpayer to bail you out.
The likelihood (and amount) of a bailout increases with the magnitude of your failure.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29949104</id>
	<title>Cheap Labor Conservatives Issues Guide</title>
	<author>Paul Fernhout</author>
	<datestamp>1257167820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/?q=node/16" title="conceptualguerilla.com">http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/?q=node/16</a> [conceptualguerilla.com]<br>"""<br>When you cut right through it, right-wing ideology is just "dime-store economics" - intended to dress their ideology up and make it look respectable. You don't really need to know much about economics to understand it. They certainly don't. It all gets down to two simple words.</p><p>"Cheap labor". That's their whole philosophy in a nutshell - which gives you a short and pithy "catch phrase" that describes them perfectly. You've heard of "big-government liberals". Well they're "cheap-labor conservatives".</p><p>Once you understand the general concept, you will frequently find yourself in debate over specific issues, like healthcare, social security privatization, public school vouchers, the "war on drugs" and of course the war in Iraq. What better way to put your conservative opponent on the defensive than by exposing the true motivation for his position - "cheap labor". Can you really find the "cheap labor" angle in every conservative policy initiative, and every conservative position on any particular issue?</p><p>Yes, you can. Here is a catalogue of some of the major issues on the national agenda. In every single one of them, the conservative position advances the cause of "cheap labor". I defy any conservative reading this to show me one single conservative position, belief, principle or policy that has any tendency to boost the earning power of labor.<br>"""</p><p>Some ideas on what to do about it, because automation only makes this worse:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://www.beyondajoblessrecovery.org/2009/10/03/why-limited-demand-means-joblessness/" title="beyondajob...covery.org">http://www.beyondajoblessrecovery.org/2009/10/03/why-limited-demand-means-joblessness/</a> [beyondajob...covery.org]<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.conceptualguerilla.com/ ? q = node/16 [ conceptualguerilla.com ] " " " When you cut right through it , right-wing ideology is just " dime-store economics " - intended to dress their ideology up and make it look respectable .
You do n't really need to know much about economics to understand it .
They certainly do n't .
It all gets down to two simple words .
" Cheap labor " .
That 's their whole philosophy in a nutshell - which gives you a short and pithy " catch phrase " that describes them perfectly .
You 've heard of " big-government liberals " .
Well they 're " cheap-labor conservatives " .Once you understand the general concept , you will frequently find yourself in debate over specific issues , like healthcare , social security privatization , public school vouchers , the " war on drugs " and of course the war in Iraq .
What better way to put your conservative opponent on the defensive than by exposing the true motivation for his position - " cheap labor " .
Can you really find the " cheap labor " angle in every conservative policy initiative , and every conservative position on any particular issue ? Yes , you can .
Here is a catalogue of some of the major issues on the national agenda .
In every single one of them , the conservative position advances the cause of " cheap labor " .
I defy any conservative reading this to show me one single conservative position , belief , principle or policy that has any tendency to boost the earning power of labor .
" " " Some ideas on what to do about it , because automation only makes this worse :     http : //www.beyondajoblessrecovery.org/2009/10/03/why-limited-demand-means-joblessness/ [ beyondajob...covery.org ]    </tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/?q=node/16 [conceptualguerilla.com]"""When you cut right through it, right-wing ideology is just "dime-store economics" - intended to dress their ideology up and make it look respectable.
You don't really need to know much about economics to understand it.
They certainly don't.
It all gets down to two simple words.
"Cheap labor".
That's their whole philosophy in a nutshell - which gives you a short and pithy "catch phrase" that describes them perfectly.
You've heard of "big-government liberals".
Well they're "cheap-labor conservatives".Once you understand the general concept, you will frequently find yourself in debate over specific issues, like healthcare, social security privatization, public school vouchers, the "war on drugs" and of course the war in Iraq.
What better way to put your conservative opponent on the defensive than by exposing the true motivation for his position - "cheap labor".
Can you really find the "cheap labor" angle in every conservative policy initiative, and every conservative position on any particular issue?Yes, you can.
Here is a catalogue of some of the major issues on the national agenda.
In every single one of them, the conservative position advances the cause of "cheap labor".
I defy any conservative reading this to show me one single conservative position, belief, principle or policy that has any tendency to boost the earning power of labor.
"""Some ideas on what to do about it, because automation only makes this worse:
    http://www.beyondajoblessrecovery.org/2009/10/03/why-limited-demand-means-joblessness/ [beyondajob...covery.org]
   </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943228</id>
	<title>The "problem"</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1257106380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real problem, is that there is no simple answer. Only a complex one.
</p><p>Is capitalism or socialism the answer? Yes.
</p><p>Yes, because BOTH are the answer, at the same time.
</p><p>Allow me to try to explain this, before you explode.
</p><p>There are things government does well and things private individuals do well, but they are NOT restricted each to a field.
</p><p>This means that private individuals should be free to engage in business, but not without any controls and limitations. And government should be allowed to interfere if it serves society as a whole better.
</p><p>You had a little while ago the laughable story about the US press. You saw several posts commenting that either a state run media or a company run media are the only alternatives.
</p><p>How idiotic, everyone knows that in Europe, BOTH exists, besides each other, fighting each other tooth and nail. THAT is how you get progress. If you think a state run media alone can be independent, you are insane, although not nearly as insane as the idea that company run media will be independent. Fox News is company owned. Case closed.
</p><p>The US needs to accept that you need a healthy balance between the state and the individual and that this balance can NEVER be achieved, you always will end up with a pendulum swinging back and forth. Things only go wrong if the pendulum is either hanging still or doesn't swing back.
</p><p>The problem is that you can't get elected with this policy. You need to pick a side and that means in the US that the pendulum can be pulled to far of the center. That is what happened with the credit crisis, to many administrations, from both sides, who did not excersise the control of the state on the financial institutions.
</p><p>We need to get away from the idea that their is ONE ideology that is the answer. Uncontrolled financial markets are clearly not the answer but neither is total control. What you need to have is the right control at the right time but that can't be achieved, so you need to accept the situation that sometimes there is a bit to much control and sometimes to little without going to extremes.
</p><p>This middle path is NOT taking the road of least resistance, on the contrary, you will face opposition from all sides, but it is the only one that has been proven to work.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real problem , is that there is no simple answer .
Only a complex one .
Is capitalism or socialism the answer ?
Yes . Yes , because BOTH are the answer , at the same time .
Allow me to try to explain this , before you explode .
There are things government does well and things private individuals do well , but they are NOT restricted each to a field .
This means that private individuals should be free to engage in business , but not without any controls and limitations .
And government should be allowed to interfere if it serves society as a whole better .
You had a little while ago the laughable story about the US press .
You saw several posts commenting that either a state run media or a company run media are the only alternatives .
How idiotic , everyone knows that in Europe , BOTH exists , besides each other , fighting each other tooth and nail .
THAT is how you get progress .
If you think a state run media alone can be independent , you are insane , although not nearly as insane as the idea that company run media will be independent .
Fox News is company owned .
Case closed .
The US needs to accept that you need a healthy balance between the state and the individual and that this balance can NEVER be achieved , you always will end up with a pendulum swinging back and forth .
Things only go wrong if the pendulum is either hanging still or does n't swing back .
The problem is that you ca n't get elected with this policy .
You need to pick a side and that means in the US that the pendulum can be pulled to far of the center .
That is what happened with the credit crisis , to many administrations , from both sides , who did not excersise the control of the state on the financial institutions .
We need to get away from the idea that their is ONE ideology that is the answer .
Uncontrolled financial markets are clearly not the answer but neither is total control .
What you need to have is the right control at the right time but that ca n't be achieved , so you need to accept the situation that sometimes there is a bit to much control and sometimes to little without going to extremes .
This middle path is NOT taking the road of least resistance , on the contrary , you will face opposition from all sides , but it is the only one that has been proven to work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real problem, is that there is no simple answer.
Only a complex one.
Is capitalism or socialism the answer?
Yes.
Yes, because BOTH are the answer, at the same time.
Allow me to try to explain this, before you explode.
There are things government does well and things private individuals do well, but they are NOT restricted each to a field.
This means that private individuals should be free to engage in business, but not without any controls and limitations.
And government should be allowed to interfere if it serves society as a whole better.
You had a little while ago the laughable story about the US press.
You saw several posts commenting that either a state run media or a company run media are the only alternatives.
How idiotic, everyone knows that in Europe, BOTH exists, besides each other, fighting each other tooth and nail.
THAT is how you get progress.
If you think a state run media alone can be independent, you are insane, although not nearly as insane as the idea that company run media will be independent.
Fox News is company owned.
Case closed.
The US needs to accept that you need a healthy balance between the state and the individual and that this balance can NEVER be achieved, you always will end up with a pendulum swinging back and forth.
Things only go wrong if the pendulum is either hanging still or doesn't swing back.
The problem is that you can't get elected with this policy.
You need to pick a side and that means in the US that the pendulum can be pulled to far of the center.
That is what happened with the credit crisis, to many administrations, from both sides, who did not excersise the control of the state on the financial institutions.
We need to get away from the idea that their is ONE ideology that is the answer.
Uncontrolled financial markets are clearly not the answer but neither is total control.
What you need to have is the right control at the right time but that can't be achieved, so you need to accept the situation that sometimes there is a bit to much control and sometimes to little without going to extremes.
This middle path is NOT taking the road of least resistance, on the contrary, you will face opposition from all sides, but it is the only one that has been proven to work.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943834</id>
	<title>Re:Fundamentally Broken System</title>
	<author>Atlantis-Rising</author>
	<datestamp>1257067080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is endless growth impossible, or even improbable, for the near future? (I don't think exponential growth is the word you're looking for. 5-10\% per year is sufficient.) The solar system contains a mind-bogglingly huge amount of resources we could use, and as technology advances, productivity also increases. It's certainly not impossible that human economic output could steadily increase at a 5-10\% rate for the foreseeable future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is endless growth impossible , or even improbable , for the near future ?
( I do n't think exponential growth is the word you 're looking for .
5-10 \ % per year is sufficient .
) The solar system contains a mind-bogglingly huge amount of resources we could use , and as technology advances , productivity also increases .
It 's certainly not impossible that human economic output could steadily increase at a 5-10 \ % rate for the foreseeable future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is endless growth impossible, or even improbable, for the near future?
(I don't think exponential growth is the word you're looking for.
5-10\% per year is sufficient.
) The solar system contains a mind-bogglingly huge amount of resources we could use, and as technology advances, productivity also increases.
It's certainly not impossible that human economic output could steadily increase at a 5-10\% rate for the foreseeable future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29950000</id>
	<title>Re:Why are they still employed?</title>
	<author>rwv</author>
	<datestamp>1257176160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I wish I could get a $200k bonus for blowing away a PetaByte of mainframe storage.</p></div><p>No, but you could probably get a $2M bonus for protecting that much private customer data from terrorists.

</p><p>See what I did?  I changed "blowing away" to "protect" and "mainframe storage" to "private customer data" and I added an extra "0" to the bonus amount.  I added a mention of "terrorists" in there for good measure.  That's how the MBAs think.  It shows your way of thinking (which more closely matches a realistic world) is flawed compared to the bastards who are robbing us working class shmucks.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish I could get a $ 200k bonus for blowing away a PetaByte of mainframe storage.No , but you could probably get a $ 2M bonus for protecting that much private customer data from terrorists .
See what I did ?
I changed " blowing away " to " protect " and " mainframe storage " to " private customer data " and I added an extra " 0 " to the bonus amount .
I added a mention of " terrorists " in there for good measure .
That 's how the MBAs think .
It shows your way of thinking ( which more closely matches a realistic world ) is flawed compared to the bastards who are robbing us working class shmucks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish I could get a $200k bonus for blowing away a PetaByte of mainframe storage.No, but you could probably get a $2M bonus for protecting that much private customer data from terrorists.
See what I did?
I changed "blowing away" to "protect" and "mainframe storage" to "private customer data" and I added an extra "0" to the bonus amount.
I added a mention of "terrorists" in there for good measure.
