<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_02_132211</id>
	<title>Attorney General Says Wiretap Lawsuit Must Be Thrown Out</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1257170100000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Mr Pink Eyes writes with news about comments from US Attorney General Eric Holder, who said a San Francisco <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j9n5u8khGqNQT6DTlcKGV6ouKqfQD9BLULIG2">lawsuit over warrantless wiretapping should be thrown out</a>, since going forward would compromise "ongoing intelligence activities." From the AP report:
<i>"In making the argument, the Obama administration agreed with the Bush administration's position on the case but insists it came to the decision differently. A civil liberties group criticized the move Friday as a retreat from promises President Barack Obama made as a candidate. Holder's effort to stop the lawsuit marks the first time the administration has tried to invoke the state secrets privilege under a new policy it launched last month designed to make such a legal argument more difficult. ... Holder said US District Judge Vaughn Walker, who is handling the case, was given a classified description of why the case must be dismissed so that the court can 'conduct its own independent assessment of our claim.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mr Pink Eyes writes with news about comments from US Attorney General Eric Holder , who said a San Francisco lawsuit over warrantless wiretapping should be thrown out , since going forward would compromise " ongoing intelligence activities .
" From the AP report : " In making the argument , the Obama administration agreed with the Bush administration 's position on the case but insists it came to the decision differently .
A civil liberties group criticized the move Friday as a retreat from promises President Barack Obama made as a candidate .
Holder 's effort to stop the lawsuit marks the first time the administration has tried to invoke the state secrets privilege under a new policy it launched last month designed to make such a legal argument more difficult .
... Holder said US District Judge Vaughn Walker , who is handling the case , was given a classified description of why the case must be dismissed so that the court can 'conduct its own independent assessment of our claim .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mr Pink Eyes writes with news about comments from US Attorney General Eric Holder, who said a San Francisco lawsuit over warrantless wiretapping should be thrown out, since going forward would compromise "ongoing intelligence activities.
" From the AP report:
"In making the argument, the Obama administration agreed with the Bush administration's position on the case but insists it came to the decision differently.
A civil liberties group criticized the move Friday as a retreat from promises President Barack Obama made as a candidate.
Holder's effort to stop the lawsuit marks the first time the administration has tried to invoke the state secrets privilege under a new policy it launched last month designed to make such a legal argument more difficult.
... Holder said US District Judge Vaughn Walker, who is handling the case, was given a classified description of why the case must be dismissed so that the court can 'conduct its own independent assessment of our claim.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951422</id>
	<title>Change I can believe in</title>
	<author>tbgreve</author>
	<datestamp>1257183180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now that's change I can believe in. The kind that doesn't happen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now that 's change I can believe in .
The kind that does n't happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now that's change I can believe in.
The kind that doesn't happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950588</id>
	<title>Re:Knee-jerk</title>
	<author>numbski</author>
	<datestamp>1257179520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you!  Disclosure is happening - just in a way that proceeds with caution.  If they said outright that it had to be dismissed and didn't say why *at all*, I'd be bothered.  The judge is being told why.  He can still say that the case will proceed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you !
Disclosure is happening - just in a way that proceeds with caution .
If they said outright that it had to be dismissed and did n't say why * at all * , I 'd be bothered .
The judge is being told why .
He can still say that the case will proceed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you!
Disclosure is happening - just in a way that proceeds with caution.
If they said outright that it had to be dismissed and didn't say why *at all*, I'd be bothered.
The judge is being told why.
He can still say that the case will proceed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950260</id>
	<title>Re:Rabid issue people - anit gay and abortion</title>
	<author>ZOmegaZ</author>
	<datestamp>1257177600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm running an intensely rational campaign, so I very much hope you're wrong about that last part.  If you want to see this sort of campaign succeed, get in touch with me, and we'll see what we can do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm running an intensely rational campaign , so I very much hope you 're wrong about that last part .
If you want to see this sort of campaign succeed , get in touch with me , and we 'll see what we can do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm running an intensely rational campaign, so I very much hope you're wrong about that last part.
If you want to see this sort of campaign succeed, get in touch with me, and we'll see what we can do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950622</id>
	<title>Re:From www.BarackObama.com</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257179700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;Eliminate Warrantless Wiretaps.  Barack Obama opposed the Bush Administration's initial policy on warrantless wiretaps because it crossed the line between protecting our national security and eroding the civil liberties of American citizens.<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;</p><p>I just noticed that European citizens have no such protection.  The EU Charter of Rights has no requirement for the general government to obtain a warrant.  It can search cars, homes, or wiretap phones/computers at will.</p><p>Hmmmm.</p><p>Maybe Obama is just trying to make our Union look more like the European Union?  Part of his new goal to unite the world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; Eliminate Warrantless Wiretaps .
Barack Obama opposed the Bush Administration 's initial policy on warrantless wiretaps because it crossed the line between protecting our national security and eroding the civil liberties of American citizens. &gt; &gt; &gt; I just noticed that European citizens have no such protection .
The EU Charter of Rights has no requirement for the general government to obtain a warrant .
It can search cars , homes , or wiretap phones/computers at will.Hmmmm.Maybe Obama is just trying to make our Union look more like the European Union ?
Part of his new goal to unite the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;Eliminate Warrantless Wiretaps.
Barack Obama opposed the Bush Administration's initial policy on warrantless wiretaps because it crossed the line between protecting our national security and eroding the civil liberties of American citizens.&gt;&gt;&gt;I just noticed that European citizens have no such protection.
The EU Charter of Rights has no requirement for the general government to obtain a warrant.
It can search cars, homes, or wiretap phones/computers at will.Hmmmm.Maybe Obama is just trying to make our Union look more like the European Union?
Part of his new goal to unite the world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950840</id>
	<title>fear mongering works both ways</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1257180660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that is, many here have pointed out that fear mongering results in breaking laws and protections important to our society. this is correct</p><p>but i'd like to point out that fear mongering of another sort you see in comments here: that if someone in the government breaks our laws and protections out of fear, OMG WE LIVE IN A FASCIST AUTOCRACY, ITS ORWELL, THERES NO GOING BACK, etc., etc. zzz</p><p>obviously, wiretaps without warrants is a bad thing, and needs to be fought and corrected and reversed. but you have to recognize that all societies lie on a continuum of 100\% free to 100\% oppressed (never achieving 100\% either way, that's impossible), and we simply have moved 0.5\% towards the oppressed direction, and still come out by and large on the free side of things. in a way, a little backsliding after the trauma of 9/11 is to be expected. the backsliding is BAD and should be FOUGHT, but its almost a given from basic human pscyhology after a traumatic experience to function on fear and panic for a bit rather than being 100\% rock solid level headed. the need to calm down and get a hold of your scruples is the mode we are in now</p><p>in other words, being a free society is not a binary either/ or state, its a continuum of interconnecting complex concepts, and this loss of freedom with warrantless wiretaps is a small part of a much larger picture. we can and SHOULD reverse it, and be angry about it, but there's no need to get our panties in a bunch about the fallacy that we are on a slippery slope, an unstoppable slide into oppression. does anyone seriously believe that? we've moved a couple inches in the direction of oppression, not a full mile, and we can move a few inches back. and we can, and we should, and we will, move back with calm, rational level headed effort</p><p>there's no need to fear monger and panic from the side worried about our freedoms disappearing. is that the best tactic? that kind of reaction reflects poorly on you if you care about your freedoms, because you need to be level headed and stable about your commitment to your freedoms, not worked up into a tizzy. if you are so easily upset, that betrays a lack of faith, and a lack of strong belief in the strength of your freedoms and their staying power. i believe in our freedoms strongly, and that gives me a faith that will carry me through the hiccups without turning into a hysteric about how my freedoms are going to slide out of my grasp completely on a moments notice. no: our culture and our commitment to our values and freedoms is strong and deep, and will not be trifled with</p><p>so stop freaking out some of you. it reflects poorly on the strength of your convictions</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that is , many here have pointed out that fear mongering results in breaking laws and protections important to our society .
this is correctbut i 'd like to point out that fear mongering of another sort you see in comments here : that if someone in the government breaks our laws and protections out of fear , OMG WE LIVE IN A FASCIST AUTOCRACY , ITS ORWELL , THERES NO GOING BACK , etc. , etc .
zzzobviously , wiretaps without warrants is a bad thing , and needs to be fought and corrected and reversed .
but you have to recognize that all societies lie on a continuum of 100 \ % free to 100 \ % oppressed ( never achieving 100 \ % either way , that 's impossible ) , and we simply have moved 0.5 \ % towards the oppressed direction , and still come out by and large on the free side of things .
in a way , a little backsliding after the trauma of 9/11 is to be expected .
the backsliding is BAD and should be FOUGHT , but its almost a given from basic human pscyhology after a traumatic experience to function on fear and panic for a bit rather than being 100 \ % rock solid level headed .
the need to calm down and get a hold of your scruples is the mode we are in nowin other words , being a free society is not a binary either/ or state , its a continuum of interconnecting complex concepts , and this loss of freedom with warrantless wiretaps is a small part of a much larger picture .
we can and SHOULD reverse it , and be angry about it , but there 's no need to get our panties in a bunch about the fallacy that we are on a slippery slope , an unstoppable slide into oppression .
does anyone seriously believe that ?
we 've moved a couple inches in the direction of oppression , not a full mile , and we can move a few inches back .
and we can , and we should , and we will , move back with calm , rational level headed effortthere 's no need to fear monger and panic from the side worried about our freedoms disappearing .
is that the best tactic ?
that kind of reaction reflects poorly on you if you care about your freedoms , because you need to be level headed and stable about your commitment to your freedoms , not worked up into a tizzy .
if you are so easily upset , that betrays a lack of faith , and a lack of strong belief in the strength of your freedoms and their staying power .
i believe in our freedoms strongly , and that gives me a faith that will carry me through the hiccups without turning into a hysteric about how my freedoms are going to slide out of my grasp completely on a moments notice .
no : our culture and our commitment to our values and freedoms is strong and deep , and will not be trifled withso stop freaking out some of you .
it reflects poorly on the strength of your convictions</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that is, many here have pointed out that fear mongering results in breaking laws and protections important to our society.
this is correctbut i'd like to point out that fear mongering of another sort you see in comments here: that if someone in the government breaks our laws and protections out of fear, OMG WE LIVE IN A FASCIST AUTOCRACY, ITS ORWELL, THERES NO GOING BACK, etc., etc.
zzzobviously, wiretaps without warrants is a bad thing, and needs to be fought and corrected and reversed.
but you have to recognize that all societies lie on a continuum of 100\% free to 100\% oppressed (never achieving 100\% either way, that's impossible), and we simply have moved 0.5\% towards the oppressed direction, and still come out by and large on the free side of things.
in a way, a little backsliding after the trauma of 9/11 is to be expected.
the backsliding is BAD and should be FOUGHT, but its almost a given from basic human pscyhology after a traumatic experience to function on fear and panic for a bit rather than being 100\% rock solid level headed.
the need to calm down and get a hold of your scruples is the mode we are in nowin other words, being a free society is not a binary either/ or state, its a continuum of interconnecting complex concepts, and this loss of freedom with warrantless wiretaps is a small part of a much larger picture.
we can and SHOULD reverse it, and be angry about it, but there's no need to get our panties in a bunch about the fallacy that we are on a slippery slope, an unstoppable slide into oppression.
does anyone seriously believe that?
we've moved a couple inches in the direction of oppression, not a full mile, and we can move a few inches back.
and we can, and we should, and we will, move back with calm, rational level headed effortthere's no need to fear monger and panic from the side worried about our freedoms disappearing.
is that the best tactic?
that kind of reaction reflects poorly on you if you care about your freedoms, because you need to be level headed and stable about your commitment to your freedoms, not worked up into a tizzy.
if you are so easily upset, that betrays a lack of faith, and a lack of strong belief in the strength of your freedoms and their staying power.
i believe in our freedoms strongly, and that gives me a faith that will carry me through the hiccups without turning into a hysteric about how my freedoms are going to slide out of my grasp completely on a moments notice.
no: our culture and our commitment to our values and freedoms is strong and deep, and will not be trifled withso stop freaking out some of you.
it reflects poorly on the strength of your convictions</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949688</id>
	<title>meet the new boss</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257174300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>same as the old boss</htmltext>
<tokenext>same as the old boss</tokentext>
<sentencetext>same as the old boss</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29965326</id>
	<title>Re:Knee-jerk</title>
	<author>alexo</author>
	<datestamp>1257272100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>No man; no organization is above the law, or the will of the people, the ultimate source of all authority.</p></div></blockquote><p>The difference between theory and practice is much greater in practice than in theory.</p><p>Quite a number of people and organizations are, de facto, above the law; "the will of the people" has long been diluted to the point of insignificance and there is very little you can do to affect it (and nothing you <i>will</i> do will affect it).</p><p>Note: The above is not addressed to the parent poster but applies equally to whoever reads this comment, in any country.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No man ; no organization is above the law , or the will of the people , the ultimate source of all authority.The difference between theory and practice is much greater in practice than in theory.Quite a number of people and organizations are , de facto , above the law ; " the will of the people " has long been diluted to the point of insignificance and there is very little you can do to affect it ( and nothing you will do will affect it ) .Note : The above is not addressed to the parent poster but applies equally to whoever reads this comment , in any country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No man; no organization is above the law, or the will of the people, the ultimate source of all authority.The difference between theory and practice is much greater in practice than in theory.Quite a number of people and organizations are, de facto, above the law; "the will of the people" has long been diluted to the point of insignificance and there is very little you can do to affect it (and nothing you will do will affect it).Note: The above is not addressed to the parent poster but applies equally to whoever reads this comment, in any country.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29954388</id>
	<title>Re:Change? What change?</title>
	<author>sabt-pestnu</author>
	<datestamp>1257153600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>so why should he get rid of a nifty new super power?</p></div><p>I think he got gypped.  If I were asking for a new super power, it'd be the power of flight.  (And NOT X-Ray Vision.  Think about it.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>so why should he get rid of a nifty new super power ? I think he got gypped .
If I were asking for a new super power , it 'd be the power of flight .
( And NOT X-Ray Vision .
Think about it .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so why should he get rid of a nifty new super power?I think he got gypped.
If I were asking for a new super power, it'd be the power of flight.
(And NOT X-Ray Vision.
Think about it.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29952542</id>
	<title>Re:From www.BarackObama.com</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1257188580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Obama administration agreed with the Bush administration's position on the case but insists it came to the decision differently</p></div>
</blockquote><p>Look on the bright side: at least he understands modularity, where you can reimplement something while maintaining backwards-compatibility. Imagine all the governmentware he would have broken if he didn't re-implement the old interface!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama administration agreed with the Bush administration 's position on the case but insists it came to the decision differently Look on the bright side : at least he understands modularity , where you can reimplement something while maintaining backwards-compatibility .
Imagine all the governmentware he would have broken if he did n't re-implement the old interface !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama administration agreed with the Bush administration's position on the case but insists it came to the decision differently
Look on the bright side: at least he understands modularity, where you can reimplement something while maintaining backwards-compatibility.
Imagine all the governmentware he would have broken if he didn't re-implement the old interface!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950204</id>
	<title>Federal Rules of Procedure</title>
	<author>malx</author>
	<datestamp>1257177300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>Holder said US District Judge Vaughn Walker, who is handling the case, was given a classified description of why the case must be dismissed so that the court can 'conduct its own independent assessment of our claim.'"</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>Would any (real) lawyers on Slashdot care to comment on how the Federal Rules of Procedure regard ex parte communications between the respondent and the judge, held secret from the plaintiff?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Holder said US District Judge Vaughn Walker , who is handling the case , was given a classified description of why the case must be dismissed so that the court can 'conduct its own independent assessment of our claim .
' " Would any ( real ) lawyers on Slashdot care to comment on how the Federal Rules of Procedure regard ex parte communications between the respondent and the judge , held secret from the plaintiff ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Holder said US District Judge Vaughn Walker, who is handling the case, was given a classified description of why the case must be dismissed so that the court can 'conduct its own independent assessment of our claim.
'" Would any (real) lawyers on Slashdot care to comment on how the Federal Rules of Procedure regard ex parte communications between the respondent and the judge, held secret from the plaintiff?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949980</id>
	<title>Define hypocrisy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257175980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"In making the argument, the Obama administration agreed with the Bush administration's position on the case but insists it came to the decision differently."  Talk about some weak-foo.</p><p>We said that  was horrible and despicable, but we've since decided that it is ok, but we came to the decision differently than those previous horrible/despicable people who did it, so it is ok when we do it.</p><p>For those who may be unaware:<br>hypocrisy (h-pkr-s)<br>n. pl. hypocrisies<br>1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.<br>2. An act or instance of such falseness.</p><p>Either it is ok and you were wrong about Bush, or it is NOT ok and you are a lying hypocrit. Choose 1 please.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" In making the argument , the Obama administration agreed with the Bush administration 's position on the case but insists it came to the decision differently .
" Talk about some weak-foo.We said that was horrible and despicable , but we 've since decided that it is ok , but we came to the decision differently than those previous horrible/despicable people who did it , so it is ok when we do it.For those who may be unaware : hypocrisy ( h-pkr-s ) n. pl. hypocrisies1 .
The practice of professing beliefs , feelings , or virtues that one does not hold or possess ; falseness.2 .
An act or instance of such falseness.Either it is ok and you were wrong about Bush , or it is NOT ok and you are a lying hypocrit .
Choose 1 please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"In making the argument, the Obama administration agreed with the Bush administration's position on the case but insists it came to the decision differently.
"  Talk about some weak-foo.We said that  was horrible and despicable, but we've since decided that it is ok, but we came to the decision differently than those previous horrible/despicable people who did it, so it is ok when we do it.For those who may be unaware:hypocrisy (h-pkr-s)n. pl. hypocrisies1.
The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.2.
An act or instance of such falseness.Either it is ok and you were wrong about Bush, or it is NOT ok and you are a lying hypocrit.
Choose 1 please.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949762</id>
	<title>Knee-jerk</title>
	<author>crndg</author>
	<datestamp>1257174840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know the previous administration had an effect on us, but it appears to me that the current administration is actually handling this the right way. It may not be transparent to *us*, but matters of national security aren't supposed to be.

</p><p>They provided the judge with the specifics, and let him decide. If the Bush White House had done that, rather than declare themselves above the law, we wouldn't be so jaded about executive privilege today.