That's how the MBAs think.
It shows your way of thinking (which more closely matches a realistic world) is flawed compared to the bastards who are robbing us working class shmucks.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29959508</id>
	<title>Re:atlas yawned</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257180600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Kind of like programmers right? Contracts have to be precise and often complex in order to express what is intended.</p></div></blockquote><p>I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way.</p><p>Unlike the judicial system were judges <i>interpret</i> the law (and often with differing opinions), computers don't. It either executes or it doesn't. Any bug in the program is not the fault of the computer, but rather programmer/s of said code.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Kind of like programmers right ?
Contracts have to be precise and often complex in order to express what is intended.I 'm sorry , but it does n't work that way.Unlike the judicial system were judges interpret the law ( and often with differing opinions ) , computers do n't .
It either executes or it does n't .
Any bug in the program is not the fault of the computer , but rather programmer/s of said code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kind of like programmers right?
Contracts have to be precise and often complex in order to express what is intended.I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way.Unlike the judicial system were judges interpret the law (and often with differing opinions), computers don't.
It either executes or it doesn't.
Any bug in the program is not the fault of the computer, but rather programmer/s of said code.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943920</id>
	<title>Re:Cap-and-Trade Law: Good for Bankers, Bad for U.</title>
	<author>barocco</author>
	<datestamp>1257067680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not like any of the carbon emitting industries gets (or has gotten) any less support at the expense of taxpayers. If we have to pay either way, it is for the very least desirable to have the financiers' interests aligned with our environmental interests.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not like any of the carbon emitting industries gets ( or has gotten ) any less support at the expense of taxpayers .
If we have to pay either way , it is for the very least desirable to have the financiers ' interests aligned with our environmental interests .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not like any of the carbon emitting industries gets (or has gotten) any less support at the expense of taxpayers.
If we have to pay either way, it is for the very least desirable to have the financiers' interests aligned with our environmental interests.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943370</id>
	<title>They do have faith...</title>
	<author>SetupWeasel</author>
	<datestamp>1257107520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Faith that everything will always turn out fine.</p><p>I don't think a belief in Jesus would keep them from feeling that they are entitled to the wealth of the world. It certainly never stopped the Catholic Church.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Faith that everything will always turn out fine.I do n't think a belief in Jesus would keep them from feeling that they are entitled to the wealth of the world .
It certainly never stopped the Catholic Church .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Faith that everything will always turn out fine.I don't think a belief in Jesus would keep them from feeling that they are entitled to the wealth of the world.
It certainly never stopped the Catholic Church.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943564</id>
	<title>Re:The "problem"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257108780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're right that there are no simple answers - but your "solution" is basically more of the same thing we've been doing for roughly a century. And it doesn't work; it invariably implodes, over and over again.</p><p>
&nbsp; There are good reasons for this, inherent in the basic model of our economy as it stands.</p><p>
&nbsp; For one, the overproduction/underconsumption problem, which we've tried to alleviate by producing goods for landfills (with a short detour through our living rooms, before they're replaced with the next ones) but this is only a stopgap solution. As was the solution brought by WWII: have a gigantic war that destroys most of the planet's productive capacity, so you can use Europe as your technical sector, Japan for manufacturing, and dump your excess on the third world to alleviate the underconsumption. This worked until the 70's, when production capacity began to saturate all possible markets again, and spots of severe breakdown began to reappear in various parts of the world's markets. (The OPEC crisis revealed much of this economic instability, but it began prior to that, and only grew worse afterward)</p><p>
&nbsp; The only real solution is to find a new way to structure our world's economies. <a href="mutualist.blogspot.com" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">This guy</a> [slashdot.org] has some good ideas on that front. The term "free-market anti-capitalist" is one of those things that's not simple to understand, but once you get it, that understanding reveals layers of meaning that are hidden in the everyday language we use to talk about these things, and the consequent biases that we inherit, which prevent us from thinking clearly about this problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right that there are no simple answers - but your " solution " is basically more of the same thing we 've been doing for roughly a century .
And it does n't work ; it invariably implodes , over and over again .
  There are good reasons for this , inherent in the basic model of our economy as it stands .
  For one , the overproduction/underconsumption problem , which we 've tried to alleviate by producing goods for landfills ( with a short detour through our living rooms , before they 're replaced with the next ones ) but this is only a stopgap solution .
As was the solution brought by WWII : have a gigantic war that destroys most of the planet 's productive capacity , so you can use Europe as your technical sector , Japan for manufacturing , and dump your excess on the third world to alleviate the underconsumption .
This worked until the 70 's , when production capacity began to saturate all possible markets again , and spots of severe breakdown began to reappear in various parts of the world 's markets .
( The OPEC crisis revealed much of this economic instability , but it began prior to that , and only grew worse afterward )   The only real solution is to find a new way to structure our world 's economies .
This guy [ slashdot.org ] has some good ideas on that front .
The term " free-market anti-capitalist " is one of those things that 's not simple to understand , but once you get it , that understanding reveals layers of meaning that are hidden in the everyday language we use to talk about these things , and the consequent biases that we inherit , which prevent us from thinking clearly about this problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right that there are no simple answers - but your "solution" is basically more of the same thing we've been doing for roughly a century.
And it doesn't work; it invariably implodes, over and over again.
  There are good reasons for this, inherent in the basic model of our economy as it stands.
  For one, the overproduction/underconsumption problem, which we've tried to alleviate by producing goods for landfills (with a short detour through our living rooms, before they're replaced with the next ones) but this is only a stopgap solution.
As was the solution brought by WWII: have a gigantic war that destroys most of the planet's productive capacity, so you can use Europe as your technical sector, Japan for manufacturing, and dump your excess on the third world to alleviate the underconsumption.
This worked until the 70's, when production capacity began to saturate all possible markets again, and spots of severe breakdown began to reappear in various parts of the world's markets.
(The OPEC crisis revealed much of this economic instability, but it began prior to that, and only grew worse afterward)
  The only real solution is to find a new way to structure our world's economies.
This guy [slashdot.org] has some good ideas on that front.
The term "free-market anti-capitalist" is one of those things that's not simple to understand, but once you get it, that understanding reveals layers of meaning that are hidden in the everyday language we use to talk about these things, and the consequent biases that we inherit, which prevent us from thinking clearly about this problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943672</id>
	<title>Crazy pairing of articles</title>
	<author>ganv</author>
	<datestamp>1257066300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Cringely article is an interesting take on the way technology enables the destabilization of our economic system.  But the Noonan article is just whining about these young-uns who never had a difficult life.  With the logical conclusion that we should lower taxes!??  Slash-dot is better off not linking to any of these opinion pieces, but whoever linked to the content free post by Noonan should be banned from putting up articles on slash-dot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Cringely article is an interesting take on the way technology enables the destabilization of our economic system .
But the Noonan article is just whining about these young-uns who never had a difficult life .
With the logical conclusion that we should lower taxes ! ? ?
Slash-dot is better off not linking to any of these opinion pieces , but whoever linked to the content free post by Noonan should be banned from putting up articles on slash-dot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Cringely article is an interesting take on the way technology enables the destabilization of our economic system.
But the Noonan article is just whining about these young-uns who never had a difficult life.
With the logical conclusion that we should lower taxes!??
Slash-dot is better off not linking to any of these opinion pieces, but whoever linked to the content free post by Noonan should be banned from putting up articles on slash-dot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943088</id>
	<title>Conservative political piece</title>
	<author>techmuse</author>
	<datestamp>1257105240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This seems to be part of a rather wide ranging campaign on the part of the conservatives to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt about the current government.  The previous administration was clearly in over its head.  This one seems to have a clue...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This seems to be part of a rather wide ranging campaign on the part of the conservatives to spread fear , uncertainty , and doubt about the current government .
The previous administration was clearly in over its head .
This one seems to have a clue.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This seems to be part of a rather wide ranging campaign on the part of the conservatives to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt about the current government.
The previous administration was clearly in over its head.
This one seems to have a clue...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943380</id>
	<title>Cringley !Economics</title>
	<author>MSTCrow5429</author>
	<datestamp>1257107640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cringley, among other bizarre and cringe inducing comments, states "trading is a parasite on investing."  No, it's not.  It's part of the market mechanism attempting to reach optimal allocation of resources, and can also be used to minimize risk.  Trading and investing are serve the exact same function, and are not different beyond a perceived difference in amount of times that securities are held.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cringley , among other bizarre and cringe inducing comments , states " trading is a parasite on investing .
" No , it 's not .
It 's part of the market mechanism attempting to reach optimal allocation of resources , and can also be used to minimize risk .
Trading and investing are serve the exact same function , and are not different beyond a perceived difference in amount of times that securities are held .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cringley, among other bizarre and cringe inducing comments, states "trading is a parasite on investing.
"  No, it's not.
It's part of the market mechanism attempting to reach optimal allocation of resources, and can also be used to minimize risk.
Trading and investing are serve the exact same function, and are not different beyond a perceived difference in amount of times that securities are held.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29953590</id>
	<title>Re:atlas yawned</title>
	<author>KnownIssues</author>
	<datestamp>1257193440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You walk into an accounting firm to hire an accountant to manage your finances. One accountant graduated from Harvard and has $5 million in disclosed assets. The other accountant graduated from the local community college and is $30,000 in debt. Which accountant do you hire to manage your money?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You walk into an accounting firm to hire an accountant to manage your finances .
One accountant graduated from Harvard and has $ 5 million in disclosed assets .
The other accountant graduated from the local community college and is $ 30,000 in debt .
Which accountant do you hire to manage your money ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You walk into an accounting firm to hire an accountant to manage your finances.
One accountant graduated from Harvard and has $5 million in disclosed assets.
The other accountant graduated from the local community college and is $30,000 in debt.
Which accountant do you hire to manage your money?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29942966</id>
	<title>Money for Something</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257104400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We should stop putting value on the work of those who make money from money, from paper instruments, rather we should value money for goods. As a socialist, I applaud takeovers; they always lose money. As someone who likes to get paid, I want a return to the time before the Masters Of The Universe ruled our financial institutions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We should stop putting value on the work of those who make money from money , from paper instruments , rather we should value money for goods .
As a socialist , I applaud takeovers ; they always lose money .
As someone who likes to get paid , I want a return to the time before the Masters Of The Universe ruled our financial institutions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We should stop putting value on the work of those who make money from money, from paper instruments, rather we should value money for goods.
As a socialist, I applaud takeovers; they always lose money.
As someone who likes to get paid, I want a return to the time before the Masters Of The Universe ruled our financial institutions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943060</id>
	<title>They're not clueless, they just don't give a fuck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257105060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I mean think of betting on a coin flip where you call heads.  If it comes up heads, you get a billion dollars.  If it comes up tails, the fed bails your bank out for a billion dollars and maybe your bonus this quarter is smaller, but you lose nothing directly, and your bonus is back to normal 3 months later.  Kind of makes fearless and stupid betting par for the course.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean think of betting on a coin flip where you call heads .
If it comes up heads , you get a billion dollars .
If it comes up tails , the fed bails your bank out for a billion dollars and maybe your bonus this quarter is smaller , but you lose nothing directly , and your bonus is back to normal 3 months later .
Kind of makes fearless and stupid betting par for the course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean think of betting on a coin flip where you call heads.
If it comes up heads, you get a billion dollars.
If it comes up tails, the fed bails your bank out for a billion dollars and maybe your bonus this quarter is smaller, but you lose nothing directly, and your bonus is back to normal 3 months later.
Kind of makes fearless and stupid betting par for the course.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29945968</id>
	<title>Re:Why should we be surprised</title>
	<author>dcam</author>
	<datestamp>1257084240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It's ridiculous when GM assembly line workers expect health care in perpetuity.</p></div></blockquote><p>Indeed. We should extend this to all people who are unable to financially contribute to society. Let's start with the mentally disabled. I seem to recall that there was a plan to do this <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi\_eugenics" title="wikipedia.org">some time ago</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>Try to think these things through, fascist. Libertarianism seems attractive when you are relatively self sufficient. That state may change <b>through no fault of your own</b>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's ridiculous when GM assembly line workers expect health care in perpetuity.Indeed .