</p><p>This isn't as bad as it seems, and it's actually a huge step in the right direction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know the previous administration had an effect on us , but it appears to me that the current administration is actually handling this the right way .
It may not be transparent to * us * , but matters of national security are n't supposed to be .
They provided the judge with the specifics , and let him decide .
If the Bush White House had done that , rather than declare themselves above the law , we would n't be so jaded about executive privilege today .
This is n't as bad as it seems , and it 's actually a huge step in the right direction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know the previous administration had an effect on us, but it appears to me that the current administration is actually handling this the right way.
It may not be transparent to *us*, but matters of national security aren't supposed to be.
They provided the judge with the specifics, and let him decide.
If the Bush White House had done that, rather than declare themselves above the law, we wouldn't be so jaded about executive privilege today.
This isn't as bad as it seems, and it's actually a huge step in the right direction.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949994</id>
	<title>world peace</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257176100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>wire tapes ensure we keep world peace. they prevent the bad guys from plotting to do bad things over the phone. We know we are tapping the right people because we say so. How dare you give opponents of such peace keeping policies.<br>Now drink this Cool Aid</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>wire tapes ensure we keep world peace .
they prevent the bad guys from plotting to do bad things over the phone .
We know we are tapping the right people because we say so .
How dare you give opponents of such peace keeping policies.Now drink this Cool Aid</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wire tapes ensure we keep world peace.
they prevent the bad guys from plotting to do bad things over the phone.
We know we are tapping the right people because we say so.
How dare you give opponents of such peace keeping policies.Now drink this Cool Aid</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29952690</id>
	<title>Re:Figures</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1257189420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I can't imagine their techniques for those were all legal<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... If you've been watching the news, you'd know they have caught quite a few recently. I can't imagine their techniques for those were all legal. I don't agree with it, but I can sympathize with both Bush and Obama for why they did/are doing it.</p></div><p>You tell us how you sympathize either of them when you're the one, say, being waterboarded because your name sounded similar to the one some other guy suspected of being a terrorist named while being subjected to a similar procedure.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't imagine their techniques for those were all legal ... If you 've been watching the news , you 'd know they have caught quite a few recently .
I ca n't imagine their techniques for those were all legal .
I do n't agree with it , but I can sympathize with both Bush and Obama for why they did/are doing it.You tell us how you sympathize either of them when you 're the one , say , being waterboarded because your name sounded similar to the one some other guy suspected of being a terrorist named while being subjected to a similar procedure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't imagine their techniques for those were all legal ... If you've been watching the news, you'd know they have caught quite a few recently.
I can't imagine their techniques for those were all legal.
I don't agree with it, but I can sympathize with both Bush and Obama for why they did/are doing it.You tell us how you sympathize either of them when you're the one, say, being waterboarded because your name sounded similar to the one some other guy suspected of being a terrorist named while being subjected to a similar procedure.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949970</id>
	<title>Re:I am really dispointed.</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1257175980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;We need to respect our constitution, even if it makes our security agencies do a little more work.</p><p>We all need to learn their techniques.  The future war won't be fought with guns, but with computer spying and hacking.  We need to become like "augur" in Earth: Final Conflict.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; We need to respect our constitution , even if it makes our security agencies do a little more work.We all need to learn their techniques .
The future war wo n't be fought with guns , but with computer spying and hacking .
We need to become like " augur " in Earth : Final Conflict .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;We need to respect our constitution, even if it makes our security agencies do a little more work.We all need to learn their techniques.
The future war won't be fought with guns, but with computer spying and hacking.
We need to become like "augur" in Earth: Final Conflict.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950410</id>
	<title>Re:Rabid issue people - anit gay and abortion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257178680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Now, the other side..the people who actually think Socialism can work even though it has never before and big Government can solve our problems, have their own rabid beliefs.</i></p><p>Umm, just FYI, as a Canadian who is perfectly happy living in a nation that most Americans would consider virtually communist, I have to disagree rather strongly with this.  And I'm sure your average European would agree with me.</p><p>Socialism, hybridized with a liberal democracy and a free (but regulated) market *does* work, and works every single day all over the world.  Just because Americans can't seem to figure it out, doesn't mean the idea is flawed.  It just means the American system of government is so fundamentally fucked up it's hamstrung from the get-go.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , the other side..the people who actually think Socialism can work even though it has never before and big Government can solve our problems , have their own rabid beliefs.Umm , just FYI , as a Canadian who is perfectly happy living in a nation that most Americans would consider virtually communist , I have to disagree rather strongly with this .
And I 'm sure your average European would agree with me.Socialism , hybridized with a liberal democracy and a free ( but regulated ) market * does * work , and works every single day all over the world .
Just because Americans ca n't seem to figure it out , does n't mean the idea is flawed .
It just means the American system of government is so fundamentally fucked up it 's hamstrung from the get-go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, the other side..the people who actually think Socialism can work even though it has never before and big Government can solve our problems, have their own rabid beliefs.Umm, just FYI, as a Canadian who is perfectly happy living in a nation that most Americans would consider virtually communist, I have to disagree rather strongly with this.
And I'm sure your average European would agree with me.Socialism, hybridized with a liberal democracy and a free (but regulated) market *does* work, and works every single day all over the world.
Just because Americans can't seem to figure it out, doesn't mean the idea is flawed.
It just means the American system of government is so fundamentally fucked up it's hamstrung from the get-go.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950036</id>
	<title>Re:Change? What change?</title>
	<author>davmoo</author>
	<datestamp>1257176400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, Bush wasn't right.  He used the US Constitution as toilet paper, and Cheney was worse.</p><p>But anyone who thought Obama was going to revoke anything Bush had done was only kidding themselves.  Its always easier to just keep a bad power that your predecessor gained for the office...Obama figures the Bush administration already absorbed the damage and the heat, so why should he get rid of a nifty new super power?</p><p>Once we started down this slippery slope, there's no way to go back up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , Bush was n't right .
He used the US Constitution as toilet paper , and Cheney was worse.But anyone who thought Obama was going to revoke anything Bush had done was only kidding themselves .
Its always easier to just keep a bad power that your predecessor gained for the office...Obama figures the Bush administration already absorbed the damage and the heat , so why should he get rid of a nifty new super power ? Once we started down this slippery slope , there 's no way to go back up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, Bush wasn't right.
He used the US Constitution as toilet paper, and Cheney was worse.But anyone who thought Obama was going to revoke anything Bush had done was only kidding themselves.
Its always easier to just keep a bad power that your predecessor gained for the office...Obama figures the Bush administration already absorbed the damage and the heat, so why should he get rid of a nifty new super power?Once we started down this slippery slope, there's no way to go back up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29953916</id>
	<title>This is why Obama isn't prosecuting Bush</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257194760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Some say it will lead to an atmosphere of recrimination.  And that is true. <p>
-</p><p>
But it is also because each administration refuses to give up the illegality of its power.
</p><p>
Obama doesn't want to prosecute a previous administration for things he is about to do himself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some say it will lead to an atmosphere of recrimination .
And that is true .
- But it is also because each administration refuses to give up the illegality of its power .
Obama does n't want to prosecute a previous administration for things he is about to do himself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some say it will lead to an atmosphere of recrimination.
And that is true.
-
But it is also because each administration refuses to give up the illegality of its power.
Obama doesn't want to prosecute a previous administration for things he is about to do himself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950432</id>
	<title>Re:Rabid issue people - anit gay and abortion</title>
	<author>DaHat</author>
	<datestamp>1257178800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually the opposition to her comes more from her being pro-stimulus and pro-cardcheck and generally being more aligned with the Democrat party than it does from those who are "<i>rabid anti-abortionists and bigoted anti-gay people don't mind having their civil rights and freedoms taken away (except the guns!) as long as the "fags" and those "baby killers" are controlled</i>" as you put it... but no doubt her pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage stance didn't help her with the republicans.</p><p>So which is it? Is she really more of a Democrat who happens to anti-gun control... or more of a Republican who is pro-card check, pro-same sex marriage, pro-stimulus, and pro-abortion?</p><p>One is far easier to believe than the other personally... but mostly because I've known more of the latter than the prior over the years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually the opposition to her comes more from her being pro-stimulus and pro-cardcheck and generally being more aligned with the Democrat party than it does from those who are " rabid anti-abortionists and bigoted anti-gay people do n't mind having their civil rights and freedoms taken away ( except the guns !
) as long as the " fags " and those " baby killers " are controlled " as you put it... but no doubt her pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage stance did n't help her with the republicans.So which is it ?
Is she really more of a Democrat who happens to anti-gun control... or more of a Republican who is pro-card check , pro-same sex marriage , pro-stimulus , and pro-abortion ? One is far easier to believe than the other personally... but mostly because I 've known more of the latter than the prior over the years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually the opposition to her comes more from her being pro-stimulus and pro-cardcheck and generally being more aligned with the Democrat party than it does from those who are "rabid anti-abortionists and bigoted anti-gay people don't mind having their civil rights and freedoms taken away (except the guns!
) as long as the "fags" and those "baby killers" are controlled" as you put it... but no doubt her pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage stance didn't help her with the republicans.So which is it?
Is she really more of a Democrat who happens to anti-gun control... or more of a Republican who is pro-card check, pro-same sex marriage, pro-stimulus, and pro-abortion?One is far easier to believe than the other personally... but mostly because I've known more of the latter than the prior over the years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950110</id>
	<title>Figures</title>
	<author>mathimus1863</author>
	<datestamp>1257176760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I used to think Bush was a dick for doing all this warrantless wiretapping, but now that I see Obama doing it, I'm starting to see a different perspective.  They're both dicks, but I see now that despite losing popularity over it, it's worth it to them.  I'd much rather have all my supporters lose 5\% of their trust me in me for wiretapping, if I can avoid a major terrorist attack that would lose me 15\%.  It's not that clear cut, but no one can argue that terrorist attacks are good, and certainly Obama doesn't want one to happen on his watch.
<br> <br>
If you've been watching the news, you'd know they have caught quite a few recently.  I can't imagine their techniques for those were all legal.  I don't agree with it, but I can sympathize with both Bush and Obama for why they did/are doing it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to think Bush was a dick for doing all this warrantless wiretapping , but now that I see Obama doing it , I 'm starting to see a different perspective .
They 're both dicks , but I see now that despite losing popularity over it , it 's worth it to them .
I 'd much rather have all my supporters lose 5 \ % of their trust me in me for wiretapping , if I can avoid a major terrorist attack that would lose me 15 \ % .
It 's not that clear cut , but no one can argue that terrorist attacks are good , and certainly Obama does n't want one to happen on his watch .
If you 've been watching the news , you 'd know they have caught quite a few recently .
I ca n't imagine their techniques for those were all legal .
I do n't agree with it , but I can sympathize with both Bush and Obama for why they did/are doing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to think Bush was a dick for doing all this warrantless wiretapping, but now that I see Obama doing it, I'm starting to see a different perspective.
They're both dicks, but I see now that despite losing popularity over it, it's worth it to them.
I'd much rather have all my supporters lose 5\% of their trust me in me for wiretapping, if I can avoid a major terrorist attack that would lose me 15\%.
It's not that clear cut, but no one can argue that terrorist attacks are good, and certainly Obama doesn't want one to happen on his watch.
If you've been watching the news, you'd know they have caught quite a few recently.
I can't imagine their techniques for those were all legal.
I don't agree with it, but I can sympathize with both Bush and Obama for why they did/are doing it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951678</id>
	<title>Re:Rabid issue people - anit gay and abortion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257184320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Few governments out there work.  Many, including the US, from time to time come close.  But the biggest difference is that Americans have a very high standard in what they consider "working".  Additionally, Americans are a very diverse group that can never seem to agree on any subject so there is always some \_vocal\_ group that shows how the system is not working.  Characteristics that are rarely seen in the rest of the world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Few governments out there work .
Many , including the US , from time to time come close .
But the biggest difference is that Americans have a very high standard in what they consider " working " .
Additionally , Americans are a very diverse group that can never seem to agree on any subject so there is always some \ _vocal \ _ group that shows how the system is not working .
Characteristics that are rarely seen in the rest of the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Few governments out there work.
Many, including the US, from time to time come close.
But the biggest difference is that Americans have a very high standard in what they consider "working".
Additionally, Americans are a very diverse group that can never seem to agree on any subject so there is always some \_vocal\_ group that shows how the system is not working.
Characteristics that are rarely seen in the rest of the world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951168</id>
	<title>Re:It's official...</title>
	<author>Dishevel</author>
	<datestamp>1257182160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ballot: Money owns the Vote.
<p>Soap: No one is listening.</p><p>Jury: they are never even charged.</p><p>Again I say. Buy a Gun</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ballot : Money owns the Vote .
Soap : No one is listening.Jury : they are never even charged.Again I say .
Buy a Gun</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ballot: Money owns the Vote.
Soap: No one is listening.Jury: they are never even charged.Again I say.
Buy a Gun</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29952344</id>
	<title>Re:Rabid issue people - anit gay and abortion</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1257187560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Umm, just FYI, as a Canadian who is perfectly happy living in a nation that most Americans would consider virtually communist, I have to disagree rather strongly with this. And I'm sure your average European would agree with me.</i></p><p>Well that's the thing, most Americans can't and don't distinguish between communism and socialism, which is why when he said socialism has never worked before, I'm certain in his head he was thinking of the USSR and Eastern Europe during the Cold War.</p><p>I think it was during the 50s McCarthyism when Socialism somehow got equated to Communism.  So while Western Europe et. al. were implementing rational socialist policies while still resisting the Soviets, we had to reject all of these things as somehow being equal to what our enemy was doing... even though they aren't...</p><p>The funny thing is that since both McCarthyism and the Cold War are long gone, you'd sound pretty silly accusing someone of being a communist.  First because almost nobody really is, and second because it's considered a non-threat in this day and age, like accusing someone of being a British sympathizer it has no weight.  Socialism still retains it's swear-word status, and since it's still alive and well in the world, it still retains its weight as a threat and thus insult -- at least if you don't distinguish between it and communism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Umm , just FYI , as a Canadian who is perfectly happy living in a nation that most Americans would consider virtually communist , I have to disagree rather strongly with this .
And I 'm sure your average European would agree with me.Well that 's the thing , most Americans ca n't and do n't distinguish between communism and socialism , which is why when he said socialism has never worked before , I 'm certain in his head he was thinking of the USSR and Eastern Europe during the Cold War.I think it was during the 50s McCarthyism when Socialism somehow got equated to Communism .
So while Western Europe et .
al. were implementing rational socialist policies while still resisting the Soviets , we had to reject all of these things as somehow being equal to what our enemy was doing... even though they are n't...The funny thing is that since both McCarthyism and the Cold War are long gone , you 'd sound pretty silly accusing someone of being a communist .
First because almost nobody really is , and second because it 's considered a non-threat in this day and age , like accusing someone of being a British sympathizer it has no weight .
Socialism still retains it 's swear-word status , and since it 's still alive and well in the world , it still retains its weight as a threat and thus insult -- at least if you do n't distinguish between it and communism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Umm, just FYI, as a Canadian who is perfectly happy living in a nation that most Americans would consider virtually communist, I have to disagree rather strongly with this.
And I'm sure your average European would agree with me.Well that's the thing, most Americans can't and don't distinguish between communism and socialism, which is why when he said socialism has never worked before, I'm certain in his head he was thinking of the USSR and Eastern Europe during the Cold War.I think it was during the 50s McCarthyism when Socialism somehow got equated to Communism.
So while Western Europe et.
al. were implementing rational socialist policies while still resisting the Soviets, we had to reject all of these things as somehow being equal to what our enemy was doing... even though they aren't...The funny thing is that since both McCarthyism and the Cold War are long gone, you'd sound pretty silly accusing someone of being a communist.
First because almost nobody really is, and second because it's considered a non-threat in this day and age, like accusing someone of being a British sympathizer it has no weight.
Socialism still retains it's swear-word status, and since it's still alive and well in the world, it still retains its weight as a threat and thus insult -- at least if you don't distinguish between it and communism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950246</id>
	<title>Re:I am really dispointed.</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1257177540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Repeat after me:</p><p>No warrant; no search.<br>No warrant; no wiretaps.<br>No warrant; no entrance into private homes.</p><p>That may piss you pro-big-government tyrants off, but that's what the Supreme Law of the land says and it will continue to say that until you can convince people to amend the Constitution and strike-out that law.   <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLpSY8d3gRc" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLpSY8d3gRc</a> [youtube.com]  -  "ACLU, Flex Your Rights, and ACORN volunteers go door-to-door in Southeast DC educating residents about their 4th Amendment right to refuse warrantless police searches."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Repeat after me : No warrant ; no search.No warrant ; no wiretaps.No warrant ; no entrance into private homes.That may piss you pro-big-government tyrants off , but that 's what the Supreme Law of the land says and it will continue to say that until you can convince people to amend the Constitution and strike-out that law .
http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = GLpSY8d3gRc [ youtube.com ] - " ACLU , Flex Your Rights , and ACORN volunteers go door-to-door in Southeast DC educating residents about their 4th Amendment right to refuse warrantless police searches .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Repeat after me:No warrant; no search.No warrant; no wiretaps.No warrant; no entrance into private homes.That may piss you pro-big-government tyrants off, but that's what the Supreme Law of the land says and it will continue to say that until you can convince people to amend the Constitution and strike-out that law.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLpSY8d3gRc [youtube.com]  -  "ACLU, Flex Your Rights, and ACORN volunteers go door-to-door in Southeast DC educating residents about their 4th Amendment right to refuse warrantless police searches.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951130</id>
	<title>Re:I am really dispointed.</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1257182040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just playing devils advocate<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>So when theres a line that says, 'stand here to respect our constitution', and you see the people at the front of the line getting beheaded, are you going to get in it?  Based purely on your blanket statement?</p><p>Now before you tell us yes, realize that no one is actually going to believe that bullshit.</p><p>'These people' that we're 'fighting' believe THEY have the moral high ground and that we are scum of the Earth.  Nothing anyone does is going to change that.</p><p>Its easy to say 'Fuck the cowards' when you aren't in any threat yourself.  Its easy to say 'There are some things you don't do' when your life, or your families life isn't on the line.  <strong>Its easy to make blanket statements with no consideration for the situation.  Its also extremely ignorant</strong></p><p>I doubt there should be any warrentless wiretaps, and in principal I am against it, but I've come to many cross roads in my short little life where my principals and morals were highly conflicted, several choices I've made were 100\% moral from one perspective, and practically evil from another.  Sometimes in the end I got it right, sometimes I didn't and others were hurt.  Most of the time it falls somewhere in the middle and everyone got hurt.  Life simply isn't some fairytale perfect world where choices are easy and clear cut, especially in war, which is a prime example of moral confliction for most people that I know.</p><p>The world isn't as clear cut as you would like to pretend.  Get some perspective.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just playing devils advocate ... but ...So when theres a line that says , 'stand here to respect our constitution ' , and you see the people at the front of the line getting beheaded , are you going to get in it ?
Based purely on your blanket statement ? Now before you tell us yes , realize that no one is actually going to believe that bullshit .
'These people ' that we 're 'fighting ' believe THEY have the moral high ground and that we are scum of the Earth .
Nothing anyone does is going to change that.Its easy to say 'Fuck the cowards ' when you are n't in any threat yourself .
Its easy to say 'There are some things you do n't do ' when your life , or your families life is n't on the line .
Its easy to make blanket statements with no consideration for the situation .
Its also extremely ignorantI doubt there should be any warrentless wiretaps , and in principal I am against it , but I 've come to many cross roads in my short little life where my principals and morals were highly conflicted , several choices I 've made were 100 \ % moral from one perspective , and practically evil from another .
Sometimes in the end I got it right , sometimes I did n't and others were hurt .
Most of the time it falls somewhere in the middle and everyone got hurt .
Life simply is n't some fairytale perfect world where choices are easy and clear cut , especially in war , which is a prime example of moral confliction for most people that I know.The world is n't as clear cut as you would like to pretend .
Get some perspective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just playing devils advocate ... but ...So when theres a line that says, 'stand here to respect our constitution', and you see the people at the front of the line getting beheaded, are you going to get in it?
Based purely on your blanket statement?Now before you tell us yes, realize that no one is actually going to believe that bullshit.
'These people' that we're 'fighting' believe THEY have the moral high ground and that we are scum of the Earth.
Nothing anyone does is going to change that.Its easy to say 'Fuck the cowards' when you aren't in any threat yourself.
Its easy to say 'There are some things you don't do' when your life, or your families life isn't on the line.
Its easy to make blanket statements with no consideration for the situation.
Its also extremely ignorantI doubt there should be any warrentless wiretaps, and in principal I am against it, but I've come to many cross roads in my short little life where my principals and morals were highly conflicted, several choices I've made were 100\% moral from one perspective, and practically evil from another.
Sometimes in the end I got it right, sometimes I didn't and others were hurt.
Most of the time it falls somewhere in the middle and everyone got hurt.
Life simply isn't some fairytale perfect world where choices are easy and clear cut, especially in war, which is a prime example of moral confliction for most people that I know.The world isn't as clear cut as you would like to pretend.
Get some perspective.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949636</id>
	<title>From www.BarackObama.com</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1257173880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>From his own site (PDF) <a href="http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/CounterterrorismFactSheet.pdf" title="barackobama.com">a fact sheet (page 6 under "Restoring Our Values")</a> [barackobama.com]:<p><div class="quote"><p>Eliminate Warrantless Wiretaps. Barack Obama opposed the Bush
Administration&rsquo;s initial policy on warrantless wiretaps because it crossed the line
between protecting our national security and eroding the civil liberties of American
citizens. As president, Obama would update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
to provide greater oversight and accountability to the congressional intelligence
committees to prevent future threats to the rule of law.</p></div><p>Also, I thought he was <a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/obama-picks-critic-of-warrantless-wiretapping-for-slot-at-justice-dept/" title="nytimes.com">assembling a cabinet critical of warrantless wiretapping</a> [nytimes.com]?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From his own site ( PDF ) a fact sheet ( page 6 under " Restoring Our Values " ) [ barackobama.com ] : Eliminate Warrantless Wiretaps .
Barack Obama opposed the Bush Administration    s initial policy on warrantless wiretaps because it crossed the line between protecting our national security and eroding the civil liberties of American citizens .
As president , Obama would update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to provide greater oversight and accountability to the congressional intelligence committees to prevent future threats to the rule of law.Also , I thought he was assembling a cabinet critical of warrantless wiretapping [ nytimes.com ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From his own site (PDF) a fact sheet (page 6 under "Restoring Our Values") [barackobama.com]:Eliminate Warrantless Wiretaps.
Barack Obama opposed the Bush
Administration’s initial policy on warrantless wiretaps because it crossed the line
between protecting our national security and eroding the civil liberties of American
citizens.
As president, Obama would update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
to provide greater oversight and accountability to the congressional intelligence
committees to prevent future threats to the rule of law.Also, I thought he was assembling a cabinet critical of warrantless wiretapping [nytimes.com]?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29953520</id>
	<title>Re:From www.BarackObama.com</title>
	<author>operagost</author>
	<datestamp>1257193200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Janeane Garofalo says you are both racist, straight up.  FYI.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Janeane Garofalo says you are both racist , straight up .
FYI .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Janeane Garofalo says you are both racist, straight up.
FYI.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949868</id>
	<title>Rabid issue people - anit gay and abortion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257175320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Sometimes, I don't even know why we the people even bother voting these days.</i> <p>There's a Republican in upstate New York who's probably going to lose because she's not "conservative" enough. She's pro-gun - good thing in my government conservative book because it's a Constitutional (Second Amendment) issue and the other things have no business being regulated by the Government. But the rabid anti-abortionists and bigoted anti-gay people don't mind having their civil rights and freedoms taken away (except the guns!) as long as the "fags" and those "baby killers" are controlled. Oh, and they're also the ones who think invading a country for oil is defending our country. What I mean is that politicians have to pander to those people to get elected and those people are ones who are controlling that side of the government.</p><p>Now, the other side..the people who actually think Socialism can work even though it has never before and big Government can solve our problems, have their own rabid beliefs. </p><p>There's no room for moderates or rational people in American Politics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes , I do n't even know why we the people even bother voting these days .
There 's a Republican in upstate New York who 's probably going to lose because she 's not " conservative " enough .
She 's pro-gun - good thing in my government conservative book because it 's a Constitutional ( Second Amendment ) issue and the other things have no business being regulated by the Government .
But the rabid anti-abortionists and bigoted anti-gay people do n't mind having their civil rights and freedoms taken away ( except the guns !
) as long as the " fags " and those " baby killers " are controlled .
Oh , and they 're also the ones who think invading a country for oil is defending our country .
What I mean is that politicians have to pander to those people to get elected and those people are ones who are controlling that side of the government.Now , the other side..the people who actually think Socialism can work even though it has never before and big Government can solve our problems , have their own rabid beliefs .
There 's no room for moderates or rational people in American Politics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes, I don't even know why we the people even bother voting these days.
There's a Republican in upstate New York who's probably going to lose because she's not "conservative" enough.
She's pro-gun - good thing in my government conservative book because it's a Constitutional (Second Amendment) issue and the other things have no business being regulated by the Government.
But the rabid anti-abortionists and bigoted anti-gay people don't mind having their civil rights and freedoms taken away (except the guns!
) as long as the "fags" and those "baby killers" are controlled.
Oh, and they're also the ones who think invading a country for oil is defending our country.
What I mean is that politicians have to pander to those people to get elected and those people are ones who are controlling that side of the government.Now, the other side..the people who actually think Socialism can work even though it has never before and big Government can solve our problems, have their own rabid beliefs.
There's no room for moderates or rational people in American Politics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949686</id>
	<title>Justice must be seen to be done...</title>
	<author>Bazar</author>
	<datestamp>1257174300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...so i ask, where is the justice?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...so i ask , where is the justice ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...so i ask, where is the justice?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949662</id>
	<title>So let me get this straight..</title>
	<author>skgrey</author>
	<datestamp>1257174120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let me get this straight - the case is against warrant-less wiretapping, and since the case would expose on-going warrant-less wiretapping investigations, it should be thrown out? That's about the worst circular argument I've ever heard.
<br> <br>
Why don't they just say it - they're going to do what they want, and it doesn't matter what anyone outside the "secret" circle thinks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me get this straight - the case is against warrant-less wiretapping , and since the case would expose on-going warrant-less wiretapping investigations , it should be thrown out ?
That 's about the worst circular argument I 've ever heard .
Why do n't they just say it - they 're going to do what they want , and it does n't matter what anyone outside the " secret " circle thinks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me get this straight - the case is against warrant-less wiretapping, and since the case would expose on-going warrant-less wiretapping investigations, it should be thrown out?
That's about the worst circular argument I've ever heard.
Why don't they just say it - they're going to do what they want, and it doesn't matter what anyone outside the "secret" circle thinks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950896</id>
	<title>Re:From www.BarackObama.com</title>
	<author>dubbreak</author>
	<datestamp>1257180900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Meet the new Boss. Same as the old Boss.</p></div><p>New haircut, new suit.<br> <br>The new boss, while same as the old, has changed his appearance. He appears to be "with it" and up on all the current fad politics. Universal health care? Sure we'll hang that carrot in front of you. Change is the big thing? We'll chant that for you at the top of our lungs. Change change change change!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... <br> <br>Whatever it takes to get you into the polling booth, so we can get into office and do the same thing as always...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Meet the new Boss .
Same as the old Boss.New haircut , new suit .
The new boss , while same as the old , has changed his appearance .
He appears to be " with it " and up on all the current fad politics .
Universal health care ?
Sure we 'll hang that carrot in front of you .
Change is the big thing ?
We 'll chant that for you at the top of our lungs .
Change change change change !
... Whatever it takes to get you into the polling booth , so we can get into office and do the same thing as always.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meet the new Boss.
Same as the old Boss.New haircut, new suit.
The new boss, while same as the old, has changed his appearance.
He appears to be "with it" and up on all the current fad politics.
Universal health care?
Sure we'll hang that carrot in front of you.
Change is the big thing?
We'll chant that for you at the top of our lungs.
Change change change change!
...  Whatever it takes to get you into the polling booth, so we can get into office and do the same thing as always...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29952236</id>
	<title>Re:What the Constitution says</title>
	<author>anwaya</author>
	<datestamp>1257187020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So, might I request that we all make it clear what our personal opinions are, but don't claim support of the Constitution if it doesn't actually say anything clear on the issue?</p></div></blockquote><p>

You may request it - and I for one won't agree to your request. If we can't say what our rights are, and insist that only qualified professionals should be able to talk about them; if we have no sense that we can speak of that our rights have been violated, we will end up with none at all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , might I request that we all make it clear what our personal opinions are , but do n't claim support of the Constitution if it does n't actually say anything clear on the issue ?
You may request it - and I for one wo n't agree to your request .
If we ca n't say what our rights are , and insist that only qualified professionals should be able to talk about them ; if we have no sense that we can speak of that our rights have been violated , we will end up with none at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, might I request that we all make it clear what our personal opinions are, but don't claim support of the Constitution if it doesn't actually say anything clear on the issue?
You may request it - and I for one won't agree to your request.
If we can't say what our rights are, and insist that only qualified professionals should be able to talk about them; if we have no sense that we can speak of that our rights have been violated, we will end up with none at all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29952016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29952016</id>
	<title>What the Constitution says</title>
	<author>Simetrical</author>
	<datestamp>1257185880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, I know this post probably won't get modded up too high, given Slashdot libertarian groupthink, but: the Constitution doesn't say warrantless wiretapping is illegal.  Let's take a look at the text of the Fourth Amendment:</p><blockquote><div><p>The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.</p></div></blockquote><p>This only says that searches must be "reasonable".  It does not say "no search whatsoever can occur without a warrant".  It mentions warrants, but doesn't say when exactly they're required.  So, it's as legitimate an opinion as any to say that the government should have to get warrants for all domestic wiretapping, sure.  But the <em>Constitution</em> doesn't say that.

</p><p>Court precedent (based partly on the Constitution) might say that warrantless wiretapping is illegal, of course.  Or it might not.  There's no decision on the matter that hasn't been overruled, so it's an open question.  I imagine, however, that most of the people calling warrantless wiretapping illegal and, e.g., advocating (+4 Insightful) assassination of the attorney general, are not lawyers and aren't really qualified to have an opinion on what the legal precedent implies.