We should extend this to all people who are unable to financially contribute to society .
Let 's start with the mentally disabled .
I seem to recall that there was a plan to do this some time ago [ wikipedia.org ] .Try to think these things through , fascist .
Libertarianism seems attractive when you are relatively self sufficient .
That state may change through no fault of your own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's ridiculous when GM assembly line workers expect health care in perpetuity.Indeed.
We should extend this to all people who are unable to financially contribute to society.
Let's start with the mentally disabled.
I seem to recall that there was a plan to do this some time ago [wikipedia.org].Try to think these things through, fascist.
Libertarianism seems attractive when you are relatively self sufficient.
That state may change through no fault of your own.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29945558</id>
	<title>Re:WSJ full of Right-Wing Mantra</title>
	<author>electrosoccertux</author>
	<datestamp>1257079920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The WSJ article is highly un-balanced. While it talks repeatedly about the "sins" of too much government, it barely mentioned the role that deregulation played in the current mess.</p><p>Here's an exmaple:</p><blockquote><div><p>This week the New York Post carried a report that 1.5 million people had left high-tax New York state between 2000 and 2008, more than a million of them from even higher-tax New York City.</p></div></blockquote><p>The implication made is that they left mostly because of taxes. However, they never justify that with a reason-for-leaving survey, etc. They simply run with that assumption. The WSJ does this often, as do most Murdock-own publications.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; </p></div><p>And yet the most saavy investors in the country still pay the money to read it. They wouldn't read it if it lost them money.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The WSJ article is highly un-balanced .
While it talks repeatedly about the " sins " of too much government , it barely mentioned the role that deregulation played in the current mess.Here 's an exmaple : This week the New York Post carried a report that 1.5 million people had left high-tax New York state between 2000 and 2008 , more than a million of them from even higher-tax New York City.The implication made is that they left mostly because of taxes .
However , they never justify that with a reason-for-leaving survey , etc .
They simply run with that assumption .
The WSJ does this often , as do most Murdock-own publications .
    And yet the most saavy investors in the country still pay the money to read it .
They would n't read it if it lost them money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The WSJ article is highly un-balanced.
While it talks repeatedly about the "sins" of too much government, it barely mentioned the role that deregulation played in the current mess.Here's an exmaple:This week the New York Post carried a report that 1.5 million people had left high-tax New York state between 2000 and 2008, more than a million of them from even higher-tax New York City.The implication made is that they left mostly because of taxes.
However, they never justify that with a reason-for-leaving survey, etc.
They simply run with that assumption.
The WSJ does this often, as do most Murdock-own publications.
    And yet the most saavy investors in the country still pay the money to read it.
They wouldn't read it if it lost them money.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29952946</id>
	<title>Re:Why are they still employed?</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1257190560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The people bailing these companies out do not want to, but they have no real choice. If you'd listen, you'd hear that every time they talk. They hate it every bit as much as us.</p></div><p>Yes, it's a pretty good act. I don't buy it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The people bailing these companies out do not want to , but they have no real choice .
If you 'd listen , you 'd hear that every time they talk .
They hate it every bit as much as us.Yes , it 's a pretty good act .
I do n't buy it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The people bailing these companies out do not want to, but they have no real choice.
If you'd listen, you'd hear that every time they talk.
They hate it every bit as much as us.Yes, it's a pretty good act.
I don't buy it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29947236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943714</id>
	<title>Re:Cap-and-Trade Law: Good for Bankers, Bad for U.</title>
	<author>u38cg</author>
	<datestamp>1257066600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Showing leadership in a flagship model of emissions management to the rest of the world?  Having a large, robust, functional carbon-trading market when the rest of the world catches up?  In the most innovative and diverse economy on earth, creating a system which will result in innovation and progress in any energy related technology?  Sounds like a total waste of time to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Showing leadership in a flagship model of emissions management to the rest of the world ?
Having a large , robust , functional carbon-trading market when the rest of the world catches up ?
In the most innovative and diverse economy on earth , creating a system which will result in innovation and progress in any energy related technology ?
Sounds like a total waste of time to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Showing leadership in a flagship model of emissions management to the rest of the world?
Having a large, robust, functional carbon-trading market when the rest of the world catches up?
In the most innovative and diverse economy on earth, creating a system which will result in innovation and progress in any energy related technology?
Sounds like a total waste of time to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943176</id>
	<title>Threaten to stop the wheel of the world?</title>
	<author>brian0918</author>
	<datestamp>1257106020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"They don't understand that if they start to tax me so that I'm paying 60\%, 55\%, I'll stop."
<br> <br>
Who is John Galt?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" They do n't understand that if they start to tax me so that I 'm paying 60 \ % , 55 \ % , I 'll stop .
" Who is John Galt ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"They don't understand that if they start to tax me so that I'm paying 60\%, 55\%, I'll stop.
"
 
Who is John Galt?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29948788</id>
	<title>Re:Illinois Wants Insurers to Cover Prayer Treatme</title>
	<author>dargaud</author>
	<datestamp>1257162840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure, why not. But then it needs to be evaluated like any other treatment. If found wanting, then it gets the ax. PS: it has already been evaluated and not only found inefficient, but actually detrimental. Picture this: you are on a hospital bed and are told that there are 500 people currently praying for you. Does that make you feel better before you incoming surgery ? Fail.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , why not .
But then it needs to be evaluated like any other treatment .
If found wanting , then it gets the ax .
PS : it has already been evaluated and not only found inefficient , but actually detrimental .
Picture this : you are on a hospital bed and are told that there are 500 people currently praying for you .
Does that make you feel better before you incoming surgery ?
Fail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, why not.
But then it needs to be evaluated like any other treatment.
If found wanting, then it gets the ax.
PS: it has already been evaluated and not only found inefficient, but actually detrimental.
Picture this: you are on a hospital bed and are told that there are 500 people currently praying for you.
Does that make you feel better before you incoming surgery ?
Fail.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29948284</id>
	<title>Re:News for nerds?</title>
	<author>Virtual\_Raider</author>
	<datestamp>1257153060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So yes, there are tradeoffs; some are harmed, but more are helped than harmed.  Overall, offshoring is a benefit in the aggregate.</p></div><p>Except that in reality it doesn't quite work that way. Over time one needs to aggregate all of the job loses and gains, and it starts to reach a point where the local market's buy power starts to wane and the demand for the off-shore produced goods slows down.</p><p>My opinion however is <b>not</b> an apology of protectionism as much as a decrying of consumerism. And wealth inequity. And over-population. And ignorance. And human kind, I guess<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p><p>Maybe I just need some dinner and TV<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So yes , there are tradeoffs ; some are harmed , but more are helped than harmed .
Overall , offshoring is a benefit in the aggregate.Except that in reality it does n't quite work that way .
Over time one needs to aggregate all of the job loses and gains , and it starts to reach a point where the local market 's buy power starts to wane and the demand for the off-shore produced goods slows down.My opinion however is not an apology of protectionism as much as a decrying of consumerism .
And wealth inequity .
And over-population .
And ignorance .
And human kind , I guess : PMaybe I just need some dinner and TV : P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So yes, there are tradeoffs; some are harmed, but more are helped than harmed.
Overall, offshoring is a benefit in the aggregate.Except that in reality it doesn't quite work that way.
Over time one needs to aggregate all of the job loses and gains, and it starts to reach a point where the local market's buy power starts to wane and the demand for the off-shore produced goods slows down.My opinion however is not an apology of protectionism as much as a decrying of consumerism.
And wealth inequity.
And over-population.
And ignorance.
And human kind, I guess :PMaybe I just need some dinner and TV :P
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29945228</id>
	<title>Re:atlas yawned</title>
	<author>lawpoop</author>
	<datestamp>1257077100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Obama *is* a lawyer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama * is * a lawyer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama *is* a lawyer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29960400</id>
	<title>Re:News for nerds?</title>
	<author>v. Konigsmann</author>
	<datestamp>1257188460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The trouble with that argument   ---  speaking as a non-American   ---  is that we don't live in One World where three jobs given to India cancel out one job lost in America;  we live in countries, where the government of each is meant to secure the well-being of it's own peoples, not the well-being of other competing nationalities.

And it follows that if the work, whether is be programming or steelmaking, is done abroad, the gradual impoverishment of Americans due to the lack of paying jobs will mean that eventually they won't be able to afford to buy the stuff created elsewhere no matter how cheap.  Plus that the countries with the high productivity will gain greater political control than America.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The trouble with that argument --- speaking as a non-American --- is that we do n't live in One World where three jobs given to India cancel out one job lost in America ; we live in countries , where the government of each is meant to secure the well-being of it 's own peoples , not the well-being of other competing nationalities .
And it follows that if the work , whether is be programming or steelmaking , is done abroad , the gradual impoverishment of Americans due to the lack of paying jobs will mean that eventually they wo n't be able to afford to buy the stuff created elsewhere no matter how cheap .
Plus that the countries with the high productivity will gain greater political control than America .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The trouble with that argument   ---  speaking as a non-American   ---  is that we don't live in One World where three jobs given to India cancel out one job lost in America;  we live in countries, where the government of each is meant to secure the well-being of it's own peoples, not the well-being of other competing nationalities.
And it follows that if the work, whether is be programming or steelmaking, is done abroad, the gradual impoverishment of Americans due to the lack of paying jobs will mean that eventually they won't be able to afford to buy the stuff created elsewhere no matter how cheap.
Plus that the countries with the high productivity will gain greater political control than America.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29946074</id>
	<title>Re:Fundamentally Broken System AGREED 110\%... apk</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257085140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AGREED, 110\%, &amp; here is why:</p><p>That housing bubble being spoken of here, rampantly? IT ALWAYS BOILS DOWN TO UNSCRUPULOUS bank officers extending loans!</p><p>I say that, because after all, why just extend 10 honest well calculated low risk loans (where the folks asking for a mortgage CAN afford to make the payments over time, which said loan officer gets a piece of each payment mind you), when you can extend 100 potentially BOGUS ones (where folks just cannot afford it)?</p><p>It's more profitable to extend it to folks that CAN'T afford it, especially on "variable rate mortgages" where they can alter the rate @ ANY TIME... this ends up with banks profiting by this practice, &amp; getting the house in the end, anyhow as a "bonus", in the end of it all, &amp; THAT IS THE "END GAME" here, period.</p><p>I've heard republicans TRY to blame it on the "Community Reform Bill" which made banks try to put folks into homes, so they gain responsibility, and WANT/NEED to hold a job (tough to do considering how much OFFSHORING was allowed, especially in the MIS/IS/IT field) and to turn them into tax payers too.</p><p>It will still "boil down" to that unscrupulous loan officer, &amp; variable rate mortgages AND THE FACT THAT OFFSHORING PUTS TONS OF US OUT OF A JOB!</p><p>Who wins? The banks.</p><p>APK</p><p>P.S.=&gt; You guys ought to read "The Secrets of the Temple" by William Greider, &amp; also see "Zeitgeist" (obtainable online, &amp; the "infamous they" tried to get it taken down no less)... it will OPEN YOUR EYES/ABRES LOS OJOS people, as to how screwed up our current "fractional reserve banking system" + "fiat money' based monetary system, really TRULY is.</p><p>It's geared to PUT YOUR ASS INTO DEBT, making a you "good slave" people.</p><p>Ever heard the saying "Most men lead lives of quiet desperation"? Welcome to the 21st century people... it's most of you, out of FEAR for your job, your family, YOUR LIFE!</p><p>We do NOT need the "federal reserve" period. It is no more "federal" than Fed-Ex is - it is, in reality, a consortium of banks, who kept their identities secret for decades, &amp; they did so, no less (their identities WERE SECRET @ the formation of "the fed"), but no more... they are:</p><p>Rothschild Banks of London and Berlin<br>Lazard Brothers Bank of Paris<br>Israel Moses Sieff Banks of Italy<br>Warburg Bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam<br>Lehman Brothers Bank of New York<br>Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York<br>Chase Manhattan Bank of New York<br>Goldman Sachs Bank of New York.</p><p>There has been much speculation about who owns the Federal Reserve Corporation. It has been one of the best kept secrets of the century, because the Federal Reserve Act Act of 1913 provided that the names of the owner banks be kept secret. However, R. E. McMaster publisher of the newsletter The Reaper, asked his Swiss banking contacts which banks hold the controlling stock in the Federal Reserve Corporation. The answer IS above! You can thank the good "Jeremiah Cornelius", a member here, for getting us that info., by the by (great guy, I don't see him here too much anymore, but he's a good man).</p><p>"Follow the money" people, &amp;, you HAVE THE CULPRITS... they are no longer that "shadowy man behind the curtain", but are now IDENTIFIABLE (per that list above) &amp; they are FAR FROM "CLUELESS" about their 'social experiment' they are performing on us all, for CONTROL (not just for ca$h people)... Thank goodness Mr. Obama is onto their games, is all I can say!</p><p>Andrew Jackson did the same thing: There was a CENTRALIZED BANK in his day, &amp; there were economic problems. He dismantled it, &amp; the problems went away. Then, Woodrow Wilson was "coerced" into allowing the creation of today's FED &amp; what do we have? This chaos!</p><p>Woodrow Wilson even said, pretty much this -&gt; "I have just signed a pact with the devil" in allowing the FED to be created (think about THAT)... apk</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AGREED , 110 \ % , &amp; here is why : That housing bubble being spoken of here , rampantly ?