</p><p>So, might I request that we all make it clear what our <em>personal</em> opinions are, but don't claim support of the Constitution if it doesn't actually say anything clear on the issue?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , I know this post probably wo n't get modded up too high , given Slashdot libertarian groupthink , but : the Constitution does n't say warrantless wiretapping is illegal .
Let 's take a look at the text of the Fourth Amendment : The right of the people to be secure in their persons , houses , papers , and effects , against unreasonable searches and seizures , shall not be violated , and no Warrants shall issue , but upon probable cause , supported by Oath or affirmation , and particularly describing the place to be searched , and the persons or things to be seized.This only says that searches must be " reasonable " .
It does not say " no search whatsoever can occur without a warrant " .
It mentions warrants , but does n't say when exactly they 're required .
So , it 's as legitimate an opinion as any to say that the government should have to get warrants for all domestic wiretapping , sure .
But the Constitution does n't say that .
Court precedent ( based partly on the Constitution ) might say that warrantless wiretapping is illegal , of course .
Or it might not .
There 's no decision on the matter that has n't been overruled , so it 's an open question .
I imagine , however , that most of the people calling warrantless wiretapping illegal and , e.g. , advocating ( + 4 Insightful ) assassination of the attorney general , are not lawyers and are n't really qualified to have an opinion on what the legal precedent implies .
So , might I request that we all make it clear what our personal opinions are , but do n't claim support of the Constitution if it does n't actually say anything clear on the issue ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, I know this post probably won't get modded up too high, given Slashdot libertarian groupthink, but: the Constitution doesn't say warrantless wiretapping is illegal.
Let's take a look at the text of the Fourth Amendment:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.This only says that searches must be "reasonable".
It does not say "no search whatsoever can occur without a warrant".
It mentions warrants, but doesn't say when exactly they're required.
So, it's as legitimate an opinion as any to say that the government should have to get warrants for all domestic wiretapping, sure.
But the Constitution doesn't say that.
Court precedent (based partly on the Constitution) might say that warrantless wiretapping is illegal, of course.
Or it might not.
There's no decision on the matter that hasn't been overruled, so it's an open question.
I imagine, however, that most of the people calling warrantless wiretapping illegal and, e.g., advocating (+4 Insightful) assassination of the attorney general, are not lawyers and aren't really qualified to have an opinion on what the legal precedent implies.
So, might I request that we all make it clear what our personal opinions are, but don't claim support of the Constitution if it doesn't actually say anything clear on the issue?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951036</id>
	<title>Re:It's official...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1257181440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It probably won't win</p></div><p>And that attitude is exactly the reason why.</p><p>Yes you perfectly understood me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It probably wo n't winAnd that attitude is exactly the reason why.Yes you perfectly understood me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It probably won't winAnd that attitude is exactly the reason why.Yes you perfectly understood me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29952006</id>
	<title>Re:I am really dispointed.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257185820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you look hard enough, you'll discover that governments only expand in power and revenue throughout their lifetimes, never reduce.</p></div><p>I can think of only two counterexamples to this, and both, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinatus" title="wikipedia.org">Cincinnatus</a> [wikipedia.org] and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George\_Washington" title="wikipedia.org">George Washington</a> [wikipedia.org], are singular leaders relinquishing massive powers after the end of a massive conflict.  <br> <br>This hearkens back to the adage that the best rulers are those who reluctantly accept the ruler's staff... <br> <br>... so where do we find more of those?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you look hard enough , you 'll discover that governments only expand in power and revenue throughout their lifetimes , never reduce.I can think of only two counterexamples to this , and both , Cincinnatus [ wikipedia.org ] and George Washington [ wikipedia.org ] , are singular leaders relinquishing massive powers after the end of a massive conflict .
This hearkens back to the adage that the best rulers are those who reluctantly accept the ruler 's staff... ... so where do we find more of those ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you look hard enough, you'll discover that governments only expand in power and revenue throughout their lifetimes, never reduce.I can think of only two counterexamples to this, and both, Cincinnatus [wikipedia.org] and George Washington [wikipedia.org], are singular leaders relinquishing massive powers after the end of a massive conflict.
This hearkens back to the adage that the best rulers are those who reluctantly accept the ruler's staff...  ... so where do we find more of those?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29954278</id>
	<title>Re:Rabid issue people - anit gay and abortion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257153180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't understand why you put "baby killers" in quotes since that's what abortion does or didn't you know.  It isn't just "tissue" or "undifferentiated cells" if it has a heart beat any more than you are a lump of tissue now.</p><p>If you're for abortion, don't pussy out and try to act it's something other than it is: endihalting developing human life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand why you put " baby killers " in quotes since that 's what abortion does or did n't you know .
It is n't just " tissue " or " undifferentiated cells " if it has a heart beat any more than you are a lump of tissue now.If you 're for abortion , do n't pussy out and try to act it 's something other than it is : endihalting developing human life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand why you put "baby killers" in quotes since that's what abortion does or didn't you know.
It isn't just "tissue" or "undifferentiated cells" if it has a heart beat any more than you are a lump of tissue now.If you're for abortion, don't pussy out and try to act it's something other than it is: endihalting developing human life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29952202</id>
	<title>Re:I am really dispointed.</title>
	<author>rwv</author>
	<datestamp>1257186840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The point is that this stuff is wrong even if it does make people safer.</p> </div><p>From <a href="http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/singlehtml.htm" title="ushistory.org" rel="nofollow">Common Sense</a> [ushistory.org] by Tom Paine:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Here then is the origin and rise of government; namely, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world; here too is the design and end of government, viz. Freedom and security.</p></div><p>Thus, you have a good point.  Putting security before freedom in the form of a warrant-less wiretap is Anti-American.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The point is that this stuff is wrong even if it does make people safer .
From Common Sense [ ushistory.org ] by Tom Paine : Here then is the origin and rise of government ; namely , a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world ; here too is the design and end of government , viz .
Freedom and security.Thus , you have a good point .
Putting security before freedom in the form of a warrant-less wiretap is Anti-American .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point is that this stuff is wrong even if it does make people safer.
From Common Sense [ushistory.org] by Tom Paine:Here then is the origin and rise of government; namely, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world; here too is the design and end of government, viz.
Freedom and security.Thus, you have a good point.
Putting security before freedom in the form of a warrant-less wiretap is Anti-American.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951012</id>
	<title>Re:It's official...</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1257181320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Voting for the pirate party is a waste.  Not because 'its a waste of a vote since they wont win', the only wasted vote in that sense is one that isn't cast.</p><p>Voting for the pirate party is a waste because contrary to your rebellious beliefs, the entire concept would be far more damaging than any perceived or realized benefit from doing so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Voting for the pirate party is a waste .
Not because 'its a waste of a vote since they wont win ' , the only wasted vote in that sense is one that is n't cast.Voting for the pirate party is a waste because contrary to your rebellious beliefs , the entire concept would be far more damaging than any perceived or realized benefit from doing so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Voting for the pirate party is a waste.
Not because 'its a waste of a vote since they wont win', the only wasted vote in that sense is one that isn't cast.Voting for the pirate party is a waste because contrary to your rebellious beliefs, the entire concept would be far more damaging than any perceived or realized benefit from doing so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950468</id>
	<title>Let's fix this...</title>
	<author>moxley</author>
	<datestamp>1257178920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about:</p><p>"Attorney General Says Wiretap LAW Must Be Thrown Out."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...Of course,  I still believe in the America I learned about in civics class....I must just be old fashioned...at 37.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about : " Attorney General Says Wiretap LAW Must Be Thrown Out .
" ...Of course , I still believe in the America I learned about in civics class....I must just be old fashioned...at 37 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about:"Attorney General Says Wiretap LAW Must Be Thrown Out.
" ...Of course,  I still believe in the America I learned about in civics class....I must just be old fashioned...at 37.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29952292</id>
	<title>Re:From www.BarackObama.com</title>
	<author>hrimhari</author>
	<datestamp>1257187320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since I can't mod, I'll just say it: thank you sir for your sober analysis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since I ca n't mod , I 'll just say it : thank you sir for your sober analysis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since I can't mod, I'll just say it: thank you sir for your sober analysis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29959164</id>
	<title>Re:Don't blame me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257177360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I voted Barr, liking more of what he had to say than what I heard from Obama (and FISA was a big part of that).  Although at the time it seemed reasonable, looking back his views that civil marriage for gay people should be entirely a state affair to me seems wholly wrong.</p><p>Besides the (important) point that the federal and state governments provide benefits to married couples, allowing some partnerships to call themselves "married" while keeping that right from others not only promotes discrimination, but interferes with those churches that would like to pronounce marriage (and, of course, have it have the same meaning for all couples) for gay couples, making the government intrude on religious organizations!</p><p>m!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I voted Barr , liking more of what he had to say than what I heard from Obama ( and FISA was a big part of that ) .
Although at the time it seemed reasonable , looking back his views that civil marriage for gay people should be entirely a state affair to me seems wholly wrong.Besides the ( important ) point that the federal and state governments provide benefits to married couples , allowing some partnerships to call themselves " married " while keeping that right from others not only promotes discrimination , but interferes with those churches that would like to pronounce marriage ( and , of course , have it have the same meaning for all couples ) for gay couples , making the government intrude on religious organizations ! m !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I voted Barr, liking more of what he had to say than what I heard from Obama (and FISA was a big part of that).
Although at the time it seemed reasonable, looking back his views that civil marriage for gay people should be entirely a state affair to me seems wholly wrong.Besides the (important) point that the federal and state governments provide benefits to married couples, allowing some partnerships to call themselves "married" while keeping that right from others not only promotes discrimination, but interferes with those churches that would like to pronounce marriage (and, of course, have it have the same meaning for all couples) for gay couples, making the government intrude on religious organizations!m!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951242</id>
	<title>Re:So let me get this straight..</title>
	<author>demachina</author>
	<datestamp>1257182400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The NSA is building huge new data centers in Utah and Texas.  If <a href="http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/11/01/nsa-datacenters-to-store-yottabytes-of-surveillance-data/" title="techcrunch.com">TechCrunch</a> [techcrunch.com] is to be believed they will store a "yottabyte" which is 1,000,000,000,000,000GB of data from communication intercepts.  You kind of figure that only thing that would require this much storage is they are probably going to record pretty much everything going through every fiber optic cable they can tap, plus all the radio communications they can eavesdrop on with satellites.  That would probably be all phone calls, all email, all IM, probably every URL ever computer is accessing.</p><p>This will be extremely convenient since:</p><p>A) you can data mine it and find all kinds of interesting things, terrorist threats, political dissidents, politicians doing illegal or immoral things which you can use to blackmail them later to make them vote the way you want them to vote.  This may have already been done to Jane Harmon who was caught in a <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/21/harman.wiretap/index.html" title="cnn.com">warrentless wire tap</a> [cnn.com] doing something illegal, influence peddling, with Israeli lobbyists.  This might have been used by the Bush administration to force her to back some of their activities since she is on the House Intelligence committee which oversees.... communications surveillance (at least is supposed to if the White House bothers to tell them what they are doing which they didn't when they started this NSA program originally).</p><p>B) even if a person isn't of interest now, if they become of interest later, you can hop in the way back machine and see everything they've said and done</p><p>It would obviously be problematic for the NSA to do this if there were any warrants required at all.  Needless to say the Obama administration is just continuing pervasive spying on everyone and everything started under Bush and this court case, were it to succeed, would be inconvenient since it would almost certainly establish this program is unconstitutional and therefor illegal.  Obama is just another in a long line of politicians dedicated to constantly expanding their power and the power of the Federal government.  At this point the Federal government is an out of control snow ball rolling going down hill turning in to an avalanche.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The NSA is building huge new data centers in Utah and Texas .
If TechCrunch [ techcrunch.com ] is to be believed they will store a " yottabyte " which is 1,000,000,000,000,000GB of data from communication intercepts .
You kind of figure that only thing that would require this much storage is they are probably going to record pretty much everything going through every fiber optic cable they can tap , plus all the radio communications they can eavesdrop on with satellites .
That would probably be all phone calls , all email , all IM , probably every URL ever computer is accessing.This will be extremely convenient since : A ) you can data mine it and find all kinds of interesting things , terrorist threats , political dissidents , politicians doing illegal or immoral things which you can use to blackmail them later to make them vote the way you want them to vote .
This may have already been done to Jane Harmon who was caught in a warrentless wire tap [ cnn.com ] doing something illegal , influence peddling , with Israeli lobbyists .
This might have been used by the Bush administration to force her to back some of their activities since she is on the House Intelligence committee which oversees.... communications surveillance ( at least is supposed to if the White House bothers to tell them what they are doing which they did n't when they started this NSA program originally ) .B ) even if a person is n't of interest now , if they become of interest later , you can hop in the way back machine and see everything they 've said and doneIt would obviously be problematic for the NSA to do this if there were any warrants required at all .
Needless to say the Obama administration is just continuing pervasive spying on everyone and everything started under Bush and this court case , were it to succeed , would be inconvenient since it would almost certainly establish this program is unconstitutional and therefor illegal .
Obama is just another in a long line of politicians dedicated to constantly expanding their power and the power of the Federal government .
At this point the Federal government is an out of control snow ball rolling going down hill turning in to an avalanche .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The NSA is building huge new data centers in Utah and Texas.
If TechCrunch [techcrunch.com] is to be believed they will store a "yottabyte" which is 1,000,000,000,000,000GB of data from communication intercepts.
You kind of figure that only thing that would require this much storage is they are probably going to record pretty much everything going through every fiber optic cable they can tap, plus all the radio communications they can eavesdrop on with satellites.
That would probably be all phone calls, all email, all IM, probably every URL ever computer is accessing.This will be extremely convenient since:A) you can data mine it and find all kinds of interesting things, terrorist threats, political dissidents, politicians doing illegal or immoral things which you can use to blackmail them later to make them vote the way you want them to vote.
This may have already been done to Jane Harmon who was caught in a warrentless wire tap [cnn.com] doing something illegal, influence peddling, with Israeli lobbyists.
This might have been used by the Bush administration to force her to back some of their activities since she is on the House Intelligence committee which oversees.... communications surveillance (at least is supposed to if the White House bothers to tell them what they are doing which they didn't when they started this NSA program originally).B) even if a person isn't of interest now, if they become of interest later, you can hop in the way back machine and see everything they've said and doneIt would obviously be problematic for the NSA to do this if there were any warrants required at all.
Needless to say the Obama administration is just continuing pervasive spying on everyone and everything started under Bush and this court case, were it to succeed, would be inconvenient since it would almost certainly establish this program is unconstitutional and therefor illegal.
Obama is just another in a long line of politicians dedicated to constantly expanding their power and the power of the Federal government.
At this point the Federal government is an out of control snow ball rolling going down hill turning in to an avalanche.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949670</id>
	<title>Change you can believe in!</title>
	<author>R2.0</author>
	<datestamp>1257174180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe the only thing that has changed is the people and the rhetoric.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe the only thing that has changed is the people and the rhetoric .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe the only thing that has changed is the people and the rhetoric.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949816</id>
	<title>Re:It's official...</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1257175080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...we no longer have a democracy.</p></div><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">You're right there.</a> [wikipedia.org] <br> <br>Remember: Ballot, Soap, Jury, Ammo.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...we no longer have a democracy .
You 're right there .
[ wikipedia.org ] Remember : Ballot , Soap , Jury , Ammo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...we no longer have a democracy.
You're right there.
[wikipedia.org]  Remember: Ballot, Soap, Jury, Ammo.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950234</id>
	<title>Re:Change? What change?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257177420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, I think that when it comes to wiretapping, the war in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay that George Bush was very wrong. It's unfortunate that Obama is perpetuating the problem with regards to wiretapping and dragging his feet on Guantanamo Bay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , I think that when it comes to wiretapping , the war in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay that George Bush was very wrong .
It 's unfortunate that Obama is perpetuating the problem with regards to wiretapping and dragging his feet on Guantanamo Bay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, I think that when it comes to wiretapping, the war in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay that George Bush was very wrong.
It's unfortunate that Obama is perpetuating the problem with regards to wiretapping and dragging his feet on Guantanamo Bay.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950280</id>
	<title>Re:Rabid issue people - anit gay and abortion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257177720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the candidate that was run by the republican party was far out of step with the republicans in the district.  I think the best evidence of that is that she endorsed the DEMOCRAT once she dropped out of the race.  The rejection of the appointed left of center republican by the voters of the district seems perfectly rational to me.</p><p>Maybe it is you who is lacking rationality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the candidate that was run by the republican party was far out of step with the republicans in the district .
I think the best evidence of that is that she endorsed the DEMOCRAT once she dropped out of the race .
The rejection of the appointed left of center republican by the voters of the district seems perfectly rational to me.Maybe it is you who is lacking rationality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the candidate that was run by the republican party was far out of step with the republicans in the district.
I think the best evidence of that is that she endorsed the DEMOCRAT once she dropped out of the race.
The rejection of the appointed left of center republican by the voters of the district seems perfectly rational to me.Maybe it is you who is lacking rationality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949852</id>
	<title>Re:So let me get this straight..</title>
	<author>Almost-Retired</author>
	<datestamp>1257175260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The more things change, the more the same they are.  You expected any different once he had taken the oath?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The more things change , the more the same they are .
You expected any different once he had taken the oath ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The more things change, the more the same they are.
You expected any different once he had taken the oath?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949988</id>
	<title>Re:I am really dispointed.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257176040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Power is so hard to give up.</i></p><p>Of course they won't give it up: power itself is the end goal, not a means to an end as the career politician endlessly preaches. Once they achieve it, that job is done. The next concern is the next acquisition of power, not how to lose the previous one.</p><p>If you look hard enough, you'll discover that governments only expand in power and revenue throughout their lifetimes, never reduce. There's a reason why no government in history has ever significantly, permanently, and willingly <i>reduced</i> their level of power or revenue: because power and revenue are the ends, not the means, and the people in the business of government work for themseleves, not you and me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Power is so hard to give up.Of course they wo n't give it up : power itself is the end goal , not a means to an end as the career politician endlessly preaches .
Once they achieve it , that job is done .
The next concern is the next acquisition of power , not how to lose the previous one.If you look hard enough , you 'll discover that governments only expand in power and revenue throughout their lifetimes , never reduce .
There 's a reason why no government in history has ever significantly , permanently , and willingly reduced their level of power or revenue : because power and revenue are the ends , not the means , and the people in the business of government work for themseleves , not you and me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Power is so hard to give up.Of course they won't give it up: power itself is the end goal, not a means to an end as the career politician endlessly preaches.
Once they achieve it, that job is done.
The next concern is the next acquisition of power, not how to lose the previous one.If you look hard enough, you'll discover that governments only expand in power and revenue throughout their lifetimes, never reduce.
There's a reason why no government in history has ever significantly, permanently, and willingly reduced their level of power or revenue: because power and revenue are the ends, not the means, and the people in the business of government work for themseleves, not you and me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950384</id>
	<title>Re:Knee-jerk</title>
	<author>crndg</author>
	<datestamp>1257178500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can imagine cases where making information on the warrantless wire taps available could compromise ongoing law enforcement or terrorism efforts. It could clue the bad guys into what the good guys are looking for, or even that they good guys suspect certain bad guys of being bad guys.

</p><p>At the same time, I also agree that there is no need for warrantless wire taps. So I'm not justifying the new administration, or giving them a pass. Just remarking that things are getting better. Maybe if the Obama-ites have to justify themselves to a judge a few more times, they'll get the idea that they should have just gone to the judge in the first place to get a flippin' warrant. So keep the lawsuits coming!

</p><p>As for the guy who said he pays for our spies, so he deserves to know exactly what they're doing, I hope he wasn't serious. If that's all it takes, then any Al Qaida operative in the U.S. just needs to pay his/her taxes to have free access to all our military secrets. Easy cheesy!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can imagine cases where making information on the warrantless wire taps available could compromise ongoing law enforcement or terrorism efforts .
It could clue the bad guys into what the good guys are looking for , or even that they good guys suspect certain bad guys of being bad guys .
At the same time , I also agree that there is no need for warrantless wire taps .
So I 'm not justifying the new administration , or giving them a pass .
Just remarking that things are getting better .
Maybe if the Obama-ites have to justify themselves to a judge a few more times , they 'll get the idea that they should have just gone to the judge in the first place to get a flippin ' warrant .
So keep the lawsuits coming !
As for the guy who said he pays for our spies , so he deserves to know exactly what they 're doing , I hope he was n't serious .
If that 's all it takes , then any Al Qaida operative in the U.S. just needs to pay his/her taxes to have free access to all our military secrets .
Easy cheesy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can imagine cases where making information on the warrantless wire taps available could compromise ongoing law enforcement or terrorism efforts.
It could clue the bad guys into what the good guys are looking for, or even that they good guys suspect certain bad guys of being bad guys.
At the same time, I also agree that there is no need for warrantless wire taps.
So I'm not justifying the new administration, or giving them a pass.
Just remarking that things are getting better.
Maybe if the Obama-ites have to justify themselves to a judge a few more times, they'll get the idea that they should have just gone to the judge in the first place to get a flippin' warrant.
So keep the lawsuits coming!
As for the guy who said he pays for our spies, so he deserves to know exactly what they're doing, I hope he wasn't serious.
If that's all it takes, then any Al Qaida operative in the U.S. just needs to pay his/her taxes to have free access to all our military secrets.
Easy cheesy!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951932</id>
	<title>Re:I am really dispointed.</title>
	<author>RazorSharp</author>
	<datestamp>1257185460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to agree, and it saddens me because when Obama was initially elected I was very optimistic. It seems as if he's not who we thought he was, he's not a man with ideals more powerful than the system. He allows himself to be swayed by these idiot bureaucrats, probably the ones who run the NSA, CIA, and FBI. It's sad that he can't see through their fear-mongering, I'm sure they told him he'd be responsible for the next 9/11 or whatever if he didn't allow this shit to go on. But this completely contradicts his campaign promises to not be swayed by fear. Some people just don't understand that the ideals of the constitution, which is a contractual agreement between the government and the public, are more important than protecting us from every potential danger. This country was founded on the principle that liberty trumped life, that anyone without liberty should be willing risk their life to obtain it. We've turned into a nation of cowards, lead by cowards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to agree , and it saddens me because when Obama was initially elected I was very optimistic .
It seems as if he 's not who we thought he was , he 's not a man with ideals more powerful than the system .
He allows himself to be swayed by these idiot bureaucrats , probably the ones who run the NSA , CIA , and FBI .
It 's sad that he ca n't see through their fear-mongering , I 'm sure they told him he 'd be responsible for the next 9/11 or whatever if he did n't allow this shit to go on .
But this completely contradicts his campaign promises to not be swayed by fear .
Some people just do n't understand that the ideals of the constitution , which is a contractual agreement between the government and the public , are more important than protecting us from every potential danger .
This country was founded on the principle that liberty trumped life , that anyone without liberty should be willing risk their life to obtain it .
We 've turned into a nation of cowards , lead by cowards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to agree, and it saddens me because when Obama was initially elected I was very optimistic.
It seems as if he's not who we thought he was, he's not a man with ideals more powerful than the system.
He allows himself to be swayed by these idiot bureaucrats, probably the ones who run the NSA, CIA, and FBI.
It's sad that he can't see through their fear-mongering, I'm sure they told him he'd be responsible for the next 9/11 or whatever if he didn't allow this shit to go on.
But this completely contradicts his campaign promises to not be swayed by fear.
Some people just don't understand that the ideals of the constitution, which is a contractual agreement between the government and the public, are more important than protecting us from every potential danger.
This country was founded on the principle that liberty trumped life, that anyone without liberty should be willing risk their life to obtain it.
We've turned into a nation of cowards, lead by cowards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949964</id>
	<title>A point about surveillance</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257175980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no political ideology or form of government that is not, on the face of it, well served by surveillance. Consequently, everyone will do it if they can. Anyone who sees surveillance as evil but a group of politicians as good should note this, because you will be sorely disappointed when your good people do evil. This applies in Europe as much as in the US.</p><p>I'd love to see examples of a significant withdrawal of surveillance anywhere in history that did not result from a revolution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no political ideology or form of government that is not , on the face of it , well served by surveillance .
Consequently , everyone will do it if they can .
Anyone who sees surveillance as evil but a group of politicians as good should note this , because you will be sorely disappointed when your good people do evil .
This applies in Europe as much as in the US.I 'd love to see examples of a significant withdrawal of surveillance anywhere in history that did not result from a revolution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no political ideology or form of government that is not, on the face of it, well served by surveillance.
Consequently, everyone will do it if they can.
Anyone who sees surveillance as evil but a group of politicians as good should note this, because you will be sorely disappointed when your good people do evil.
This applies in Europe as much as in the US.I'd love to see examples of a significant withdrawal of surveillance anywhere in history that did not result from a revolution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29952898</id>
	<title>Re:Change? What change?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257190380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can we just agree not to give "Emergency Bullshit" powers to anyone?  Ever?</p><p>When is the last time you saw someone with "Emergency" powers:<br>a - not exercise them to the extent of the 'law'<br>b - use them solely for 'good' purposes<br>c - declare the 'emergency' over / give the power back</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we just agree not to give " Emergency Bullshit " powers to anyone ?
Ever ? When is the last time you saw someone with " Emergency " powers : a - not exercise them to the extent of the 'law'b - use them solely for 'good ' purposesc - declare the 'emergency ' over / give the power back</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we just agree not to give "Emergency Bullshit" powers to anyone?
Ever?When is the last time you saw someone with "Emergency" powers:a - not exercise them to the extent of the 'law'b - use them solely for 'good' purposesc - declare the 'emergency' over / give the power back</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951372</id>
	<title>Re:Change? What change?</title>
	<author>dkf</author>
	<datestamp>1257182880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Once we started down this slippery slope, there's no way to go back up.</p></div><p>There's the Second Amendment, and I say this as someone who would probably count as a liberal...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once we started down this slippery slope , there 's no way to go back up.There 's the Second Amendment , and I say this as someone who would probably count as a liberal.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once we started down this slippery slope, there's no way to go back up.There's the Second Amendment, and I say this as someone who would probably count as a liberal...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951700</id>
	<title>Re:I am really dispointed.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257184380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So when theres a line that says, 'stand here to respect our constitution', and you see the people at the front of the line getting beheaded, are you going to get in it? Based purely on your blanket statement?</p></div><p>Depends.  Does it also say that after X number of heads are lopped off, constitutional protections will be given their full effect for the next 100 years?  If so, I guarantee there will be people willing to give their own lives in order to protect the freedom of generations to come, assuming there's a reason to believe the promise.

</p><p>I prefer to pose the question more concretely, though:  Are you willing to accept another 9/11-scale terrorist attack, killing thousands of people and doing billions in property damage, <i>every year</i> if that's what's required to retain our basic freedoms?  Are you willing to accept that it may be you or members of your family who are killed in those attacks?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So when theres a line that says , 'stand here to respect our constitution ' , and you see the people at the front of the line getting beheaded , are you going to get in it ?
Based purely on your blanket statement ? Depends .
Does it also say that after X number of heads are lopped off , constitutional protections will be given their full effect for the next 100 years ?
If so , I guarantee there will be people willing to give their own lives in order to protect the freedom of generations to come , assuming there 's a reason to believe the promise .
I prefer to pose the question more concretely , though : Are you willing to accept another 9/11-scale terrorist attack , killing thousands of people and doing billions in property damage , every year if that 's what 's required to retain our basic freedoms ?
Are you willing to accept that it may be you or members of your family who are killed in those attacks ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So when theres a line that says, 'stand here to respect our constitution', and you see the people at the front of the line getting beheaded, are you going to get in it?
Based purely on your blanket statement?Depends.
Does it also say that after X number of heads are lopped off, constitutional protections will be given their full effect for the next 100 years?
If so, I guarantee there will be people willing to give their own lives in order to protect the freedom of generations to come, assuming there's a reason to believe the promise.
I prefer to pose the question more concretely, though:  Are you willing to accept another 9/11-scale terrorist attack, killing thousands of people and doing billions in property damage, every year if that's what's required to retain our basic freedoms?
Are you willing to accept that it may be you or members of your family who are killed in those attacks?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950574</id>
	<title>Re:Change? What change?</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1257179460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One thing to note about all this: The "Obamessiah" types actually are pretty livid about him doing this sort of thing. I wouldn't be surprised to see a candidacy from, say, Ralph Nader, if this sort of thing continues and the Republican candidate looks weak enough against Obama.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing to note about all this : The " Obamessiah " types actually are pretty livid about him doing this sort of thing .
I would n't be surprised to see a candidacy from , say , Ralph Nader , if this sort of thing continues and the Republican candidate looks weak enough against Obama .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing to note about all this: The "Obamessiah" types actually are pretty livid about him doing this sort of thing.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a candidacy from, say, Ralph Nader, if this sort of thing continues and the Republican candidate looks weak enough against Obama.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950504</id>
	<title>Re:Figures</title>
	<author>Watson Ladd</author>
	<datestamp>1257179160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But you can't avoid the attack. Do you seriously think that terrorists will use any communications medium that can be intercepted now that they know wiretaps exist? Do you seriously think they would need to have the fact that they themselves are being wiretapped known to avoid the wiretap? And if they are this dumb why do you think we should be afraid? The only people who can destroy the US Constitution are the Americans. And they are doing one good job of it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But you ca n't avoid the attack .
Do you seriously think that terrorists will use any communications medium that can be intercepted now that they know wiretaps exist ?
Do you seriously think they would need to have the fact that they themselves are being wiretapped known to avoid the wiretap ?
And if they are this dumb why do you think we should be afraid ?
The only people who can destroy the US Constitution are the Americans .
And they are doing one good job of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But you can't avoid the attack.
Do you seriously think that terrorists will use any communications medium that can be intercepted now that they know wiretaps exist?
Do you seriously think they would need to have the fact that they themselves are being wiretapped known to avoid the wiretap?
And if they are this dumb why do you think we should be afraid?
The only people who can destroy the US Constitution are the Americans.
And they are doing one good job of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951386</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1257183000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Actually both the Greens and Libertarians had ~500 members up for election in state and local offices.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually both the Greens and Libertarians had ~ 500 members up for election in state and local offices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually both the Greens and Libertarians had ~500 members up for election in state and local offices.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951474</id>
	<title>Re:Rabid issue people - anit gay and abortion</title>
	<author>Chris Mattern</author>
	<datestamp>1257183480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There's a Republican in upstate New York who's probably going to lose because she's not "conservative" enough.</p></div></blockquote><p>Actually, she's probably going to lose because withdrew from the race--and then endorsed the Democrat.  With candidates like these, who needs opponents?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a Republican in upstate New York who 's probably going to lose because she 's not " conservative " enough.Actually , she 's probably going to lose because withdrew from the race--and then endorsed the Democrat .
With candidates like these , who needs opponents ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a Republican in upstate New York who's probably going to lose because she's not "conservative" enough.Actually, she's probably going to lose because withdrew from the race--and then endorsed the Democrat.
With candidates like these, who needs opponents?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950466</id>
	<title>Re:I am really dispointed.</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1257178920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The quote "since going forward would compromise "ongoing intelligence activities." makes me think the Obama administration is still doing this.</i></p><p>Not necessarily.  For example, suppose the Bush administration was tracking the activities of terrorist group X, and doing so using warrantless wiretaps.  Obama takes over, cancels the wiretapping program, but continues to investigate terrorist group X using other means.  Well, now, if a trial about warrantless wiretapping goes forward, it's possible that sensitive information about the investigation of terrorist group X will be exposed, despite that being an "ongoing intelligence activity".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The quote " since going forward would compromise " ongoing intelligence activities .
" makes me think the Obama administration is still doing this.Not necessarily .
For example , suppose the Bush administration was tracking the activities of terrorist group X , and doing so using warrantless wiretaps .
Obama takes over , cancels the wiretapping program , but continues to investigate terrorist group X using other means .
Well , now , if a trial about warrantless wiretapping goes forward , it 's possible that sensitive information about the investigation of terrorist group X will be exposed , despite that being an " ongoing intelligence activity " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The quote "since going forward would compromise "ongoing intelligence activities.
" makes me think the Obama administration is still doing this.Not necessarily.
For example, suppose the Bush administration was tracking the activities of terrorist group X, and doing so using warrantless wiretaps.
Obama takes over, cancels the wiretapping program, but continues to investigate terrorist group X using other means.
Well, now, if a trial about warrantless wiretapping goes forward, it's possible that sensitive information about the investigation of terrorist group X will be exposed, despite that being an "ongoing intelligence activity".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951240</id>
	<title>Re:Rabid issue people - anit gay and abortion</title>
	<author>ArcherB</author>
	<datestamp>1257182400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There's a Republican in upstate New York who's probably going to lose because she's not "conservative" enough...</p></div><p>I think the problem is that she was not conservative at all.  To prove the point, she dropped out of the race and endorsed the Democrat that is running and losing by 14\% points according to the latest poll.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Now, the other side..the people who actually think Socialism can work even though it has never before and big Government can solve our problems, have their own rabid beliefs.</p></div><p>Many counties in Europe have done quite well with limited Socialism.  It's not the Socialism that's bad, it's the corruption and tyranny that almost always goes with it.  The problem is that for Socialism to work, you need a powerful central government.  And as we all know, power corrupts.</p><p>With that said, I'm a conservative because I prefer freedom and you can't have freedom without personal responsibility.  The more the government gives you, the more they control.  The more the government controls, the less YOU control, meaning you have less freedom.  The government can not take away your ability to fail without taking away your ability to succeed.  I mention this because in reading your post, it appears you have most conservatives all wrong.  We don't care what "fags" (your word) do in their own homes.  We just don't want them teaching elementary school kids about their lifestyle and how it's OK.  While I agree that it's OK, that's for ME to teach my kids.  As for gay marriage, I think the government should not recognize it.  However, I feel that the government should not recognize ANY marriage.  Why is the government in the business of marriage anyway?  Convert all marriages to civil unions and allow anyone to enter them.  If you want to get married, go ahead.  No one will care since the government will not recognize it (again, civil unions for everyone who wants the legal benefits that are currently granted to married couples).</p><p>As for the baby killers comment:  Part of government's responsibility is to protect its citizens.  The Constitution goes further and spells out protections for people residing within the US, citizen or not.  (This is why prisoners are at Guantanamo and not Leavenworth.)  Are unborn children citizens?  Are they people?  I don't know for sure and neither do you.  Should they receive Constitutional protection?  "Innocent until proven guilty", "right to face your accuser", and other provisions prove that the founders intended for the Constitution to err on the side of caution.  There are those of us that feel that children, born or not are just as much "people" as anyone else who is unable to care for themselves such as children, disabled, crippled or whoever needs constant care.  Even if you don't THINK that unborn children are people, are you 100\% positive?  Do you KNOW that they are not people?  Probably not.  So, if you knew that people who are unable to care for or make decisions for themselves were being taken to a clinic to be ripped limb from limb and thrown into the biowaste dumpster, wouldn't you stand up and say something?  That's how us redneck-conservatives see it.  It's a human rights issue.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a Republican in upstate New York who 's probably going to lose because she 's not " conservative " enough...I think the problem is that she was not conservative at all .
To prove the point , she dropped out of the race and endorsed the Democrat that is running and losing by 14 \ % points according to the latest poll.Now , the other side..the people who actually think Socialism can work even though it has never before and big Government can solve our problems , have their own rabid beliefs.Many counties in Europe have done quite well with limited Socialism .
It 's not the Socialism that 's bad , it 's the corruption and tyranny that almost always goes with it .
The problem is that for Socialism to work , you need a powerful central government .
And as we all know , power corrupts.With that said , I 'm a conservative because I prefer freedom and you ca n't have freedom without personal responsibility .
The more the government gives you , the more they control .
The more the government controls , the less YOU control , meaning you have less freedom .
The government can not take away your ability to fail without taking away your ability to succeed .
I mention this because in reading your post , it appears you have most conservatives all wrong .
We do n't care what " fags " ( your word ) do in their own homes .
We just do n't want them teaching elementary school kids about their lifestyle and how it 's OK. While I agree that it 's OK , that 's for ME to teach my kids .
As for gay marriage , I think the government should not recognize it .
However , I feel that the government should not recognize ANY marriage .
Why is the government in the business of marriage anyway ?
Convert all marriages to civil unions and allow anyone to enter them .
If you want to get married , go ahead .
No one will care since the government will not recognize it ( again , civil unions for everyone who wants the legal benefits that are currently granted to married couples ) .As for the baby killers comment : Part of government 's responsibility is to protect its citizens .
The Constitution goes further and spells out protections for people residing within the US , citizen or not .
( This is why prisoners are at Guantanamo and not Leavenworth .
) Are unborn children citizens ?
Are they people ?
I do n't know for sure and neither do you .
Should they receive Constitutional protection ?
" Innocent until proven guilty " , " right to face your accuser " , and other provisions prove that the founders intended for the Constitution to err on the side of caution .
There are those of us that feel that children , born or not are just as much " people " as anyone else who is unable to care for themselves such as children , disabled , crippled or whoever needs constant care .
Even if you do n't THINK that unborn children are people , are you 100 \ % positive ?
Do you KNOW that they are not people ?
Probably not .
So , if you knew that people who are unable to care for or make decisions for themselves were being taken to a clinic to be ripped limb from limb and thrown into the biowaste dumpster , would n't you stand up and say something ?
That 's how us redneck-conservatives see it .
It 's a human rights issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a Republican in upstate New York who's probably going to lose because she's not "conservative" enough...I think the problem is that she was not conservative at all.
To prove the point, she dropped out of the race and endorsed the Democrat that is running and losing by 14\% points according to the latest poll.Now, the other side..the people who actually think Socialism can work even though it has never before and big Government can solve our problems, have their own rabid beliefs.Many counties in Europe have done quite well with limited Socialism.
It's not the Socialism that's bad, it's the corruption and tyranny that almost always goes with it.
The problem is that for Socialism to work, you need a powerful central government.
And as we all know, power corrupts.With that said, I'm a conservative because I prefer freedom and you can't have freedom without personal responsibility.
The more the government gives you, the more they control.
The more the government controls, the less YOU control, meaning you have less freedom.
The government can not take away your ability to fail without taking away your ability to succeed.
I mention this because in reading your post, it appears you have most conservatives all wrong.
We don't care what "fags" (your word) do in their own homes.
We just don't want them teaching elementary school kids about their lifestyle and how it's OK.  While I agree that it's OK, that's for ME to teach my kids.
As for gay marriage, I think the government should not recognize it.
However, I feel that the government should not recognize ANY marriage.
Why is the government in the business of marriage anyway?
Convert all marriages to civil unions and allow anyone to enter them.
If you want to get married, go ahead.
No one will care since the government will not recognize it (again, civil unions for everyone who wants the legal benefits that are currently granted to married couples).As for the baby killers comment:  Part of government's responsibility is to protect its citizens.
The Constitution goes further and spells out protections for people residing within the US, citizen or not.
(This is why prisoners are at Guantanamo and not Leavenworth.
)  Are unborn children citizens?
Are they people?
I don't know for sure and neither do you.
Should they receive Constitutional protection?
"Innocent until proven guilty", "right to face your accuser", and other provisions prove that the founders intended for the Constitution to err on the side of caution.
There are those of us that feel that children, born or not are just as much "people" as anyone else who is unable to care for themselves such as children, disabled, crippled or whoever needs constant care.
Even if you don't THINK that unborn children are people, are you 100\% positive?
Do you KNOW that they are not people?
Probably not.
So, if you knew that people who are unable to care for or make decisions for themselves were being taken to a clinic to be ripped limb from limb and thrown into the biowaste dumpster, wouldn't you stand up and say something?
That's how us redneck-conservatives see it.
It's a human rights issue.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951900</id>
	<title>So in other words....</title>
	<author>Ferretman</author>
	<datestamp>1257185340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...the Obama administration is saying, "Bush was right".