IT ALWAYS BOILS DOWN TO UNSCRUPULOUS bank officers extending loans ! I say that , because after all , why just extend 10 honest well calculated low risk loans ( where the folks asking for a mortgage CAN afford to make the payments over time , which said loan officer gets a piece of each payment mind you ) , when you can extend 100 potentially BOGUS ones ( where folks just can not afford it ) ? It 's more profitable to extend it to folks that CA N'T afford it , especially on " variable rate mortgages " where they can alter the rate @ ANY TIME... this ends up with banks profiting by this practice , &amp; getting the house in the end , anyhow as a " bonus " , in the end of it all , &amp; THAT IS THE " END GAME " here , period.I 've heard republicans TRY to blame it on the " Community Reform Bill " which made banks try to put folks into homes , so they gain responsibility , and WANT/NEED to hold a job ( tough to do considering how much OFFSHORING was allowed , especially in the MIS/IS/IT field ) and to turn them into tax payers too.It will still " boil down " to that unscrupulous loan officer , &amp; variable rate mortgages AND THE FACT THAT OFFSHORING PUTS TONS OF US OUT OF A JOB ! Who wins ?
The banks.APKP.S. = &gt; You guys ought to read " The Secrets of the Temple " by William Greider , &amp; also see " Zeitgeist " ( obtainable online , &amp; the " infamous they " tried to get it taken down no less ) ... it will OPEN YOUR EYES/ABRES LOS OJOS people , as to how screwed up our current " fractional reserve banking system " + " fiat money ' based monetary system , really TRULY is.It 's geared to PUT YOUR ASS INTO DEBT , making a you " good slave " people.Ever heard the saying " Most men lead lives of quiet desperation " ?
Welcome to the 21st century people... it 's most of you , out of FEAR for your job , your family , YOUR LIFE ! We do NOT need the " federal reserve " period .
It is no more " federal " than Fed-Ex is - it is , in reality , a consortium of banks , who kept their identities secret for decades , &amp; they did so , no less ( their identities WERE SECRET @ the formation of " the fed " ) , but no more... they are : Rothschild Banks of London and BerlinLazard Brothers Bank of ParisIsrael Moses Sieff Banks of ItalyWarburg Bank of Hamburg and AmsterdamLehman Brothers Bank of New YorkKuhn Loeb Bank of New YorkChase Manhattan Bank of New YorkGoldman Sachs Bank of New York.There has been much speculation about who owns the Federal Reserve Corporation .
It has been one of the best kept secrets of the century , because the Federal Reserve Act Act of 1913 provided that the names of the owner banks be kept secret .
However , R. E. McMaster publisher of the newsletter The Reaper , asked his Swiss banking contacts which banks hold the controlling stock in the Federal Reserve Corporation .
The answer IS above !
You can thank the good " Jeremiah Cornelius " , a member here , for getting us that info. , by the by ( great guy , I do n't see him here too much anymore , but he 's a good man ) .
" Follow the money " people , &amp; , you HAVE THE CULPRITS... they are no longer that " shadowy man behind the curtain " , but are now IDENTIFIABLE ( per that list above ) &amp; they are FAR FROM " CLUELESS " about their 'social experiment ' they are performing on us all , for CONTROL ( not just for ca $ h people ) ... Thank goodness Mr. Obama is onto their games , is all I can say ! Andrew Jackson did the same thing : There was a CENTRALIZED BANK in his day , &amp; there were economic problems .
He dismantled it , &amp; the problems went away .
Then , Woodrow Wilson was " coerced " into allowing the creation of today 's FED &amp; what do we have ?
This chaos ! Woodrow Wilson even said , pretty much this - &gt; " I have just signed a pact with the devil " in allowing the FED to be created ( think about THAT ) ... apk</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AGREED, 110\%, &amp; here is why:That housing bubble being spoken of here, rampantly?
IT ALWAYS BOILS DOWN TO UNSCRUPULOUS bank officers extending loans!I say that, because after all, why just extend 10 honest well calculated low risk loans (where the folks asking for a mortgage CAN afford to make the payments over time, which said loan officer gets a piece of each payment mind you), when you can extend 100 potentially BOGUS ones (where folks just cannot afford it)?It's more profitable to extend it to folks that CAN'T afford it, especially on "variable rate mortgages" where they can alter the rate @ ANY TIME... this ends up with banks profiting by this practice, &amp; getting the house in the end, anyhow as a "bonus", in the end of it all, &amp; THAT IS THE "END GAME" here, period.I've heard republicans TRY to blame it on the "Community Reform Bill" which made banks try to put folks into homes, so they gain responsibility, and WANT/NEED to hold a job (tough to do considering how much OFFSHORING was allowed, especially in the MIS/IS/IT field) and to turn them into tax payers too.It will still "boil down" to that unscrupulous loan officer, &amp; variable rate mortgages AND THE FACT THAT OFFSHORING PUTS TONS OF US OUT OF A JOB!Who wins?
The banks.APKP.S.=&gt; You guys ought to read "The Secrets of the Temple" by William Greider, &amp; also see "Zeitgeist" (obtainable online, &amp; the "infamous they" tried to get it taken down no less)... it will OPEN YOUR EYES/ABRES LOS OJOS people, as to how screwed up our current "fractional reserve banking system" + "fiat money' based monetary system, really TRULY is.It's geared to PUT YOUR ASS INTO DEBT, making a you "good slave" people.Ever heard the saying "Most men lead lives of quiet desperation"?
Welcome to the 21st century people... it's most of you, out of FEAR for your job, your family, YOUR LIFE!We do NOT need the "federal reserve" period.
It is no more "federal" than Fed-Ex is - it is, in reality, a consortium of banks, who kept their identities secret for decades, &amp; they did so, no less (their identities WERE SECRET @ the formation of "the fed"), but no more... they are:Rothschild Banks of London and BerlinLazard Brothers Bank of ParisIsrael Moses Sieff Banks of ItalyWarburg Bank of Hamburg and AmsterdamLehman Brothers Bank of New YorkKuhn Loeb Bank of New YorkChase Manhattan Bank of New YorkGoldman Sachs Bank of New York.There has been much speculation about who owns the Federal Reserve Corporation.
It has been one of the best kept secrets of the century, because the Federal Reserve Act Act of 1913 provided that the names of the owner banks be kept secret.
However, R. E. McMaster publisher of the newsletter The Reaper, asked his Swiss banking contacts which banks hold the controlling stock in the Federal Reserve Corporation.
The answer IS above!
You can thank the good "Jeremiah Cornelius", a member here, for getting us that info., by the by (great guy, I don't see him here too much anymore, but he's a good man).
"Follow the money" people, &amp;, you HAVE THE CULPRITS... they are no longer that "shadowy man behind the curtain", but are now IDENTIFIABLE (per that list above) &amp; they are FAR FROM "CLUELESS" about their 'social experiment' they are performing on us all, for CONTROL (not just for ca$h people)... Thank goodness Mr. Obama is onto their games, is all I can say!Andrew Jackson did the same thing: There was a CENTRALIZED BANK in his day, &amp; there were economic problems.
He dismantled it, &amp; the problems went away.
Then, Woodrow Wilson was "coerced" into allowing the creation of today's FED &amp; what do we have?
This chaos!Woodrow Wilson even said, pretty much this -&gt; "I have just signed a pact with the devil" in allowing the FED to be created (think about THAT)... apk</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29946670</id>
	<title>Facts matter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257090180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems strange that someone would say everyone thinks things are hopeless when the current resident of 1600 PA Ave Wash DC actually ran on hope. This doesn't indicate whether it's justified or not, just that there certainly seems to be some hopeful individuals out there.</p><p>Capitalism continually gets a bad rap from people who clearly haven't bothered to read A. Smith's  A Wealth of Nations, available on project gutenberg. It would surprise many to know that A. Smith did not view joint stock companies,  (corporations today) favorable. Seemed to think that the directors would not be good stewards of other people's money. Particularly since they would continue to get paid. Does this ring a bell for anyone? Most of what is taken as capitalism today is far from it. Not saying it's the only answer but it makes a lot more sense then what we have now, which is anything but a free market.</p><p>Some obvious solutions.</p><p>Politicians tend to view their donors as their constituents, which is probably the best reason to have publicly funded campaigns. Anyone who doesn't think that the average taxpayers don't end up footing the bill for campaign contributions from corporations and wealthy individuals is just kidding themselves. Just look at the tax code.</p><p>This would stop campaign corruption but not other types of corruption. For that simply allow the Pol to take the bribe, report it, and keep the money. If they don't report it, they go to jail. Should cut down on bribery.</p><p>If a company is too big to fail and it is failing then after the rescue break it up so it won't be too big to fail again.</p><p>Penalize large companies with a higher tax rate. Many small companies make a market, a few large ones and oligopoly, which A. Smith rails against.</p><p>Just my 1/50 th of a USD</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems strange that someone would say everyone thinks things are hopeless when the current resident of 1600 PA Ave Wash DC actually ran on hope .
This does n't indicate whether it 's justified or not , just that there certainly seems to be some hopeful individuals out there.Capitalism continually gets a bad rap from people who clearly have n't bothered to read A. Smith 's A Wealth of Nations , available on project gutenberg .
It would surprise many to know that A. Smith did not view joint stock companies , ( corporations today ) favorable .
Seemed to think that the directors would not be good stewards of other people 's money .
Particularly since they would continue to get paid .
Does this ring a bell for anyone ?
Most of what is taken as capitalism today is far from it .
Not saying it 's the only answer but it makes a lot more sense then what we have now , which is anything but a free market.Some obvious solutions.Politicians tend to view their donors as their constituents , which is probably the best reason to have publicly funded campaigns .
Anyone who does n't think that the average taxpayers do n't end up footing the bill for campaign contributions from corporations and wealthy individuals is just kidding themselves .
Just look at the tax code.This would stop campaign corruption but not other types of corruption .
For that simply allow the Pol to take the bribe , report it , and keep the money .
If they do n't report it , they go to jail .
Should cut down on bribery.If a company is too big to fail and it is failing then after the rescue break it up so it wo n't be too big to fail again.Penalize large companies with a higher tax rate .
Many small companies make a market , a few large ones and oligopoly , which A. Smith rails against.Just my 1/50 th of a USD</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems strange that someone would say everyone thinks things are hopeless when the current resident of 1600 PA Ave Wash DC actually ran on hope.
This doesn't indicate whether it's justified or not, just that there certainly seems to be some hopeful individuals out there.Capitalism continually gets a bad rap from people who clearly haven't bothered to read A. Smith's  A Wealth of Nations, available on project gutenberg.
It would surprise many to know that A. Smith did not view joint stock companies,  (corporations today) favorable.
Seemed to think that the directors would not be good stewards of other people's money.
Particularly since they would continue to get paid.
Does this ring a bell for anyone?
Most of what is taken as capitalism today is far from it.
Not saying it's the only answer but it makes a lot more sense then what we have now, which is anything but a free market.Some obvious solutions.Politicians tend to view their donors as their constituents, which is probably the best reason to have publicly funded campaigns.
Anyone who doesn't think that the average taxpayers don't end up footing the bill for campaign contributions from corporations and wealthy individuals is just kidding themselves.
Just look at the tax code.This would stop campaign corruption but not other types of corruption.
For that simply allow the Pol to take the bribe, report it, and keep the money.
If they don't report it, they go to jail.
Should cut down on bribery.If a company is too big to fail and it is failing then after the rescue break it up so it won't be too big to fail again.Penalize large companies with a higher tax rate.
Many small companies make a market, a few large ones and oligopoly, which A. Smith rails against.Just my 1/50 th of a USD</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29948384</id>
	<title>Re:Why should we be surprised</title>
	<author>francium de neobie</author>
	<datestamp>1257154560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>GW Bush may be. But from the stories I've seen so far, Bill Gates seemed to be an extremely competent person back when he was young. Also, somebody destined for a law degree wouldn't have to play with PDP-10 computers unless he had something else in his mind, right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>GW Bush may be .
But from the stories I 've seen so far , Bill Gates seemed to be an extremely competent person back when he was young .
Also , somebody destined for a law degree would n't have to play with PDP-10 computers unless he had something else in his mind , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GW Bush may be.
But from the stories I've seen so far, Bill Gates seemed to be an extremely competent person back when he was young.
Also, somebody destined for a law degree wouldn't have to play with PDP-10 computers unless he had something else in his mind, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29953720</id>
	<title>Re:They're not clueless, they just don't give a fu</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257193980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I mean think of betting on a coin flip where you call heads.  If it comes up heads, you get a billion dollars.  If it comes up tails, the fed bails your bank out for a billion dollars and maybe your bonus this quarter is smaller, but you lose nothing directly, and your bonus is back to normal 3 months later.  Kind of makes fearless and stupid betting par for the course.</p></div><p>That implies a 50-50 chance of coming out ahead on any given flip.  The chances they were taking didn't have odds anywhere near that good.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean think of betting on a coin flip where you call heads .
If it comes up heads , you get a billion dollars .
If it comes up tails , the fed bails your bank out for a billion dollars and maybe your bonus this quarter is smaller , but you lose nothing directly , and your bonus is back to normal 3 months later .
Kind of makes fearless and stupid betting par for the course.That implies a 50-50 chance of coming out ahead on any given flip .
The chances they were taking did n't have odds anywhere near that good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean think of betting on a coin flip where you call heads.
If it comes up heads, you get a billion dollars.
If it comes up tails, the fed bails your bank out for a billion dollars and maybe your bonus this quarter is smaller, but you lose nothing directly, and your bonus is back to normal 3 months later.
Kind of makes fearless and stupid betting par for the course.That implies a 50-50 chance of coming out ahead on any given flip.
The chances they were taking didn't have odds anywhere near that good.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29946214</id>
	<title>Agreed, on "the masters of the Universe" &amp; the</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257086160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're in the list below (AND, they're out for CONTROL, not just money). Interested? READ ON:</p><p>That housing bubble many here speak of for instance/example? IT ALWAYS BOILS DOWN TO UNSCRUPULOUS bank officers extending loans!</p><p>I say that, because after all, why just extend 10 honest well calculated low risk loans (where the folks asking for a mortgage CAN afford to make the payments over time, which said loan officer gets a piece of each payment mind you), when you can extend 100 potentially BOGUS ones (where folks just cannot afford it)?</p><p>It's more profitable to extend it to folks that CAN'T afford it, especially on "variable rate mortgages" where they can alter the rate @ ANY TIME... this ends up with banks profiting by this practice, &amp; getting the house in the end, anyhow as a "bonus", in the end of it all, &amp; THAT IS THE "END GAME" here, period.</p><p><b>I've heard republicans TRY to blame it on the "Community Reform Bill" which made banks try to put folks into homes, so they gain responsibility, and WANT/NEED to hold a job</b> (tough to do considering how much OFFSHORING was allowed, especially in the MIS/IS/IT field) <b>and to turn them into tax payers too.</b></p><p><b>It will still "boil down" to that unscrupulous loan officer, &amp; variable rate mortgages AND THE FACT THAT OFFSHORING PUTS TONS OF US OUT OF A JOB!</b></p><p><b>Who wins? The banks.</b></p><p>APK</p><p>P.S.=&gt; You guys ought to read <b>"The Secrets of the Temple" by William Greider</b>, &amp;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,b&gt;also see "Zeitgeist" (obtainable online, &amp; the "infamous they" tried to get it taken down no less)... <b>it will OPEN YOUR EYES/ABRES LOS OJOS people, as to how screwed up our current "fractional reserve banking system" + "fiat money' based monetary system, really TRULY is.</b></p><p><b>It's geared to PUT YOUR ASS INTO DEBT, making a you "good slave" people.</b></p><p><b>Ever heard the saying "Most men lead lives of quiet desperation"? Welcome to the 21st century people... it's most of you, out of FEAR for your job, your family, YOUR LIFE!</b></p><p>We do NOT need the "federal reserve" period. It is no more "federal" than Fed-Ex is - it is, in reality, a consortium of banks, who kept their identities secret for decades, &amp; they did so, no less (their identities WERE SECRET @ the formation of "the fed"), but no more... they are:<br>Goldman Sachs Bank of New York.<br>Rothschild Banks of London and Berlin<br>Israel Moses Sieff Banks of Italy<br>Warburg Bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam<br>Lehman Brothers Bank of New York<br>Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York<br>Lazard Brothers Bank of Paris<br>Chase Manhattan Bank of New York</p><p><b>There has been much speculation about who owns the Federal Reserve Corporation. It has been one of the best kept secrets of the century, because the Federal Reserve Act Act of 1913 provided that the names of the owner banks be kept secret. However, R. E. McMaster publisher of the newsletter The Reaper, asked his Swiss banking contacts which banks hold the controlling stock in the Federal Reserve Corporation.</b></p><p>The answer IS above! You can thank the good "Jeremiah Cornelius", a member here, for getting us that info., by the by (great guy, I don't see him here too much anymore, but he's a good man).</p><p><b>"Follow the money" people, &amp;, you HAVE THE CULPRITS... they are no longer that "shadowy man behind the curtain", but are now IDENTIFIABLE</b> (per that list above)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,b&gt;&amp; they are FAR FROM "CLUELESS" about their 'social experiment' they are performing on us all, for CONTROL (not just for ca$h people)...</p><p>Thank goodness <b>Mr. Obama is onto their games, is all I can say!</b></p><p><b>Andrew Jackson did the same thing: There was a CENTRALIZED BANK in his day, &amp; there were economic problems. He dismantled it, &amp; the problems went away. Then, Woodrow Wilson was "coerced" into allowing the creation of today's FED &amp; what do we have? This chaos!</b></p><p>Woodrow Wilson even said, pretty much this -&gt; "I have just signed a pact with the devil" in allowing the FED to be created (think about THAT)... apk</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're in the list below ( AND , they 're out for CONTROL , not just money ) .
Interested ? READ ON : That housing bubble many here speak of for instance/example ?
IT ALWAYS BOILS DOWN TO UNSCRUPULOUS bank officers extending loans ! I say that , because after all , why just extend 10 honest well calculated low risk loans ( where the folks asking for a mortgage CAN afford to make the payments over time , which said loan officer gets a piece of each payment mind you ) , when you can extend 100 potentially BOGUS ones ( where folks just can not afford it ) ? It 's more profitable to extend it to folks that CA N'T afford it , especially on " variable rate mortgages " where they can alter the rate @ ANY TIME... this ends up with banks profiting by this practice , &amp; getting the house in the end , anyhow as a " bonus " , in the end of it all , &amp; THAT IS THE " END GAME " here , period.I 've heard republicans TRY to blame it on the " Community Reform Bill " which made banks try to put folks into homes , so they gain responsibility , and WANT/NEED to hold a job ( tough to do considering how much OFFSHORING was allowed , especially in the MIS/IS/IT field ) and to turn them into tax payers too.It will still " boil down " to that unscrupulous loan officer , &amp; variable rate mortgages AND THE FACT THAT OFFSHORING PUTS TONS OF US OUT OF A JOB ! Who wins ?
The banks.APKP.S. = &gt; You guys ought to read " The Secrets of the Temple " by William Greider , &amp; ,b &gt; also see " Zeitgeist " ( obtainable online , &amp; the " infamous they " tried to get it taken down no less ) ... it will OPEN YOUR EYES/ABRES LOS OJOS people , as to how screwed up our current " fractional reserve banking system " + " fiat money ' based monetary system , really TRULY is.It 's geared to PUT YOUR ASS INTO DEBT , making a you " good slave " people.Ever heard the saying " Most men lead lives of quiet desperation " ?
Welcome to the 21st century people... it 's most of you , out of FEAR for your job , your family , YOUR LIFE ! We do NOT need the " federal reserve " period .
It is no more " federal " than Fed-Ex is - it is , in reality , a consortium of banks , who kept their identities secret for decades , &amp; they did so , no less ( their identities WERE SECRET @ the formation of " the fed " ) , but no more... they are : Goldman Sachs Bank of New York.Rothschild Banks of London and BerlinIsrael Moses Sieff Banks of ItalyWarburg Bank of Hamburg and AmsterdamLehman Brothers Bank of New YorkKuhn Loeb Bank of New YorkLazard Brothers Bank of ParisChase Manhattan Bank of New YorkThere has been much speculation about who owns the Federal Reserve Corporation .
It has been one of the best kept secrets of the century , because the Federal Reserve Act Act of 1913 provided that the names of the owner banks be kept secret .
However , R. E. McMaster publisher of the newsletter The Reaper , asked his Swiss banking contacts which banks hold the controlling stock in the Federal Reserve Corporation.The answer IS above !
You can thank the good " Jeremiah Cornelius " , a member here , for getting us that info. , by the by ( great guy , I do n't see him here too much anymore , but he 's a good man ) .
" Follow the money " people , &amp; , you HAVE THE CULPRITS... they are no longer that " shadowy man behind the curtain " , but are now IDENTIFIABLE ( per that list above ) ,b &gt; &amp; they are FAR FROM " CLUELESS " about their 'social experiment ' they are performing on us all , for CONTROL ( not just for ca $ h people ) ...Thank goodness Mr. Obama is onto their games , is all I can say ! Andrew Jackson did the same thing : There was a CENTRALIZED BANK in his day , &amp; there were economic problems .
He dismantled it , &amp; the problems went away .
Then , Woodrow Wilson was " coerced " into allowing the creation of today 's FED &amp; what do we have ?
This chaos ! Woodrow Wilson even said , pretty much this - &gt; " I have just signed a pact with the devil " in allowing the FED to be created ( think about THAT ) ... apk</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're in the list below (AND, they're out for CONTROL, not just money).
Interested? READ ON:That housing bubble many here speak of for instance/example?
IT ALWAYS BOILS DOWN TO UNSCRUPULOUS bank officers extending loans!I say that, because after all, why just extend 10 honest well calculated low risk loans (where the folks asking for a mortgage CAN afford to make the payments over time, which said loan officer gets a piece of each payment mind you), when you can extend 100 potentially BOGUS ones (where folks just cannot afford it)?It's more profitable to extend it to folks that CAN'T afford it, especially on "variable rate mortgages" where they can alter the rate @ ANY TIME... this ends up with banks profiting by this practice, &amp; getting the house in the end, anyhow as a "bonus", in the end of it all, &amp; THAT IS THE "END GAME" here, period.I've heard republicans TRY to blame it on the "Community Reform Bill" which made banks try to put folks into homes, so they gain responsibility, and WANT/NEED to hold a job (tough to do considering how much OFFSHORING was allowed, especially in the MIS/IS/IT field) and to turn them into tax payers too.It will still "boil down" to that unscrupulous loan officer, &amp; variable rate mortgages AND THE FACT THAT OFFSHORING PUTS TONS OF US OUT OF A JOB!Who wins?