Hmmmm.....</htmltext>
<tokenext>...the Obama administration is saying , " Bush was right " .
Hmmmm.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...the Obama administration is saying, "Bush was right".
Hmmmm.....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949632</id>
	<title>Remove the words from title:</title>
	<author>Shikaku</author>
	<datestamp>1257173880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>says wiretab lawsuit</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>says wiretab lawsuit</tokentext>
<sentencetext>says wiretab lawsuit</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949768</id>
	<title>Don't blame me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257174840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Vote Barr next time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Vote Barr next time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vote Barr next time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951230</id>
	<title>They have reasons beyond polls</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1257182340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I'd much rather have all my supporters lose 5\% of their trust me in me for wiretapping, if I can avoid a major terrorist attack that would lose me 15\%.</i></p><p>Or just maybe, both presidents wanted to save lives as badly as poll results...</p><p>I don't think it unreasonable to think that enters into the equation at all levels.  Remember the presidents are the one that have to go survey the aftermath and talk to the families... think about how horrible that would be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd much rather have all my supporters lose 5 \ % of their trust me in me for wiretapping , if I can avoid a major terrorist attack that would lose me 15 \ % .Or just maybe , both presidents wanted to save lives as badly as poll results...I do n't think it unreasonable to think that enters into the equation at all levels .
Remember the presidents are the one that have to go survey the aftermath and talk to the families... think about how horrible that would be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd much rather have all my supporters lose 5\% of their trust me in me for wiretapping, if I can avoid a major terrorist attack that would lose me 15\%.Or just maybe, both presidents wanted to save lives as badly as poll results...I don't think it unreasonable to think that enters into the equation at all levels.
Remember the presidents are the one that have to go survey the aftermath and talk to the families... think about how horrible that would be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29953538</id>
	<title>Re:I am really dispointed.</title>
	<author>BoberFett</author>
	<datestamp>1257193260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951062</id>
	<title>Re:Don't blame me</title>
	<author>machine321</author>
	<datestamp>1257181680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure I agree with Roseanne, either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure I agree with Roseanne , either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure I agree with Roseanne, either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949818</id>
	<title>Re:It's official...</title>
	<author>Aladrin</author>
	<datestamp>1257175080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, we don't have 'just scumbags' to pick from unless you only consider the candidates from the 2 biggest political parties.</p><p>I voted this past Presidential election and I didn't go Democrat or Republican.  Some will say that my vote meant nothing, but then, that's what you're already saying about ALL votes.</p><p>If you're serious about what you said, in the next election you will ignore the party affiliations and vote for the candidate most capable of getting this country back to being 'The Land of the Free'.  It's a heck of a lot smarter than not voting at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , we do n't have 'just scumbags ' to pick from unless you only consider the candidates from the 2 biggest political parties.I voted this past Presidential election and I did n't go Democrat or Republican .
Some will say that my vote meant nothing , but then , that 's what you 're already saying about ALL votes.If you 're serious about what you said , in the next election you will ignore the party affiliations and vote for the candidate most capable of getting this country back to being 'The Land of the Free' .
It 's a heck of a lot smarter than not voting at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, we don't have 'just scumbags' to pick from unless you only consider the candidates from the 2 biggest political parties.I voted this past Presidential election and I didn't go Democrat or Republican.
Some will say that my vote meant nothing, but then, that's what you're already saying about ALL votes.If you're serious about what you said, in the next election you will ignore the party affiliations and vote for the candidate most capable of getting this country back to being 'The Land of the Free'.
It's a heck of a lot smarter than not voting at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950186</id>
	<title>Re:Change? What change?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257177180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Two different presidents from two different parties handling things in the same wrong way doesn't make it right. Bush was wrong on wiretaps, and Obama is wrong on wiretaps. But at least we had a chance with Obama, unlike McCain</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Two different presidents from two different parties handling things in the same wrong way does n't make it right .
Bush was wrong on wiretaps , and Obama is wrong on wiretaps .
But at least we had a chance with Obama , unlike McCain</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two different presidents from two different parties handling things in the same wrong way doesn't make it right.
Bush was wrong on wiretaps, and Obama is wrong on wiretaps.
But at least we had a chance with Obama, unlike McCain</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29952614</id>
	<title>Re:Rabid issue people - anit gay and abortion</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1257188940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Umm, just FYI, as a Canadian who is perfectly happy living in a nation that most Americans would consider virtually communist, I have to disagree rather strongly with this. And I'm sure your average European would agree with me.</p><p>Socialism, hybridized with a liberal democracy and a free (but regulated) market *does* work</p></div><p>As a Russian who has "USSR" as place of birth in his passport, and now living in Canada, I have to note that Canada isn't anywhere near "virtually communist", and it isn't particularly socialist either. Socialism is when all production is <em>directly</em> controlled and owned by the state, and free enterprise in any form is forbidden. High taxes != socialism; and not that Canadian taxes are all that high, in fact.</p><p>Canada (and most European states) is a welfare state. It's still capitalist through and through, and you have full freedom to go and earn as much money for yourself as you can and want to do; it's just that part of that money (and not a bigger part) goes towards a safety net for the rest of the citizens. Calling that "socialist" is highly misleading (and I know that you probably used that word because many Americans use it that way, so it's really directed more towards them).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Umm , just FYI , as a Canadian who is perfectly happy living in a nation that most Americans would consider virtually communist , I have to disagree rather strongly with this .
And I 'm sure your average European would agree with me.Socialism , hybridized with a liberal democracy and a free ( but regulated ) market * does * workAs a Russian who has " USSR " as place of birth in his passport , and now living in Canada , I have to note that Canada is n't anywhere near " virtually communist " , and it is n't particularly socialist either .
Socialism is when all production is directly controlled and owned by the state , and free enterprise in any form is forbidden .
High taxes ! = socialism ; and not that Canadian taxes are all that high , in fact.Canada ( and most European states ) is a welfare state .
It 's still capitalist through and through , and you have full freedom to go and earn as much money for yourself as you can and want to do ; it 's just that part of that money ( and not a bigger part ) goes towards a safety net for the rest of the citizens .
Calling that " socialist " is highly misleading ( and I know that you probably used that word because many Americans use it that way , so it 's really directed more towards them ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Umm, just FYI, as a Canadian who is perfectly happy living in a nation that most Americans would consider virtually communist, I have to disagree rather strongly with this.
And I'm sure your average European would agree with me.Socialism, hybridized with a liberal democracy and a free (but regulated) market *does* workAs a Russian who has "USSR" as place of birth in his passport, and now living in Canada, I have to note that Canada isn't anywhere near "virtually communist", and it isn't particularly socialist either.
Socialism is when all production is directly controlled and owned by the state, and free enterprise in any form is forbidden.
High taxes != socialism; and not that Canadian taxes are all that high, in fact.Canada (and most European states) is a welfare state.
It's still capitalist through and through, and you have full freedom to go and earn as much money for yourself as you can and want to do; it's just that part of that money (and not a bigger part) goes towards a safety net for the rest of the citizens.
Calling that "socialist" is highly misleading (and I know that you probably used that word because many Americans use it that way, so it's really directed more towards them).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950794</id>
	<title>Re:Rabid issue people - anit gay and abortion</title>
	<author>Keebler71</author>
	<datestamp>1257180540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>There's no room for moderates or rational people in American Politics.</i>
<p>
After reading your post do you seriously expect us to believe you are in either category?  Just sayin'!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's no room for moderates or rational people in American Politics .
After reading your post do you seriously expect us to believe you are in either category ?
Just sayin ' !
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's no room for moderates or rational people in American Politics.
After reading your post do you seriously expect us to believe you are in either category?
Just sayin'!
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949808</id>
	<title>Meet the new boss...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257175020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...same as the old boss. But this is not just a bit of education for Obama supporters, it is a valuable lesson for Bush II supporters as well. The extraordinary powers to further your agenda that you grant to your glorious leaders today are certain to be abused to further the agendas of their successors tomorrow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...same as the old boss .
But this is not just a bit of education for Obama supporters , it is a valuable lesson for Bush II supporters as well .
The extraordinary powers to further your agenda that you grant to your glorious leaders today are certain to be abused to further the agendas of their successors tomorrow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...same as the old boss.
But this is not just a bit of education for Obama supporters, it is a valuable lesson for Bush II supporters as well.
The extraordinary powers to further your agenda that you grant to your glorious leaders today are certain to be abused to further the agendas of their successors tomorrow.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950216</id>
	<title>Same as the old boss...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257177300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Damn it...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Damn it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damn it...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951360</id>
	<title>Soon you'll have no rights whatsoever.</title>
	<author>e-scetic</author>
	<datestamp>1257182880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With each passing year you're losing more and more rights and liberties.  It's no longer a democracy, not even a republic really.  If things continue like this I don't think you're going to have *any* rights whatsoever.  The future looks rather bleak, doesn't it?  Or can someone point me to a list of case law with some positive victories...?</p><p>
It's kind of interesting how communism led to this, and this was the main argument everyone had against it and socialism, and now "democracy" or "the democratic republic" is leading to pretty much the same thing.  So I guess democracy no longer works either.  What are our alternatives?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With each passing year you 're losing more and more rights and liberties .
It 's no longer a democracy , not even a republic really .
If things continue like this I do n't think you 're going to have * any * rights whatsoever .
The future looks rather bleak , does n't it ?
Or can someone point me to a list of case law with some positive victories... ?
It 's kind of interesting how communism led to this , and this was the main argument everyone had against it and socialism , and now " democracy " or " the democratic republic " is leading to pretty much the same thing .
So I guess democracy no longer works either .
What are our alternatives ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With each passing year you're losing more and more rights and liberties.
It's no longer a democracy, not even a republic really.
If things continue like this I don't think you're going to have *any* rights whatsoever.
The future looks rather bleak, doesn't it?
Or can someone point me to a list of case law with some positive victories...?
It's kind of interesting how communism led to this, and this was the main argument everyone had against it and socialism, and now "democracy" or "the democratic republic" is leading to pretty much the same thing.
So I guess democracy no longer works either.
What are our alternatives?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950506</id>
	<title>Re:Knee-jerk</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1257179160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>They provided the judge with the specifics, and let him decide. If the Bush White House had done that, rather than declare themselves above the law, we wouldn't be so jaded about executive privilege today.</p></div></blockquote><p>Except the Obama White House is <i>also</i> declaring themselves above the law - by insisting the suit be thrown out based on secret evidence rather than in open court.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They provided the judge with the specifics , and let him decide .
If the Bush White House had done that , rather than declare themselves above the law , we would n't be so jaded about executive privilege today.Except the Obama White House is also declaring themselves above the law - by insisting the suit be thrown out based on secret evidence rather than in open court .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They provided the judge with the specifics, and let him decide.
If the Bush White House had done that, rather than declare themselves above the law, we wouldn't be so jaded about executive privilege today.Except the Obama White House is also declaring themselves above the law - by insisting the suit be thrown out based on secret evidence rather than in open court.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949874</id>
	<title>Re:I am really dispointed.</title>
	<author>Aladrin</author>
	<datestamp>1257175380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's possible, in theory, for all the current wiretaps to be completely legal, but be compromised by information that would have to be made public to have a court trial over past (possibly illegal) wiretaps.</p><p>Not that I necessarily think the current ones are all legal, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's possible , in theory , for all the current wiretaps to be completely legal , but be compromised by information that would have to be made public to have a court trial over past ( possibly illegal ) wiretaps.Not that I necessarily think the current ones are all legal , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's possible, in theory, for all the current wiretaps to be completely legal, but be compromised by information that would have to be made public to have a court trial over past (possibly illegal) wiretaps.Not that I necessarily think the current ones are all legal, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951202</id>
	<title>Re:Knee-jerk</title>
	<author>Improv</author>
	<datestamp>1257182280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The system of warrants ensures that if people are wiretapped, there is a good reason for it. Without that independence, too much rests in the hands of the executive branch. Wiretapping may be necessary in some circumstances, but when it is, a judge should be convincable (even if the wiretaps never lead to action that go further into the Judiciary).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The system of warrants ensures that if people are wiretapped , there is a good reason for it .
Without that independence , too much rests in the hands of the executive branch .
Wiretapping may be necessary in some circumstances , but when it is , a judge should be convincable ( even if the wiretaps never lead to action that go further into the Judiciary ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The system of warrants ensures that if people are wiretapped, there is a good reason for it.
Without that independence, too much rests in the hands of the executive branch.
Wiretapping may be necessary in some circumstances, but when it is, a judge should be convincable (even if the wiretaps never lead to action that go further into the Judiciary).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950662</id>
	<title>Ch-ch-ch-ch-changess!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257179940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not really</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951966</id>
	<title>Re:Rabid issue people - anit gay and abortion</title>
	<author>spammeister</author>
	<datestamp>1257185640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The American system started out OK, but then they got the party system, which wasn't intended but an inevitable result.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The American system started out OK , but then they got the party system , which was n't intended but an inevitable result .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The American system started out OK, but then they got the party system, which wasn't intended but an inevitable result.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29959368</id>
	<title>AT&amp;T's new Secret Circle of Friends plan!</title>
	<author>vaporland</author>
	<datestamp>1257179340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Why don't they just say it - they're going to do what they want, and it doesn't matter what anyone outside the "secret" circle thinks.</p></div></blockquote><p>Hey, is this a new calling plan from AT&amp;T: <i>Secret Circle of Friends</i>?<br> <br> <b>In cooperation with the NSA and the FISA court, AT&amp;T offers the new <i>Secret Circle of Friends</i> calling plan. Place your friends' names on our surveillance list, and all of their calls are monitored for "quality assurance", while you receive credit for "rollover" testimony when you rat them out in a star chamber hearing.<br> <br>Earn bonus points for entrapping the stupid into terror plots while earning frequent "no-fly" miles that can't be redeemed on any airline! </b></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't they just say it - they 're going to do what they want , and it does n't matter what anyone outside the " secret " circle thinks.Hey , is this a new calling plan from AT&amp;T : Secret Circle of Friends ?
In cooperation with the NSA and the FISA court , AT&amp;T offers the new Secret Circle of Friends calling plan .
Place your friends ' names on our surveillance list , and all of their calls are monitored for " quality assurance " , while you receive credit for " rollover " testimony when you rat them out in a star chamber hearing .
Earn bonus points for entrapping the stupid into terror plots while earning frequent " no-fly " miles that ca n't be redeemed on any airline !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't they just say it - they're going to do what they want, and it doesn't matter what anyone outside the "secret" circle thinks.Hey, is this a new calling plan from AT&amp;T: Secret Circle of Friends?
In cooperation with the NSA and the FISA court, AT&amp;T offers the new Secret Circle of Friends calling plan.
Place your friends' names on our surveillance list, and all of their calls are monitored for "quality assurance", while you receive credit for "rollover" testimony when you rat them out in a star chamber hearing.
Earn bonus points for entrapping the stupid into terror plots while earning frequent "no-fly" miles that can't be redeemed on any airline! 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951274</id>
	<title>What about all the CIA shows?</title>
	<author>lymond01</author>
	<datestamp>1257182520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So when the super assassin that looks sorta like Markie Mark is known to be staying in a particular hotel room for a couple hours, the head of the team that created him can't just say, "Get a tap on that phone!" have her operator push a few buttons, and boom, you're listening to the trained killer order an extra large anchovy with original crust...that's going to all go away if we prevent unauthorized wiretapping.</p><p>Super assassin is in the hotel, but we've got to go find a judge, at this hour, to sign off on our report saying why we need to listen to this guy's pizza order.  And what happens when our report claims that "anchovy" is really the president, "original crust" means a grassy knoll, and "extra large" means 50 caliber sniper rifle...then he goes to order a medium pepperoni with extra cheese.  What the hell does THAT mean?</p><p>What I'm trying to say is...it's inefficient to have to ask to eavesdrop.  Isn't the very DEFINITION of eavesdropping that you didn't ask?</p><p>I'm sure this rage over privacy will be moved to mainstream media soon, where the bad guy gets away because the judge had his cell phone turned off and the CIA wouldn't move on the tap without proper approval.  The president is assassinated and do you SEE what your overvalued sense of privacy has done?  Another politician dead!  NOW what will we do?</p><p>Really early in the morning.  Not even 9 AM here.  Sorry for the stream of consciousness post.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So when the super assassin that looks sorta like Markie Mark is known to be staying in a particular hotel room for a couple hours , the head of the team that created him ca n't just say , " Get a tap on that phone !
" have her operator push a few buttons , and boom , you 're listening to the trained killer order an extra large anchovy with original crust...that 's going to all go away if we prevent unauthorized wiretapping.Super assassin is in the hotel , but we 've got to go find a judge , at this hour , to sign off on our report saying why we need to listen to this guy 's pizza order .
And what happens when our report claims that " anchovy " is really the president , " original crust " means a grassy knoll , and " extra large " means 50 caliber sniper rifle...then he goes to order a medium pepperoni with extra cheese .
What the hell does THAT mean ? What I 'm trying to say is...it 's inefficient to have to ask to eavesdrop .
Is n't the very DEFINITION of eavesdropping that you did n't ask ? I 'm sure this rage over privacy will be moved to mainstream media soon , where the bad guy gets away because the judge had his cell phone turned off and the CIA would n't move on the tap without proper approval .
The president is assassinated and do you SEE what your overvalued sense of privacy has done ?
Another politician dead !
NOW what will we do ? Really early in the morning .
Not even 9 AM here .
Sorry for the stream of consciousness post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So when the super assassin that looks sorta like Markie Mark is known to be staying in a particular hotel room for a couple hours, the head of the team that created him can't just say, "Get a tap on that phone!
" have her operator push a few buttons, and boom, you're listening to the trained killer order an extra large anchovy with original crust...that's going to all go away if we prevent unauthorized wiretapping.Super assassin is in the hotel, but we've got to go find a judge, at this hour, to sign off on our report saying why we need to listen to this guy's pizza order.
And what happens when our report claims that "anchovy" is really the president, "original crust" means a grassy knoll, and "extra large" means 50 caliber sniper rifle...then he goes to order a medium pepperoni with extra cheese.
What the hell does THAT mean?What I'm trying to say is...it's inefficient to have to ask to eavesdrop.
Isn't the very DEFINITION of eavesdropping that you didn't ask?I'm sure this rage over privacy will be moved to mainstream media soon, where the bad guy gets away because the judge had his cell phone turned off and the CIA wouldn't move on the tap without proper approval.
The president is assassinated and do you SEE what your overvalued sense of privacy has done?
Another politician dead!
NOW what will we do?Really early in the morning.
Not even 9 AM here.
Sorry for the stream of consciousness post.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950394</id>
	<title>Re:Rabid issue people - anit gay and abortion</title>
	<author>TimSSG</author>
	<datestamp>1257178560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dierdre Scozzafava is likely whom is discussed above <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dierdre\_Scozzafava" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dierdre\_Scozzafava</a> [wikipedia.org]

I wander what tests the US Republican Party should use to verify the candidate is a valid Republican.

I think two lists are needed.
List 1 the candidate must agree to 100\% of items.
List 2 the candidate must agree to 70\% or more of items.

I think the only Item needed on List 1 is this.
Capitalism is better that Communism.

No idea what should be on List 2; I say about 10 items would be the proper size.