The banks.APKP.S.=&gt; You guys ought to read "The Secrets of the Temple" by William Greider, &amp; ,b&gt;also see "Zeitgeist" (obtainable online, &amp; the "infamous they" tried to get it taken down no less)... it will OPEN YOUR EYES/ABRES LOS OJOS people, as to how screwed up our current "fractional reserve banking system" + "fiat money' based monetary system, really TRULY is.It's geared to PUT YOUR ASS INTO DEBT, making a you "good slave" people.Ever heard the saying "Most men lead lives of quiet desperation"?
Welcome to the 21st century people... it's most of you, out of FEAR for your job, your family, YOUR LIFE!We do NOT need the "federal reserve" period.
It is no more "federal" than Fed-Ex is - it is, in reality, a consortium of banks, who kept their identities secret for decades, &amp; they did so, no less (their identities WERE SECRET @ the formation of "the fed"), but no more... they are:Goldman Sachs Bank of New York.Rothschild Banks of London and BerlinIsrael Moses Sieff Banks of ItalyWarburg Bank of Hamburg and AmsterdamLehman Brothers Bank of New YorkKuhn Loeb Bank of New YorkLazard Brothers Bank of ParisChase Manhattan Bank of New YorkThere has been much speculation about who owns the Federal Reserve Corporation.
It has been one of the best kept secrets of the century, because the Federal Reserve Act Act of 1913 provided that the names of the owner banks be kept secret.
However, R. E. McMaster publisher of the newsletter The Reaper, asked his Swiss banking contacts which banks hold the controlling stock in the Federal Reserve Corporation.The answer IS above!
You can thank the good "Jeremiah Cornelius", a member here, for getting us that info., by the by (great guy, I don't see him here too much anymore, but he's a good man).
"Follow the money" people, &amp;, you HAVE THE CULPRITS... they are no longer that "shadowy man behind the curtain", but are now IDENTIFIABLE (per that list above) ,b&gt;&amp; they are FAR FROM "CLUELESS" about their 'social experiment' they are performing on us all, for CONTROL (not just for ca$h people)...Thank goodness Mr. Obama is onto their games, is all I can say!Andrew Jackson did the same thing: There was a CENTRALIZED BANK in his day, &amp; there were economic problems.
He dismantled it, &amp; the problems went away.
Then, Woodrow Wilson was "coerced" into allowing the creation of today's FED &amp; what do we have?
This chaos!Woodrow Wilson even said, pretty much this -&gt; "I have just signed a pact with the devil" in allowing the FED to be created (think about THAT)... apk</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29942966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943122</id>
	<title>Technology related? News for Nerds???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257105600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is this "news for nerds" and technology related? The original posted actually asked if it was, this is just political and discusses socioeconomic issues.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this " news for nerds " and technology related ?
The original posted actually asked if it was , this is just political and discusses socioeconomic issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this "news for nerds" and technology related?
The original posted actually asked if it was, this is just political and discusses socioeconomic issues.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29945200</id>
	<title>Re:WSJ full of Right-Wing Mantra</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257076860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FYI:  Taxes in NYC are like 10.5\% (state+local).  Taxes in Pittsburgh,PA are like 4.37\% (state+local).</p><p>A zero-bedroom 1-bath efficiency apartment (500 ft^2) in NYC <b>without</b> a car parking spot will run you like $24,000 a year in rent.  Buy, and prices are up around $800,000 - $1,300,000.  (There are cheaper options, if you get into pre-war buildings with poor security, inadequate heat, and no Air-Conditioning.)</p><p>Whereas in Pittsburgh, for less money ($250,000 to buy), you can get a 2400 ft^2 4-bedroom, 4-bathroom, 2-car-garage mansion close to public transportation.</p><p>Groceries are cheaper too.</p><p>The WSJ folks may have done sloppy work.  But they do have a point...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FYI : Taxes in NYC are like 10.5 \ % ( state + local ) .
Taxes in Pittsburgh,PA are like 4.37 \ % ( state + local ) .A zero-bedroom 1-bath efficiency apartment ( 500 ft ^ 2 ) in NYC without a car parking spot will run you like $ 24,000 a year in rent .
Buy , and prices are up around $ 800,000 - $ 1,300,000 .
( There are cheaper options , if you get into pre-war buildings with poor security , inadequate heat , and no Air-Conditioning .
) Whereas in Pittsburgh , for less money ( $ 250,000 to buy ) , you can get a 2400 ft ^ 2 4-bedroom , 4-bathroom , 2-car-garage mansion close to public transportation.Groceries are cheaper too.The WSJ folks may have done sloppy work .
But they do have a point.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FYI:  Taxes in NYC are like 10.5\% (state+local).
Taxes in Pittsburgh,PA are like 4.37\% (state+local).A zero-bedroom 1-bath efficiency apartment (500 ft^2) in NYC without a car parking spot will run you like $24,000 a year in rent.
Buy, and prices are up around $800,000 - $1,300,000.
(There are cheaper options, if you get into pre-war buildings with poor security, inadequate heat, and no Air-Conditioning.
)Whereas in Pittsburgh, for less money ($250,000 to buy), you can get a 2400 ft^2 4-bedroom, 4-bathroom, 2-car-garage mansion close to public transportation.Groceries are cheaper too.The WSJ folks may have done sloppy work.
But they do have a point...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944006</id>
	<title>Re:She's without hope, so we must be?</title>
	<author>demachina</author>
	<datestamp>1257068340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the more basic reasons "governing wont work" is that politicians and regulators are easily captured by special interests who have the money, the time, the connections and the motivation to manipulate the government.  A few million well placed lobbying dollars and campaign contributions can yield multi-billion dollar windfalls at the expense of the American people.</p><p>You kind of have to wonder why the conservative Republicans complain so much about big government because for at least the last 10 years, and really a lot longer than that, they have been the most adept at exploiting it for their own gain.  Only reason they are complaining about lately is they aren't in power as of 2006/2008.  The potency of their vitriol against big government only spikes when they aren't in power.  When they are in power they tend to be more OK with it, and their complaining about is empty rhetoric which acts as cover while they are looting it.</p><p>I often shudder to think what this country would be like if the Libertarians won and everything was completely deregulated.  Chances are the foxes would devour all the chickens.  But, when you see how our government actually works, especially lately, the Libertarians actually have a point.  Much of the pillaging and devastation is being aided, abetted or actually initiated by politicians and regulators who have been captured by special interest, so they give legal cover to the pillaging, and trillions of dollars are transferred from unlucky powerless groups to lucky powerful ones.  For example, senior citizens are completely looting younger working people to get 20, 30 and 40 years of Medicare and Social Security though they actually paid very little in to the system.  Oayroll taxes were jacked up from nothing to 12.5\% in the early 80s so most seniors didn't pay anything in but are taking huge sums out.</p><p>It is quite possible things might actually work better under real Libertarianism where Wall Street bankers get absolutely no assistance from the Fed, Treasury, Congress or the President.  They get no tax shelters, no government backed loan programs and most importantly NO bailouts when they screw up and should fail.  The absolute worst thing done in the last couple years was the complete destruction of moral hazard which is the most crucial foundation of Capitalism.  If you know that if you fail the government will bail you out you don't have free market capitalism any more, you have state capitalism(i.e. Fascism) which is what I think we have now.</p><p>Chances are a few banks like JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs would still end up running the world under Libertarianism but I have reached a point that I would like to see the government get the hell out of it and let them sink or swim on their own. It couldn't be any worst than what we have now.</p><p>Unfortunately I've come to the conclusion there is NO political/economic philosophy that actually works in practice.  Every one devolves in to some small group acquiring all the wealth and power and screwing it out of everyone else.  In some systems its party members and bureaucrats, in others it politicians, and in others its bankers and CEO's.  As Shakespeare thoroughly outlines a long time ago, we are a species with vicious tendencies that spiral completely out of control in the people who aspire to power and wealth and there seems to be no way to stop those people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the more basic reasons " governing wont work " is that politicians and regulators are easily captured by special interests who have the money , the time , the connections and the motivation to manipulate the government .
A few million well placed lobbying dollars and campaign contributions can yield multi-billion dollar windfalls at the expense of the American people.You kind of have to wonder why the conservative Republicans complain so much about big government because for at least the last 10 years , and really a lot longer than that , they have been the most adept at exploiting it for their own gain .
Only reason they are complaining about lately is they are n't in power as of 2006/2008 .
The potency of their vitriol against big government only spikes when they are n't in power .
When they are in power they tend to be more OK with it , and their complaining about is empty rhetoric which acts as cover while they are looting it.I often shudder to think what this country would be like if the Libertarians won and everything was completely deregulated .
Chances are the foxes would devour all the chickens .
But , when you see how our government actually works , especially lately , the Libertarians actually have a point .
Much of the pillaging and devastation is being aided , abetted or actually initiated by politicians and regulators who have been captured by special interest , so they give legal cover to the pillaging , and trillions of dollars are transferred from unlucky powerless groups to lucky powerful ones .
For example , senior citizens are completely looting younger working people to get 20 , 30 and 40 years of Medicare and Social Security though they actually paid very little in to the system .
Oayroll taxes were jacked up from nothing to 12.5 \ % in the early 80s so most seniors did n't pay anything in but are taking huge sums out.It is quite possible things might actually work better under real Libertarianism where Wall Street bankers get absolutely no assistance from the Fed , Treasury , Congress or the President .
They get no tax shelters , no government backed loan programs and most importantly NO bailouts when they screw up and should fail .
The absolute worst thing done in the last couple years was the complete destruction of moral hazard which is the most crucial foundation of Capitalism .
If you know that if you fail the government will bail you out you do n't have free market capitalism any more , you have state capitalism ( i.e .
Fascism ) which is what I think we have now.Chances are a few banks like JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs would still end up running the world under Libertarianism but I have reached a point that I would like to see the government get the hell out of it and let them sink or swim on their own .
It could n't be any worst than what we have now.Unfortunately I 've come to the conclusion there is NO political/economic philosophy that actually works in practice .
Every one devolves in to some small group acquiring all the wealth and power and screwing it out of everyone else .
In some systems its party members and bureaucrats , in others it politicians , and in others its bankers and CEO 's .
As Shakespeare thoroughly outlines a long time ago , we are a species with vicious tendencies that spiral completely out of control in the people who aspire to power and wealth and there seems to be no way to stop those people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the more basic reasons "governing wont work" is that politicians and regulators are easily captured by special interests who have the money, the time, the connections and the motivation to manipulate the government.
A few million well placed lobbying dollars and campaign contributions can yield multi-billion dollar windfalls at the expense of the American people.You kind of have to wonder why the conservative Republicans complain so much about big government because for at least the last 10 years, and really a lot longer than that, they have been the most adept at exploiting it for their own gain.
Only reason they are complaining about lately is they aren't in power as of 2006/2008.
The potency of their vitriol against big government only spikes when they aren't in power.
When they are in power they tend to be more OK with it, and their complaining about is empty rhetoric which acts as cover while they are looting it.I often shudder to think what this country would be like if the Libertarians won and everything was completely deregulated.
Chances are the foxes would devour all the chickens.
But, when you see how our government actually works, especially lately, the Libertarians actually have a point.
Much of the pillaging and devastation is being aided, abetted or actually initiated by politicians and regulators who have been captured by special interest, so they give legal cover to the pillaging, and trillions of dollars are transferred from unlucky powerless groups to lucky powerful ones.
For example, senior citizens are completely looting younger working people to get 20, 30 and 40 years of Medicare and Social Security though they actually paid very little in to the system.
Oayroll taxes were jacked up from nothing to 12.5\% in the early 80s so most seniors didn't pay anything in but are taking huge sums out.It is quite possible things might actually work better under real Libertarianism where Wall Street bankers get absolutely no assistance from the Fed, Treasury, Congress or the President.
They get no tax shelters, no government backed loan programs and most importantly NO bailouts when they screw up and should fail.
The absolute worst thing done in the last couple years was the complete destruction of moral hazard which is the most crucial foundation of Capitalism.
If you know that if you fail the government will bail you out you don't have free market capitalism any more, you have state capitalism(i.e.
Fascism) which is what I think we have now.Chances are a few banks like JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs would still end up running the world under Libertarianism but I have reached a point that I would like to see the government get the hell out of it and let them sink or swim on their own.
It couldn't be any worst than what we have now.Unfortunately I've come to the conclusion there is NO political/economic philosophy that actually works in practice.
Every one devolves in to some small group acquiring all the wealth and power and screwing it out of everyone else.
In some systems its party members and bureaucrats, in others it politicians, and in others its bankers and CEO's.
As Shakespeare thoroughly outlines a long time ago, we are a species with vicious tendencies that spiral completely out of control in the people who aspire to power and wealth and there seems to be no way to stop those people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29945040</id>
	<title>Noonan</title>
	<author>cain</author>
	<datestamp>1257075480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember that Noonan comes with a strong point of view in all her writing. She was a speechwriter for Reagan and currently has a weekly column for the Wall Street Journal and appears on the news talk shows. She far from an unbiased observer. I personally think her columns are usaully vapid and logic-free, including this one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember that Noonan comes with a strong point of view in all her writing .
She was a speechwriter for Reagan and currently has a weekly column for the Wall Street Journal and appears on the news talk shows .
She far from an unbiased observer .
I personally think her columns are usaully vapid and logic-free , including this one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember that Noonan comes with a strong point of view in all her writing.
She was a speechwriter for Reagan and currently has a weekly column for the Wall Street Journal and appears on the news talk shows.
She far from an unbiased observer.
I personally think her columns are usaully vapid and logic-free, including this one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29950834</id>
	<title>No Apologies</title>
	<author>flyneye</author>
	<datestamp>1257180660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No apologies to FDR. Without him and Wilsons bullshit socialist fixes, we would still be free men, no income tax and everything would run as it should.( The depression fix was unnecessary , as the economic and social shifts, albeit taking longer, still would happen.) Instead we have this mess and nothing short of bloody revolution to put things right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No apologies to FDR .
Without him and Wilsons bullshit socialist fixes , we would still be free men , no income tax and everything would run as it should .
( The depression fix was unnecessary , as the economic and social shifts , albeit taking longer , still would happen .
) Instead we have this mess and nothing short of bloody revolution to put things right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No apologies to FDR.
Without him and Wilsons bullshit socialist fixes, we would still be free men, no income tax and everything would run as it should.
( The depression fix was unnecessary , as the economic and social shifts, albeit taking longer, still would happen.
) Instead we have this mess and nothing short of bloody revolution to put things right.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944160</id>
	<title>Re:Why should we be surprised</title>
	<author>the\_humeister</author>
	<datestamp>1257069420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The "top" people in both government and business are spoiled children.</p> </div><p>They do seem to end up like that somehow. But there aren't. (eg. John McCain {before and after presidential election, but not really during}, Russ Feingold, Herb Kohl, etc).</p><p><div class="quote"><p> From Bill Gates to GW Bush, they had everything handed to them, and when things got tough, their parents bailed them out.</p></div><p>Now hold on. Don't put Bill Gates up with GW Bush. Although Gates was born to a well-off family, his success is didn't have anything to do with his parents bailing him out.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>In the socio-economic stratosphere of the US, it has never been about merit.  It's always been about money, and now we can see what that has bred.</p></div><p>Give me one country where this isn't true, and I'll show you a poor coutnry.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>We hear a lot about the sense of entitlement among the baby boomers, but it's almost always in the context of Medicare and welfare for the relatively poor.  Now we see what this sense of entitlement does on the grand scale.  It's ridiculous when GM assembly line workers expect health care in perpetuity.</p></div><p>First off, Medicare's going to be insolvent in a few decades. Second, if these people don't have medical insurance, that just puts more burden on Medicare and other state health institutions since they'll be the ones footing the bill for all those ER visits. The other option is to deny these people health care if they can't pay. And if/when that happens, we'll have finally become our own worst enemy.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The financial wizards of Wall St. have, almost literally, destroyed trillions of dollar in wealth over the last year.  None of them think they did anything wrong, and any who are taken to task for this colossal screw up will cry about how unjust it is.  When will people realize that handing the reigns of power to spoiled brats, who have no concept of the consequences of failure, is a stupid idea?  Doesn't look like they've learned it this time.  Maybe in 10 more years when the next economic crisis is screws everyone but the people who caused it.</p></div><p>Sort of. Wealth can't really be destroyed (unless you get a stack of bills and burn them) but is shifted instead. You know, it'd be fun to see the ending of Fight Club come true.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The " top " people in both government and business are spoiled children .
They do seem to end up like that somehow .
But there are n't .
( eg. John McCain { before and after presidential election , but not really during } , Russ Feingold , Herb Kohl , etc ) .
From Bill Gates to GW Bush , they had everything handed to them , and when things got tough , their parents bailed them out.Now hold on .
Do n't put Bill Gates up with GW Bush .
Although Gates was born to a well-off family , his success is did n't have anything to do with his parents bailing him out.In the socio-economic stratosphere of the US , it has never been about merit .
It 's always been about money , and now we can see what that has bred.Give me one country where this is n't true , and I 'll show you a poor coutnry.We hear a lot about the sense of entitlement among the baby boomers , but it 's almost always in the context of Medicare and welfare for the relatively poor .
Now we see what this sense of entitlement does on the grand scale .
It 's ridiculous when GM assembly line workers expect health care in perpetuity.First off , Medicare 's going to be insolvent in a few decades .
Second , if these people do n't have medical insurance , that just puts more burden on Medicare and other state health institutions since they 'll be the ones footing the bill for all those ER visits .
The other option is to deny these people health care if they ca n't pay .
And if/when that happens , we 'll have finally become our own worst enemy.The financial wizards of Wall St. have , almost literally , destroyed trillions of dollar in wealth over the last year .
None of them think they did anything wrong , and any who are taken to task for this colossal screw up will cry about how unjust it is .
When will people realize that handing the reigns of power to spoiled brats , who have no concept of the consequences of failure , is a stupid idea ?
Does n't look like they 've learned it this time .
Maybe in 10 more years when the next economic crisis is screws everyone but the people who caused it.Sort of .
Wealth ca n't really be destroyed ( unless you get a stack of bills and burn them ) but is shifted instead .
You know , it 'd be fun to see the ending of Fight Club come true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "top" people in both government and business are spoiled children.
They do seem to end up like that somehow.
But there aren't.
(eg. John McCain {before and after presidential election, but not really during}, Russ Feingold, Herb Kohl, etc).
From Bill Gates to GW Bush, they had everything handed to them, and when things got tough, their parents bailed them out.Now hold on.
Don't put Bill Gates up with GW Bush.
Although Gates was born to a well-off family, his success is didn't have anything to do with his parents bailing him out.In the socio-economic stratosphere of the US, it has never been about merit.
It's always been about money, and now we can see what that has bred.Give me one country where this isn't true, and I'll show you a poor coutnry.We hear a lot about the sense of entitlement among the baby boomers, but it's almost always in the context of Medicare and welfare for the relatively poor.
Now we see what this sense of entitlement does on the grand scale.
It's ridiculous when GM assembly line workers expect health care in perpetuity.First off, Medicare's going to be insolvent in a few decades.
Second, if these people don't have medical insurance, that just puts more burden on Medicare and other state health institutions since they'll be the ones footing the bill for all those ER visits.
The other option is to deny these people health care if they can't pay.
And if/when that happens, we'll have finally become our own worst enemy.The financial wizards of Wall St. have, almost literally, destroyed trillions of dollar in wealth over the last year.
None of them think they did anything wrong, and any who are taken to task for this colossal screw up will cry about how unjust it is.
When will people realize that handing the reigns of power to spoiled brats, who have no concept of the consequences of failure, is a stupid idea?
Doesn't look like they've learned it this time.
Maybe in 10 more years when the next economic crisis is screws everyone but the people who caused it.Sort of.
Wealth can't really be destroyed (unless you get a stack of bills and burn them) but is shifted instead.
You know, it'd be fun to see the ending of Fight Club come true.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29953516</id>
	<title>Re:atlas yawned</title>
	<author>FiloEleven</author>
	<datestamp>1257193200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's not neglect to look at why the senate started going downhill: in 1913, with the passage of the 17th Amendment providing for the election of senators by popular election instead of selection by each state's legislature.</p><p>The intent of the Senate was to represent the interests of each state, while the House represented the people.  (House representation is also skewed, with each Congressman representing 21 times the populace intended.)  The logic behind this is sound: the state does not always share the same interests of the people living in it, and since the US is a federation of sovereign states (hah!) there should be a place for state interests in the federal government.  Election of senators by the state legislature ensures that the people are being represented, though twice removed, and lets senators make unpopular but necessary decisions in order to keep the states functioning.</p><p>Now, there's no way to say what kind of shape we'd be in without direct election of senators, but I bet that it would look pretty different from how it looks today.  Senators wouldn't need tons of capital to plaster their ads all over the airwaves, since they would in essence be marketing themselves to much smaller groups of people, and I like to think that state legislatures are less sensational and more concerned with results than their federal counterparts, so they would make more informed decisions.</p><p>But that wouldn't be Democracy, would it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's not neglect to look at why the senate started going downhill : in 1913 , with the passage of the 17th Amendment providing for the election of senators by popular election instead of selection by each state 's legislature.The intent of the Senate was to represent the interests of each state , while the House represented the people .
( House representation is also skewed , with each Congressman representing 21 times the populace intended .
) The logic behind this is sound : the state does not always share the same interests of the people living in it , and since the US is a federation of sovereign states ( hah !
) there should be a place for state interests in the federal government .
Election of senators by the state legislature ensures that the people are being represented , though twice removed , and lets senators make unpopular but necessary decisions in order to keep the states functioning.Now , there 's no way to say what kind of shape we 'd be in without direct election of senators , but I bet that it would look pretty different from how it looks today .
Senators would n't need tons of capital to plaster their ads all over the airwaves , since they would in essence be marketing themselves to much smaller groups of people , and I like to think that state legislatures are less sensational and more concerned with results than their federal counterparts , so they would make more informed decisions.But that would n't be Democracy , would it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's not neglect to look at why the senate started going downhill: in 1913, with the passage of the 17th Amendment providing for the election of senators by popular election instead of selection by each state's legislature.The intent of the Senate was to represent the interests of each state, while the House represented the people.
(House representation is also skewed, with each Congressman representing 21 times the populace intended.
)  The logic behind this is sound: the state does not always share the same interests of the people living in it, and since the US is a federation of sovereign states (hah!
) there should be a place for state interests in the federal government.
Election of senators by the state legislature ensures that the people are being represented, though twice removed, and lets senators make unpopular but necessary decisions in order to keep the states functioning.Now, there's no way to say what kind of shape we'd be in without direct election of senators, but I bet that it would look pretty different from how it looks today.