Tim S.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dierdre Scozzafava is likely whom is discussed above http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dierdre \ _Scozzafava [ wikipedia.org ] I wander what tests the US Republican Party should use to verify the candidate is a valid Republican .
I think two lists are needed .
List 1 the candidate must agree to 100 \ % of items .
List 2 the candidate must agree to 70 \ % or more of items .
I think the only Item needed on List 1 is this .
Capitalism is better that Communism .
No idea what should be on List 2 ; I say about 10 items would be the proper size .
Tim S .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dierdre Scozzafava is likely whom is discussed above http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dierdre\_Scozzafava [wikipedia.org]

I wander what tests the US Republican Party should use to verify the candidate is a valid Republican.
I think two lists are needed.
List 1 the candidate must agree to 100\% of items.
List 2 the candidate must agree to 70\% or more of items.
I think the only Item needed on List 1 is this.
Capitalism is better that Communism.
No idea what should be on List 2; I say about 10 items would be the proper size.
Tim S.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949906</id>
	<title>Change? What change?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257175500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For all of the howling the Obamessiah's followers made during the campaign about how evil Bush's policies were, he's sure continuing a lot of them that he originally pledged to do away with. Of course, nobody would <b>DARE</b> admit that maybe, just maybe, Bush was right...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For all of the howling the Obamessiah 's followers made during the campaign about how evil Bush 's policies were , he 's sure continuing a lot of them that he originally pledged to do away with .
Of course , nobody would DARE admit that maybe , just maybe , Bush was right.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For all of the howling the Obamessiah's followers made during the campaign about how evil Bush's policies were, he's sure continuing a lot of them that he originally pledged to do away with.
Of course, nobody would DARE admit that maybe, just maybe, Bush was right...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950184</id>
	<title>Re:I am really dispointed.</title>
	<author>Hizonner</author>
	<datestamp>1257177180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
No, you're wrong.
</p><p>
It's not "We need to respect our constitution, even if it makes our security agencies do a little more work.".
</p><p>
It's "We need to respect our constitution, even if some of us die".
</p><p>
By not addressing their arguments head on, you give the bad guys strength. This is a matter of principle; you don't need to hide from their safety claims.
</p><p>
I don't actually believe that these methods save lives in the long run. I think that these people underestimate the real, physical risks of making enemies and losing the moral high ground. But I could be wrong. It's possible that there is some increase in safety.... small, compared to the risk of say driving a car, but real nonetheless. The point is that this stuff is wrong <em>even if it does make people safer</em>.
</p><p>
Fuck the cowards. There are some things you don't do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , you 're wrong .
It 's not " We need to respect our constitution , even if it makes our security agencies do a little more work. " .
It 's " We need to respect our constitution , even if some of us die " .
By not addressing their arguments head on , you give the bad guys strength .
This is a matter of principle ; you do n't need to hide from their safety claims .
I do n't actually believe that these methods save lives in the long run .
I think that these people underestimate the real , physical risks of making enemies and losing the moral high ground .
But I could be wrong .
It 's possible that there is some increase in safety.... small , compared to the risk of say driving a car , but real nonetheless .
The point is that this stuff is wrong even if it does make people safer .
Fuck the cowards .
There are some things you do n't do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
No, you're wrong.
It's not "We need to respect our constitution, even if it makes our security agencies do a little more work.".
It's "We need to respect our constitution, even if some of us die".
By not addressing their arguments head on, you give the bad guys strength.
This is a matter of principle; you don't need to hide from their safety claims.
I don't actually believe that these methods save lives in the long run.
I think that these people underestimate the real, physical risks of making enemies and losing the moral high ground.
But I could be wrong.
It's possible that there is some increase in safety.... small, compared to the risk of say driving a car, but real nonetheless.
The point is that this stuff is wrong even if it does make people safer.
Fuck the cowards.
There are some things you don't do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951074</id>
	<title>Wait a second - that's no Republican!</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1257181740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>There's a Republican in upstate New York who's probably going to lose because she's not "conservative" enough.</i></p><p>You put that in quotes.  But what does "conservative" mean in this context?  Try, fiscally responsible.  Shouldn't they ALL be conservative....</p><p>The "Republican" you mentioned withdrew from the race yesterday - and promptly endorsed the Democratic candidate.  So you see how Republican she really was...  and you see the two sides of the same coin revealed together.</p><p>The great thing about voting for a "conservative" candidate is this - no matter how much you dislike any set of policies they may support, if they are reducing money the government will have less funds to bother anyone about those views.  A perfect government is a collection of people who disagree with each other and keep spending to the minimum required.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a Republican in upstate New York who 's probably going to lose because she 's not " conservative " enough.You put that in quotes .
But what does " conservative " mean in this context ?
Try , fiscally responsible .
Should n't they ALL be conservative....The " Republican " you mentioned withdrew from the race yesterday - and promptly endorsed the Democratic candidate .
So you see how Republican she really was... and you see the two sides of the same coin revealed together.The great thing about voting for a " conservative " candidate is this - no matter how much you dislike any set of policies they may support , if they are reducing money the government will have less funds to bother anyone about those views .
A perfect government is a collection of people who disagree with each other and keep spending to the minimum required .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a Republican in upstate New York who's probably going to lose because she's not "conservative" enough.You put that in quotes.
But what does "conservative" mean in this context?
Try, fiscally responsible.
Shouldn't they ALL be conservative....The "Republican" you mentioned withdrew from the race yesterday - and promptly endorsed the Democratic candidate.
So you see how Republican she really was...  and you see the two sides of the same coin revealed together.The great thing about voting for a "conservative" candidate is this - no matter how much you dislike any set of policies they may support, if they are reducing money the government will have less funds to bother anyone about those views.
A perfect government is a collection of people who disagree with each other and keep spending to the minimum required.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950360</id>
	<title>Re:From www.BarackObama.com</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1257178380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To be clear, I'm not trying to apologize for Obama, but you should pay very close attention to what that says:</p><blockquote><div><p> <b>Eliminate Warrantless Wiretaps</b>. Barack Obama opposed the Bush Administration's initial policy on warrantless wiretaps because it crossed the line between protecting our national security and eroding the civil liberties of American citizens. As president, Obama would <b>update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to provide greater oversight</b> and accountability to the congressional intelligence committees <b>to prevent future threats to the rule of law.</b></p></div> </blockquote><p>Note, there is nothing in there about allowing existing lawsuits to go forward in order to punish those who violated the rights of Americans during the previous administration.  In fact, Obama has stated, time after time, that he feels we should all just, you know, move on and get over it...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To be clear , I 'm not trying to apologize for Obama , but you should pay very close attention to what that says : Eliminate Warrantless Wiretaps .
Barack Obama opposed the Bush Administration 's initial policy on warrantless wiretaps because it crossed the line between protecting our national security and eroding the civil liberties of American citizens .
As president , Obama would update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to provide greater oversight and accountability to the congressional intelligence committees to prevent future threats to the rule of law .
Note , there is nothing in there about allowing existing lawsuits to go forward in order to punish those who violated the rights of Americans during the previous administration .
In fact , Obama has stated , time after time , that he feels we should all just , you know , move on and get over it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be clear, I'm not trying to apologize for Obama, but you should pay very close attention to what that says: Eliminate Warrantless Wiretaps.
Barack Obama opposed the Bush Administration's initial policy on warrantless wiretaps because it crossed the line between protecting our national security and eroding the civil liberties of American citizens.
As president, Obama would update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to provide greater oversight and accountability to the congressional intelligence committees to prevent future threats to the rule of law.
Note, there is nothing in there about allowing existing lawsuits to go forward in order to punish those who violated the rights of Americans during the previous administration.
In fact, Obama has stated, time after time, that he feels we should all just, you know, move on and get over it...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950104</id>
	<title>Re:From www.BarackObama.com</title>
	<author>elfprince13</author>
	<datestamp>1257176760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Obama - "Change we can forget about."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama - " Change we can forget about .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama - "Change we can forget about.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950174</id>
	<title>Re:From www.BarackObama.com</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257177120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Obama administration agreed with the Bush administration's position on the case but insists it came to the decision differently</p></div><p>Meet the new Boss. Same as the old Boss.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama administration agreed with the Bush administration 's position on the case but insists it came to the decision differentlyMeet the new Boss .
Same as the old Boss .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Obama administration agreed with the Bush administration's position on the case but insists it came to the decision differentlyMeet the new Boss.
Same as the old Boss.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951180</id>
	<title>Re:It's official...</title>
	<author>vadim\_t</author>
	<datestamp>1257182220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ack, just realized I replied to the wrong post.</p><p>Anyway, why do you feel it would be damaging? In my view, if all they want was adopted things would be quite a lot better. Some things will suffer damage of course, but most of those are ones I want to be damaged anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ack , just realized I replied to the wrong post.Anyway , why do you feel it would be damaging ?
In my view , if all they want was adopted things would be quite a lot better .
Some things will suffer damage of course , but most of those are ones I want to be damaged anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ack, just realized I replied to the wrong post.Anyway, why do you feel it would be damaging?
In my view, if all they want was adopted things would be quite a lot better.
Some things will suffer damage of course, but most of those are ones I want to be damaged anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950016</id>
	<title>Re:Knee-jerk</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1257176280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;It may not be transparent to *us*, but matters of national security aren't supposed to be.</p><p>You're right that spying needs to be secret, but you're wrong when you say these warrantless searches should be allowed to continue.      <b>    It's illegal.    </b>    The government is a criminal and guilty of breaking the law, just as surely as microsoft was found to be an illegal monopoly.  We punished microsoft, and now we must punish the United States leadership.</p><p>No man; no organization is above the law, or the will of the people, the ultimate source of all authority.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; It may not be transparent to * us * , but matters of national security are n't supposed to be.You 're right that spying needs to be secret , but you 're wrong when you say these warrantless searches should be allowed to continue .
It 's illegal .
The government is a criminal and guilty of breaking the law , just as surely as microsoft was found to be an illegal monopoly .
We punished microsoft , and now we must punish the United States leadership.No man ; no organization is above the law , or the will of the people , the ultimate source of all authority .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;It may not be transparent to *us*, but matters of national security aren't supposed to be.You're right that spying needs to be secret, but you're wrong when you say these warrantless searches should be allowed to continue.
It's illegal.
The government is a criminal and guilty of breaking the law, just as surely as microsoft was found to be an illegal monopoly.
We punished microsoft, and now we must punish the United States leadership.No man; no organization is above the law, or the will of the people, the ultimate source of all authority.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29963766</id>
	<title>Re:Rabid issue people - anit gay and abortion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257265620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, it isn't working.  The scale in which you measure it working is not valid.  From your day to day perspective you think it works.  The signs all point to complete collapse before the mid-point of the century as the birth rates of such 'social-democracies' is not enough to support the ponzi social safety net that you speak of.</p><p>The problem with the American system right now is that people such as yourself have infected the system.  Social democracy goes against the grain of what Darwin discovered.  For all our intelligence we can not escape the facts of life on this planet.  The socialists/progressives are trying to replace god with government.  The idea of god is that god is the guiding force with all the answers.. if you find it in a church or in capital building the fact is that trying to bring a 'heaven' to earth is simply not possible.</p><p>Conservatives need to stay out of my bedroom, and liberals need to stay out of every other room in my house.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , it is n't working .
The scale in which you measure it working is not valid .
From your day to day perspective you think it works .
The signs all point to complete collapse before the mid-point of the century as the birth rates of such 'social-democracies ' is not enough to support the ponzi social safety net that you speak of.The problem with the American system right now is that people such as yourself have infected the system .
Social democracy goes against the grain of what Darwin discovered .
For all our intelligence we can not escape the facts of life on this planet .
The socialists/progressives are trying to replace god with government .
The idea of god is that god is the guiding force with all the answers.. if you find it in a church or in capital building the fact is that trying to bring a 'heaven ' to earth is simply not possible.Conservatives need to stay out of my bedroom , and liberals need to stay out of every other room in my house .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, it isn't working.
The scale in which you measure it working is not valid.
From your day to day perspective you think it works.
The signs all point to complete collapse before the mid-point of the century as the birth rates of such 'social-democracies' is not enough to support the ponzi social safety net that you speak of.The problem with the American system right now is that people such as yourself have infected the system.
Social democracy goes against the grain of what Darwin discovered.
For all our intelligence we can not escape the facts of life on this planet.
The socialists/progressives are trying to replace god with government.
The idea of god is that god is the guiding force with all the answers.. if you find it in a church or in capital building the fact is that trying to bring a 'heaven' to earth is simply not possible.Conservatives need to stay out of my bedroom, and liberals need to stay out of every other room in my house.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951620</id>
	<title>Binge and Purge...</title>
	<author>flameproof</author>
	<datestamp>1257184080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...Binge and Purge, Binge and Purge, Binge and Purge; on and on and on it goes.<br> <br>

<a href="http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com\_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=19&amp;Itemid=54" title="thezeitgeistmovement.com" rel="nofollow">There is a better way</a> [thezeitgeistmovement.com] and it was completely derived from and developed as a consequence of the cultural phenomena of the Internet - ie, if you've been voicing your opinions and dissent on the web in the last decade or so, this is the result of that.  Cost: you have to start thinking differently about how things are going to be and start acting toward that goal.  Actually, for now I suppose all you have to do is <i>act</i> differently.  You don't even really need to mean it so long as you do it.  Eventually, if you repeat a behavior long enough your thinking will change, no?<br> <br>

Short of another "Revolution" where one form of "power" takes the place of another and millions of otherwise innocent human lives are once again thrown into pits, I personally don't see any other way out.  And I've been living with this bullshit government "of the people/by the people/for the people" hoax for nearly half a century.  It's <i>never</i> worked <i>for</i> me, only <i>against</i> me.  Ever.  Why?  Because at the heart of it's so-called "democratic" social contract, I have to work <i>against</i> you and you me.<br> <br>

Personally, I could do without that nonsense for a change.  Be nice to just shake hands and get to know someone out of the blue without wondering what they wanted from me.<br> <br>