Senators wouldn't need tons of capital to plaster their ads all over the airwaves, since they would in essence be marketing themselves to much smaller groups of people, and I like to think that state legislatures are less sensational and more concerned with results than their federal counterparts, so they would make more informed decisions.But that wouldn't be Democracy, would it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29976464</id>
	<title>Re:Fundamentally Broken System AGREED 110\%... apk</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256994600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://hubpages.com/hub/Astonishing\_Interview\_with\_Aaron\_Russo\_who\_met\_with\_Nick\_Rockefeller" title="hubpages.com" rel="nofollow">http://hubpages.com/hub/Astonishing\_Interview\_with\_Aaron\_Russo\_who\_met\_with\_Nick\_Rockefeller</a> [hubpages.com]</p><p>Read that and you all decide.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //hubpages.com/hub/Astonishing \ _Interview \ _with \ _Aaron \ _Russo \ _who \ _met \ _with \ _Nick \ _Rockefeller [ hubpages.com ] Read that and you all decide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://hubpages.com/hub/Astonishing\_Interview\_with\_Aaron\_Russo\_who\_met\_with\_Nick\_Rockefeller [hubpages.com]Read that and you all decide.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29946074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29946976</id>
	<title>i'm uncomfortable with this idea</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1257093060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>#1. we're all psychopathic to some degree or another</p><p>#2. it excuses criminals. rather than start with idea of a human who has erred, you start with the idea there's something special about someone that has made them a criminal. no: good people go bad, and bad people go good, and whatever someone's flaws, you talk about their criminal acts, not this supposed otherworldly quality about them that means they are forever more this cartoonish stereotype of behavior. it also ignore st eh fact that YOU can commit these crimes, which you can, under the right conditions. you put your guard down</p><p>#3. it perpetuates this stupid idea of a magical "other", some sort of special class of people who can have superhuman powers of turning off their empathy and lording over us. its an "us" versus "them" situation, and its the same old retarded thinking from throughout history. it also makes you think you can't succeed, because only a psychopath can truly run a business</p><p>this is the truth: you can do any of the crimes you see snakes in suits do. snakes in suits are as flawed as you and me. there's nothing special about them, except the crimes they've committed, which they should be prosecuted on that basis and that basis alone. not this quasi-cartoonish idea of a "psychopath"</p><p>the word has become a massively overused mental shorthand for "bogeyman" and does not retain its narrow psychological definition. therefore, it as useless as any other overused synonym people use for bogeyman, like "socialist" or "terrorist"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext># 1. we 're all psychopathic to some degree or another # 2 .
it excuses criminals .
rather than start with idea of a human who has erred , you start with the idea there 's something special about someone that has made them a criminal .
no : good people go bad , and bad people go good , and whatever someone 's flaws , you talk about their criminal acts , not this supposed otherworldly quality about them that means they are forever more this cartoonish stereotype of behavior .
it also ignore st eh fact that YOU can commit these crimes , which you can , under the right conditions .
you put your guard down # 3 .
it perpetuates this stupid idea of a magical " other " , some sort of special class of people who can have superhuman powers of turning off their empathy and lording over us .
its an " us " versus " them " situation , and its the same old retarded thinking from throughout history .
it also makes you think you ca n't succeed , because only a psychopath can truly run a businessthis is the truth : you can do any of the crimes you see snakes in suits do .
snakes in suits are as flawed as you and me .
there 's nothing special about them , except the crimes they 've committed , which they should be prosecuted on that basis and that basis alone .
not this quasi-cartoonish idea of a " psychopath " the word has become a massively overused mental shorthand for " bogeyman " and does not retain its narrow psychological definition .
therefore , it as useless as any other overused synonym people use for bogeyman , like " socialist " or " terrorist "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>#1. we're all psychopathic to some degree or another#2.
it excuses criminals.
rather than start with idea of a human who has erred, you start with the idea there's something special about someone that has made them a criminal.
no: good people go bad, and bad people go good, and whatever someone's flaws, you talk about their criminal acts, not this supposed otherworldly quality about them that means they are forever more this cartoonish stereotype of behavior.
it also ignore st eh fact that YOU can commit these crimes, which you can, under the right conditions.
you put your guard down#3.
it perpetuates this stupid idea of a magical "other", some sort of special class of people who can have superhuman powers of turning off their empathy and lording over us.
its an "us" versus "them" situation, and its the same old retarded thinking from throughout history.
it also makes you think you can't succeed, because only a psychopath can truly run a businessthis is the truth: you can do any of the crimes you see snakes in suits do.
snakes in suits are as flawed as you and me.
there's nothing special about them, except the crimes they've committed, which they should be prosecuted on that basis and that basis alone.
not this quasi-cartoonish idea of a "psychopath"the word has become a massively overused mental shorthand for "bogeyman" and does not retain its narrow psychological definition.
therefore, it as useless as any other overused synonym people use for bogeyman, like "socialist" or "terrorist"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943992</id>
	<title>They were careless people...</title>
	<author>Guppy</author>
	<datestamp>1257068280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"They were careless people, Tom and Daisy -- they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made."</i><br>
&nbsp; -The Great Gatsby, by F. Scott Fitzgerald</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" They were careless people , Tom and Daisy -- they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together , and let other people clean up the mess they had made .
"   -The Great Gatsby , by F. Scott Fitzgerald</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"They were careless people, Tom and Daisy -- they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made.
"
  -The Great Gatsby, by F. Scott Fitzgerald</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944606</id>
	<title>Re:Why should we be surprised</title>
	<author>smoker2</author>
	<datestamp>1257072300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are all spoiled children. You only have to look at any topic on this site and read the inane, immature comments, backed up by schoolyard logic, and very little fact. If the govt. does something  wrong it's always the other sides fault, if energy gets expensive it's somebody elses fault, if the planet gets fucked it's somebody elses fault. I have yet to see anybody here admit the slightest guilt in any action your govt. takes whether it's at home or abroad.<br> <br>Whenever the govt. takes forward looking action you drag it down, if they don't take action you drag them down. You refuse to spend any money but expect everything done for you, you don't want immigration but you want ever cheaper services, you want high paying jobs but you also want home grown industry (who want to pay less and profit more). Then there is this messianic longing for the world "the founders" intended despite the fact that the world is a very different place from 200 years ago. Back then there was a whole continent to conquer and environmentalism was non-existent, you could kill all the animals and rape the land. But you've had to find out the hard way that you can't keep that up for ever. And you still haven't learned. Now when your resources get low you take from another country, and pretend you're liberating them. The funds you promise to spend to help their democracy rebuild end up in your own pockets, and then your bankers sell fraudulent stocks and get rewarded by the worlds taxpayers. You complain about not being able to get loans and start new companies, but if you really wanted to start a company you don't need a loan - fucking save the money yourself ! Oh, but then the risk would be all yours, we can't have that. Playground politics, playground economics, and playground foreign policy. Grow up.<br> <br>Back when the "founders" wrote their document, people actually got off their asses and did something to better their lives. You lot won't get off your ass to change the tv channel. You're the Peoples Front of Judea.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are all spoiled children .
You only have to look at any topic on this site and read the inane , immature comments , backed up by schoolyard logic , and very little fact .
If the govt .
does something wrong it 's always the other sides fault , if energy gets expensive it 's somebody elses fault , if the planet gets fucked it 's somebody elses fault .
I have yet to see anybody here admit the slightest guilt in any action your govt .
takes whether it 's at home or abroad .
Whenever the govt .
takes forward looking action you drag it down , if they do n't take action you drag them down .
You refuse to spend any money but expect everything done for you , you do n't want immigration but you want ever cheaper services , you want high paying jobs but you also want home grown industry ( who want to pay less and profit more ) .
Then there is this messianic longing for the world " the founders " intended despite the fact that the world is a very different place from 200 years ago .
Back then there was a whole continent to conquer and environmentalism was non-existent , you could kill all the animals and rape the land .
But you 've had to find out the hard way that you ca n't keep that up for ever .
And you still have n't learned .
Now when your resources get low you take from another country , and pretend you 're liberating them .
The funds you promise to spend to help their democracy rebuild end up in your own pockets , and then your bankers sell fraudulent stocks and get rewarded by the worlds taxpayers .
You complain about not being able to get loans and start new companies , but if you really wanted to start a company you do n't need a loan - fucking save the money yourself !
Oh , but then the risk would be all yours , we ca n't have that .
Playground politics , playground economics , and playground foreign policy .
Grow up .
Back when the " founders " wrote their document , people actually got off their asses and did something to better their lives .
You lot wo n't get off your ass to change the tv channel .
You 're the Peoples Front of Judea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are all spoiled children.
You only have to look at any topic on this site and read the inane, immature comments, backed up by schoolyard logic, and very little fact.
If the govt.
does something  wrong it's always the other sides fault, if energy gets expensive it's somebody elses fault, if the planet gets fucked it's somebody elses fault.
I have yet to see anybody here admit the slightest guilt in any action your govt.
takes whether it's at home or abroad.
Whenever the govt.
takes forward looking action you drag it down, if they don't take action you drag them down.
You refuse to spend any money but expect everything done for you, you don't want immigration but you want ever cheaper services, you want high paying jobs but you also want home grown industry (who want to pay less and profit more).
Then there is this messianic longing for the world "the founders" intended despite the fact that the world is a very different place from 200 years ago.
Back then there was a whole continent to conquer and environmentalism was non-existent, you could kill all the animals and rape the land.
But you've had to find out the hard way that you can't keep that up for ever.
And you still haven't learned.
Now when your resources get low you take from another country, and pretend you're liberating them.
The funds you promise to spend to help their democracy rebuild end up in your own pockets, and then your bankers sell fraudulent stocks and get rewarded by the worlds taxpayers.
You complain about not being able to get loans and start new companies, but if you really wanted to start a company you don't need a loan - fucking save the money yourself !
Oh, but then the risk would be all yours, we can't have that.
Playground politics, playground economics, and playground foreign policy.
Grow up.
Back when the "founders" wrote their document, people actually got off their asses and did something to better their lives.
You lot won't get off your ass to change the tv channel.
You're the Peoples Front of Judea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943178</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29950210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29942948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29946430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29952992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29946588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29950152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29942966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29946214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29953720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29952864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29942948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29947432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29951768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29948270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29951334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29942948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29958448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29946526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29942948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29947958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29947304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29942948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29947432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29949798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29947224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29946976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29948220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29946074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29976464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29946026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29945372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29946976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29961564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29953516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29946682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29949206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29942948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29945922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29950740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29949256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29942948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29951924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29947236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29952946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29948968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29946886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29942948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29960400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29946716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29949034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29949096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29948868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29959578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29954654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29942966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29953196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29946976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29948120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29952784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29945558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29942948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29947974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29950000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29942948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29948510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29945570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29949062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29959508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29975246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29945968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29949104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29942948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29945922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29954972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29942948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29948284
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29954256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29952284
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29942956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29942988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29949078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29953590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29945384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29942966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29942956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29942988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29945200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29945466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29959610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29945228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29949024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29942948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29947322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29942948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29945678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29948788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29948384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29949122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29942966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29945788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29945550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29942948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29949200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29959616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_1713258_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29951034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_1713258.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29953720
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_1713258.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943692
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_1713258.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29945550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29945200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29945570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29945558
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_1713258.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943294
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29949256
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944260
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943622
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29959508
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29945228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943810
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29945466
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29953516
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29949062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943520
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29953590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29952864
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_1713258.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29946886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29947236
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29952946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29950000
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_1713258.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29945788
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_1713258.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943380
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_1713258.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943702
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_1713258.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29946074
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29976464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943834
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943958
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944532
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943682
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_1713258.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29945372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944006
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29959610
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29946588
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29954654
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29959578
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29952784
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29948968
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29948868
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29954256
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29949122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29949096
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_1713258.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29958448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943856
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_1713258.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943084
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_1713258.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29947318
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_1713258.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29946716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29946976
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29948120
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29948220
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29961564
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_1713258.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943088
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_1713258.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29951334
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29946526
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_1713258.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29945384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29948384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29947224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29949104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29945968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29950210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944160
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_1713258.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944322
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_1713258.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29942966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29946214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29953196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944592
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_1713258.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29942948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943110
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944450
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29951924
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29947958
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29945922
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29950740
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29954972
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29946430
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29952992
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29948284
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29949200
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29960400
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29947432
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29951768
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29949798
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29947322
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29948510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943424
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29945678
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29947974
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_1713258.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29948270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29948788
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_1713258.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29946682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943714
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_1713258.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29951034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29949034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29946026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29959616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29950152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29949206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29975246
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_1713258.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29947304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29949024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29952284
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_1713258.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944040
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_1713258.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29943508
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_1713258.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29942956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29942988
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29949078
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_1713258.29944870
</commentlist>
</conversation>