Or, you can just keep binging and purging.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...Binge and Purge , Binge and Purge , Binge and Purge ; on and on and on it goes .
There is a better way [ thezeitgeistmovement.com ] and it was completely derived from and developed as a consequence of the cultural phenomena of the Internet - ie , if you 've been voicing your opinions and dissent on the web in the last decade or so , this is the result of that .
Cost : you have to start thinking differently about how things are going to be and start acting toward that goal .
Actually , for now I suppose all you have to do is act differently .
You do n't even really need to mean it so long as you do it .
Eventually , if you repeat a behavior long enough your thinking will change , no ?
Short of another " Revolution " where one form of " power " takes the place of another and millions of otherwise innocent human lives are once again thrown into pits , I personally do n't see any other way out .
And I 've been living with this bullshit government " of the people/by the people/for the people " hoax for nearly half a century .
It 's never worked for me , only against me .
Ever. Why ?
Because at the heart of it 's so-called " democratic " social contract , I have to work against you and you me .
Personally , I could do without that nonsense for a change .
Be nice to just shake hands and get to know someone out of the blue without wondering what they wanted from me .
Or , you can just keep binging and purging .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...Binge and Purge, Binge and Purge, Binge and Purge; on and on and on it goes.
There is a better way [thezeitgeistmovement.com] and it was completely derived from and developed as a consequence of the cultural phenomena of the Internet - ie, if you've been voicing your opinions and dissent on the web in the last decade or so, this is the result of that.
Cost: you have to start thinking differently about how things are going to be and start acting toward that goal.
Actually, for now I suppose all you have to do is act differently.
You don't even really need to mean it so long as you do it.
Eventually, if you repeat a behavior long enough your thinking will change, no?
Short of another "Revolution" where one form of "power" takes the place of another and millions of otherwise innocent human lives are once again thrown into pits, I personally don't see any other way out.
And I've been living with this bullshit government "of the people/by the people/for the people" hoax for nearly half a century.
It's never worked for me, only against me.
Ever.  Why?
Because at the heart of it's so-called "democratic" social contract, I have to work against you and you me.
Personally, I could do without that nonsense for a change.
Be nice to just shake hands and get to know someone out of the blue without wondering what they wanted from me.
Or, you can just keep binging and purging.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949834</id>
	<title>Re:It's official...</title>
	<author>vadim\_t</author>
	<datestamp>1257175140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So vote for the Pirate Party for instance, which opposes all this nonsense.</p><p>It probably won't win, but it will at least show people's concerns, which may get results.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So vote for the Pirate Party for instance , which opposes all this nonsense.It probably wo n't win , but it will at least show people 's concerns , which may get results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So vote for the Pirate Party for instance, which opposes all this nonsense.It probably won't win, but it will at least show people's concerns, which may get results.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950074</id>
	<title>Am I the only one?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257176640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who suspects it might be a scenario where Obama went into office thinking one thing, and they sat him down in some briefing meeting and showed him something unexpected and he went "Oof.  THAT'S why we're doing it.  Well I guess I'll have to do a 180 on this and take the flak for it."<br>Just sayin'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who suspects it might be a scenario where Obama went into office thinking one thing , and they sat him down in some briefing meeting and showed him something unexpected and he went " Oof .
THAT 'S why we 're doing it .
Well I guess I 'll have to do a 180 on this and take the flak for it .
" Just sayin' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who suspects it might be a scenario where Obama went into office thinking one thing, and they sat him down in some briefing meeting and showed him something unexpected and he went "Oof.
THAT'S why we're doing it.
Well I guess I'll have to do a 180 on this and take the flak for it.
"Just sayin'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950566</id>
	<title>Re:From www.BarackObama.com</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1257179460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Us Brits were already aware that Obama follows Bush era policies.</p><p>One of the Britons detained in Guantanamo bay, Binyamin Mohamed, was finally released to the UK earlier this year. Since then he's been trying to prove that he was tortured by, or at the behest of British agents. The courts recieved documents from US intelligence that would back his claim, however their release was blocked by our foreign secretary.</p><p>Now, our foreign secretary is an idiot, and part of it is ass covering for sure, but the reason he has cited for blocking their release is that the US has threatened to cut intelligence ties with the UK meaning we could be left vulnerable to attack (as could the US) if this data were released. Originally this threat came from the Bush administration, but it seems since then the Obama administration has been asked with the same threats. Journalists and politicians here have contacted the white house to confirm this and have found that the Obama administration does in fact support this policy.</p><p>The fact is, the Obama administration has no interest in accountability for it's security services, it knows and has admitted they were complicit in torture, but it seems the extent to which they were is such a problem that they are willing to put the national security of an ally and their own national security at risk to cover this up and keep that evidence secure.</p><p>It's not like we're not used to this attitude from the US, as when a US airforce pilot was guilty of strafing British troops in an A10 in a friendly fire incident in Iraq they refused to release the pilots name for questioning and the gun camera videos etc. (which were later leaked anyway) for our enquiry into how it happened. We expected this kind of attitude of coverups from the Bush adminsitration, but the Obama administration? It did come as a suprise I'll admit.</p><p>The original story is here:</p><p><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/04/guantanamo-torture" title="guardian.co.uk">http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/04/guantanamo-torture</a> [guardian.co.uk]</p><p>An update is here, the court reversed it's decision and stated the documents can be released pending the outcome of an appeal by the British government. Hopefully they'll lose it and we'll be able to see if Obama really is willing to do as he says and damage security of both countries over it:</p><p><a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-britain-gitmo17-2009oct17,0,2433061.story" title="latimes.com">http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-britain-gitmo17-2009oct17,0,2433061.story</a> [latimes.com]</p><p>Change? Not from what we can see over this side of the Atlantic, the only difference here in Europe is instead of a US president having his leg humped by Tony Blair, we've now got a US president having his leg humped by Sarkozy and Berlusconi instead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Us Brits were already aware that Obama follows Bush era policies.One of the Britons detained in Guantanamo bay , Binyamin Mohamed , was finally released to the UK earlier this year .
Since then he 's been trying to prove that he was tortured by , or at the behest of British agents .
The courts recieved documents from US intelligence that would back his claim , however their release was blocked by our foreign secretary.Now , our foreign secretary is an idiot , and part of it is ass covering for sure , but the reason he has cited for blocking their release is that the US has threatened to cut intelligence ties with the UK meaning we could be left vulnerable to attack ( as could the US ) if this data were released .
Originally this threat came from the Bush administration , but it seems since then the Obama administration has been asked with the same threats .
Journalists and politicians here have contacted the white house to confirm this and have found that the Obama administration does in fact support this policy.The fact is , the Obama administration has no interest in accountability for it 's security services , it knows and has admitted they were complicit in torture , but it seems the extent to which they were is such a problem that they are willing to put the national security of an ally and their own national security at risk to cover this up and keep that evidence secure.It 's not like we 're not used to this attitude from the US , as when a US airforce pilot was guilty of strafing British troops in an A10 in a friendly fire incident in Iraq they refused to release the pilots name for questioning and the gun camera videos etc .
( which were later leaked anyway ) for our enquiry into how it happened .
We expected this kind of attitude of coverups from the Bush adminsitration , but the Obama administration ?
It did come as a suprise I 'll admit.The original story is here : http : //www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/04/guantanamo-torture [ guardian.co.uk ] An update is here , the court reversed it 's decision and stated the documents can be released pending the outcome of an appeal by the British government .
Hopefully they 'll lose it and we 'll be able to see if Obama really is willing to do as he says and damage security of both countries over it : http : //www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-britain-gitmo17-2009oct17,0,2433061.story [ latimes.com ] Change ?
Not from what we can see over this side of the Atlantic , the only difference here in Europe is instead of a US president having his leg humped by Tony Blair , we 've now got a US president having his leg humped by Sarkozy and Berlusconi instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Us Brits were already aware that Obama follows Bush era policies.One of the Britons detained in Guantanamo bay, Binyamin Mohamed, was finally released to the UK earlier this year.
Since then he's been trying to prove that he was tortured by, or at the behest of British agents.
The courts recieved documents from US intelligence that would back his claim, however their release was blocked by our foreign secretary.Now, our foreign secretary is an idiot, and part of it is ass covering for sure, but the reason he has cited for blocking their release is that the US has threatened to cut intelligence ties with the UK meaning we could be left vulnerable to attack (as could the US) if this data were released.
Originally this threat came from the Bush administration, but it seems since then the Obama administration has been asked with the same threats.
Journalists and politicians here have contacted the white house to confirm this and have found that the Obama administration does in fact support this policy.The fact is, the Obama administration has no interest in accountability for it's security services, it knows and has admitted they were complicit in torture, but it seems the extent to which they were is such a problem that they are willing to put the national security of an ally and their own national security at risk to cover this up and keep that evidence secure.It's not like we're not used to this attitude from the US, as when a US airforce pilot was guilty of strafing British troops in an A10 in a friendly fire incident in Iraq they refused to release the pilots name for questioning and the gun camera videos etc.
(which were later leaked anyway) for our enquiry into how it happened.
We expected this kind of attitude of coverups from the Bush adminsitration, but the Obama administration?
It did come as a suprise I'll admit.The original story is here:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/04/guantanamo-torture [guardian.co.uk]An update is here, the court reversed it's decision and stated the documents can be released pending the outcome of an appeal by the British government.
Hopefully they'll lose it and we'll be able to see if Obama really is willing to do as he says and damage security of both countries over it:http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-britain-gitmo17-2009oct17,0,2433061.story [latimes.com]Change?
Not from what we can see over this side of the Atlantic, the only difference here in Europe is instead of a US president having his leg humped by Tony Blair, we've now got a US president having his leg humped by Sarkozy and Berlusconi instead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950956</id>
	<title>Re:From www.BarackObama.com</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257181080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Old cliche is cliched. The fact that this is labeled as insightful is proof that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. is barely any better than Digg. It gives no insight other than the poster is a tool.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Old cliche is cliched .
The fact that this is labeled as insightful is proof that / .
is barely any better than Digg .
It gives no insight other than the poster is a tool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Old cliche is cliched.
The fact that this is labeled as insightful is proof that /.
is barely any better than Digg.
It gives no insight other than the poster is a tool.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29955652</id>
	<title>Re:Federal Rules of Procedure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257159540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IANAL, but I think what they're talking about is an "in camera" review of the evidence by the judge to establish whether or not the evidence can be released.</p><p>Those, at least, are normal.  They're about the best way we have to review secret claims like this where we can't just take the government's word for it, but we can't just release everything, either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IANAL , but I think what they 're talking about is an " in camera " review of the evidence by the judge to establish whether or not the evidence can be released.Those , at least , are normal .
They 're about the best way we have to review secret claims like this where we ca n't just take the government 's word for it , but we ca n't just release everything , either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IANAL, but I think what they're talking about is an "in camera" review of the evidence by the judge to establish whether or not the evidence can be released.Those, at least, are normal.
They're about the best way we have to review secret claims like this where we can't just take the government's word for it, but we can't just release everything, either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949810</id>
	<title>Re:It's official...</title>
	<author>Rob the Bold</author>
	<datestamp>1257175020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>...we no longer have a democracy.</p><p>I'm probably not even going to bother voting anymore.  These days, I can only choose between Kodos and Kang.  It doesn't matter which side you pick, both of them suck.</p><p>Sometimes, I don't even know why we the people even bother voting these days.  Three cheers for exercising our rights and all, but expecting things to get better when all we have to pick from are scumbags is like trying to lose weight in a restaurant that has nothing on the menu but deep-fried food.</p></div><p>I got my new state's driver's license,  and specifically checked "No" for the "Do you want to register to vote".  More that I just don't want to put down roots here, but still a bit because of political pissed-offness.  I also declined to be an organ donor, so to anyone who says "Don't vote, can't complain", I can reply: "No liver transplant for you, punk!"</p><p>Republicans are just out-and-out evil corporate scum with their armies of undead idiot-fundamentalist zombies desperate to protect themselves from any benefit of living in a civilized society, and the Democrats, when they're not going along with them are pissing their pants to avoid keeping their promises.  Pussies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...we no longer have a democracy.I 'm probably not even going to bother voting anymore .
These days , I can only choose between Kodos and Kang .
It does n't matter which side you pick , both of them suck.Sometimes , I do n't even know why we the people even bother voting these days .
Three cheers for exercising our rights and all , but expecting things to get better when all we have to pick from are scumbags is like trying to lose weight in a restaurant that has nothing on the menu but deep-fried food.I got my new state 's driver 's license , and specifically checked " No " for the " Do you want to register to vote " .
More that I just do n't want to put down roots here , but still a bit because of political pissed-offness .
I also declined to be an organ donor , so to anyone who says " Do n't vote , ca n't complain " , I can reply : " No liver transplant for you , punk !
" Republicans are just out-and-out evil corporate scum with their armies of undead idiot-fundamentalist zombies desperate to protect themselves from any benefit of living in a civilized society , and the Democrats , when they 're not going along with them are pissing their pants to avoid keeping their promises .
Pussies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...we no longer have a democracy.I'm probably not even going to bother voting anymore.
These days, I can only choose between Kodos and Kang.
It doesn't matter which side you pick, both of them suck.Sometimes, I don't even know why we the people even bother voting these days.
Three cheers for exercising our rights and all, but expecting things to get better when all we have to pick from are scumbags is like trying to lose weight in a restaurant that has nothing on the menu but deep-fried food.I got my new state's driver's license,  and specifically checked "No" for the "Do you want to register to vote".
More that I just don't want to put down roots here, but still a bit because of political pissed-offness.
I also declined to be an organ donor, so to anyone who says "Don't vote, can't complain", I can reply: "No liver transplant for you, punk!
"Republicans are just out-and-out evil corporate scum with their armies of undead idiot-fundamentalist zombies desperate to protect themselves from any benefit of living in a civilized society, and the Democrats, when they're not going along with them are pissing their pants to avoid keeping their promises.
Pussies.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949824</id>
	<title>Sure we do</title>
	<author>Danathar</author>
	<datestamp>1257175080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We absolutely have a Democracy, and now it's Tyranny of the majority..whatever majority is in charge that is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We absolutely have a Democracy , and now it 's Tyranny of the majority..whatever majority is in charge that is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We absolutely have a Democracy, and now it's Tyranny of the majority..whatever majority is in charge that is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951272</id>
	<title>Re:Rabid issue people - anit gay and abortion</title>
	<author>Buelldozer</author>
	<datestamp>1257182520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because an AMERICAN would consider a country "virtually communist" or socialist doesn't make it so.</p><p>The PP is correct when he states that TRUE socialist societies do not work. You reference "virtual communist" Canada, which isn't true, and " hybrid socialist" European nations, which also isn't true, as counter examples.</p><p>TRUE Socialist states do not work and have never worked. What Canada and Europe have are hybrids, as you stated, where people are still somewhat rewarded for working harder than their neighbor. They are not true Socialist states.</p><p>Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because an AMERICAN would consider a country " virtually communist " or socialist does n't make it so.The PP is correct when he states that TRUE socialist societies do not work .
You reference " virtual communist " Canada , which is n't true , and " hybrid socialist " European nations , which also is n't true , as counter examples.TRUE Socialist states do not work and have never worked .
What Canada and Europe have are hybrids , as you stated , where people are still somewhat rewarded for working harder than their neighbor .
They are not true Socialist states.Democracy is the worst form of government , except for all the others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because an AMERICAN would consider a country "virtually communist" or socialist doesn't make it so.The PP is correct when he states that TRUE socialist societies do not work.
You reference "virtual communist" Canada, which isn't true, and " hybrid socialist" European nations, which also isn't true, as counter examples.TRUE Socialist states do not work and have never worked.
What Canada and Europe have are hybrids, as you stated, where people are still somewhat rewarded for working harder than their neighbor.
They are not true Socialist states.Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950192</id>
	<title>mod d0wn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257177180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">join in Especially</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>join in Especially [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>join in Especially [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949936</id>
	<title>Re:From www.BarackObama.com</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257175800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Impeach!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Impeach !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Impeach!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950122</id>
	<title>Re:Knee-jerk</title>
	<author>jittles</author>
	<datestamp>1257176820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless this secret document they gave the judge was something they are using to extort him! </p><p> I'm not going all tin foiled hat on you, but you have to avoid the appearance of impropriety and that's impossible to do unless both parties of the suit can review the same documents the judge is reviewing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless this secret document they gave the judge was something they are using to extort him !
I 'm not going all tin foiled hat on you , but you have to avoid the appearance of impropriety and that 's impossible to do unless both parties of the suit can review the same documents the judge is reviewing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless this secret document they gave the judge was something they are using to extort him!
I'm not going all tin foiled hat on you, but you have to avoid the appearance of impropriety and that's impossible to do unless both parties of the suit can review the same documents the judge is reviewing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949754</id>
	<title>I am really dispointed.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257174840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The quote "since going forward would compromise "ongoing intelligence activities."  makes me think the Obama administration is still doing this.</p><p>I don't care if it is easier. We need to respect our constitution, even if it makes our security agencies do a little more work.</p><p>Power is so hard to give up. Once people have it, it corrupts them.</p><p>Sad day in American history.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The quote " since going forward would compromise " ongoing intelligence activities .
" makes me think the Obama administration is still doing this.I do n't care if it is easier .
We need to respect our constitution , even if it makes our security agencies do a little more work.Power is so hard to give up .
Once people have it , it corrupts them.Sad day in American history .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The quote "since going forward would compromise "ongoing intelligence activities.
"  makes me think the Obama administration is still doing this.I don't care if it is easier.
We need to respect our constitution, even if it makes our security agencies do a little more work.Power is so hard to give up.
Once people have it, it corrupts them.Sad day in American history.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951442</id>
	<title>Emptywheel's read posted on Saturday</title>
	<author>anwaya</author>
	<datestamp>1257183300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>On Saturday, Marcy Wheeler (emptywheel) of Firedoglake <a href="http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/10/31/if-its-friday-it-must-be-state-secrets-hiding-abuse-of-power-in-the-9th-circuit/" title="firedoglake.com" rel="nofollow">blogged an analysis</a> [firedoglake.com] of the <a href="http://www.justice.gov/ag/testimony/2009/ag-testimony-091030.html" title="justice.gov" rel="nofollow">Attorney General's Friday statement</a> [justice.gov].<p>
The TL;DR is that Holder is trying to persuade Walker that there are ongoing surveillance programs that are (may be) legal which would be compromised, so please don't make the Administration explain why it violated the 4th Amendment Rights of everyone that made a phone call or sent an email, your honor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On Saturday , Marcy Wheeler ( emptywheel ) of Firedoglake blogged an analysis [ firedoglake.com ] of the Attorney General 's Friday statement [ justice.gov ] .
The TL ; DR is that Holder is trying to persuade Walker that there are ongoing surveillance programs that are ( may be ) legal which would be compromised , so please do n't make the Administration explain why it violated the 4th Amendment Rights of everyone that made a phone call or sent an email , your honor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On Saturday, Marcy Wheeler (emptywheel) of Firedoglake blogged an analysis [firedoglake.com] of the Attorney General's Friday statement [justice.gov].
The TL;DR is that Holder is trying to persuade Walker that there are ongoing surveillance programs that are (may be) legal which would be compromised, so please don't make the Administration explain why it violated the 4th Amendment Rights of everyone that made a phone call or sent an email, your honor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949702</id>
	<title>It's official...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257174420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...we no longer have a democracy.</p><p>I'm probably not even going to bother voting anymore.  These days, I can only choose between Kodos and Kang.  It doesn't matter which side you pick, both of them suck.</p><p>Sometimes, I don't even know why we the people even bother voting these days.  Three cheers for exercising our rights and all, but expecting things to get better when all we have to pick from are scumbags is like trying to lose weight in a restaurant that has nothing on the menu but deep-fried food.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...we no longer have a democracy.I 'm probably not even going to bother voting anymore .
These days , I can only choose between Kodos and Kang .
It does n't matter which side you pick , both of them suck.Sometimes , I do n't even know why we the people even bother voting these days .
Three cheers for exercising our rights and all , but expecting things to get better when all we have to pick from are scumbags is like trying to lose weight in a restaurant that has nothing on the menu but deep-fried food .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...we no longer have a democracy.I'm probably not even going to bother voting anymore.
These days, I can only choose between Kodos and Kang.
It doesn't matter which side you pick, both of them suck.Sometimes, I don't even know why we the people even bother voting these days.
Three cheers for exercising our rights and all, but expecting things to get better when all we have to pick from are scumbags is like trying to lose weight in a restaurant that has nothing on the menu but deep-fried food.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29952296</id>
	<title>Re:Change? What change?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257187320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Once we started down this slippery slope, there's no way to go back up.</p></div><p>Civil disobedience. For the love of America and yourself, read some Thoreau.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I became convinced that noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. No other person has been more eloquent and passionate in getting this idea across than Henry David Thoreau. As a result of his writings and personal witness, we are the heirs of a legacy of creative protest.</p></div><p>    - (Martin Luther King, Jr, Autobiography)</p><p>If... the machine of government... is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law.  ~Henry David Thoreau, On the Duty of Civil Disobediance, 1849</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once we started down this slippery slope , there 's no way to go back up.Civil disobedience .
For the love of America and yourself , read some Thoreau.I became convinced that noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good .
No other person has been more eloquent and passionate in getting this idea across than Henry David Thoreau .
As a result of his writings and personal witness , we are the heirs of a legacy of creative protest .
- ( Martin Luther King , Jr , Autobiography ) If... the machine of government... is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another , then , I say , break the law .
~ Henry David Thoreau , On the Duty of Civil Disobediance , 1849</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once we started down this slippery slope, there's no way to go back up.Civil disobedience.
For the love of America and yourself, read some Thoreau.I became convinced that noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good.
No other person has been more eloquent and passionate in getting this idea across than Henry David Thoreau.
As a result of his writings and personal witness, we are the heirs of a legacy of creative protest.
- (Martin Luther King, Jr, Autobiography)If... the machine of government... is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law.
~Henry David Thoreau, On the Duty of Civil Disobediance, 1849
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950312</id>
	<title>Re:Rabid issue people - anit gay and abortion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257177960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There's no room for libertarians in American Politics.</p></div></blockquote><p>Fixed for you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's no room for libertarians in American Politics.Fixed for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's no room for libertarians in American Politics.Fixed for you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950248</id>
	<title>Re:Change? What change?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257177540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/opinion/01sun1.html" title="nytimes.com">Bush administration based their court arguments on an extended interpretation of <strong>executive privilege</strong> </a> [nytimes.com], whereas the Obama administration is making an argument based in precedent and case law - <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/09/obama-stands-behind-state-secrets-in-spy-case/" title="wired.com">state secrets</a> [wired.com].</p><p>That you've presented your argument as "See, Bush is right because Obama <em>seems</em> to be doing the same" shows you probably know nothing about the arguments in this case, or the executive privilege abuses Bush's administration made in the name of our country.</p><p>You do your country a serious disservice with the same old mindless "my team right, your team wrong" dittohead rhetoric.  Means another ignorant voter, with no idea what their government is up to, regardless which party is in office -- and no clue how to fight it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Bush administration based their court arguments on an extended interpretation of executive privilege [ nytimes.com ] , whereas the Obama administration is making an argument based in precedent and case law - state secrets [ wired.com ] .That you 've presented your argument as " See , Bush is right because Obama seems to be doing the same " shows you probably know nothing about the arguments in this case , or the executive privilege abuses Bush 's administration made in the name of our country.You do your country a serious disservice with the same old mindless " my team right , your team wrong " dittohead rhetoric .
Means another ignorant voter , with no idea what their government is up to , regardless which party is in office -- and no clue how to fight it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Bush administration based their court arguments on an extended interpretation of executive privilege  [nytimes.com], whereas the Obama administration is making an argument based in precedent and case law - state secrets [wired.com].That you've presented your argument as "See, Bush is right because Obama seems to be doing the same" shows you probably know nothing about the arguments in this case, or the executive privilege abuses Bush's administration made in the name of our country.You do your country a serious disservice with the same old mindless "my team right, your team wrong" dittohead rhetoric.
Means another ignorant voter, with no idea what their government is up to, regardless which party is in office -- and no clue how to fight it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951132</id>
	<title>Re:It's official...</title>
	<author>Dishevel</author>
	<datestamp>1257182040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its worse than that.
<p>The Republicans are owned by Businesses. Big and Small.</p><p>The Democrats are owned by Lawyers and Unions.</p><p>The Green party are owned by by everything that wants humans dead and gone from the earth.</p><p>The Libertarians too weak to get in.</p><p>The Constitution party is filled with idiots.</p><p>The Socialist party could never win. (Its not their fault though the system is set against them and the need some Government help to get going.)
</p><p>The American people have turned in to pussies and will sit around till they find themselves living in the U.S.S.R</p><p>Buy a gun.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its worse than that .
The Republicans are owned by Businesses .
Big and Small.The Democrats are owned by Lawyers and Unions.The Green party are owned by by everything that wants humans dead and gone from the earth.The Libertarians too weak to get in.The Constitution party is filled with idiots.The Socialist party could never win .
( Its not their fault though the system is set against them and the need some Government help to get going .
) The American people have turned in to pussies and will sit around till they find themselves living in the U.S.S.RBuy a gun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its worse than that.
The Republicans are owned by Businesses.
Big and Small.The Democrats are owned by Lawyers and Unions.The Green party are owned by by everything that wants humans dead and gone from the earth.The Libertarians too weak to get in.The Constitution party is filled with idiots.The Socialist party could never win.
(Its not their fault though the system is set against them and the need some Government help to get going.
)
The American people have turned in to pussies and will sit around till they find themselves living in the U.S.S.RBuy a gun.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29953968</id>
	<title>Re:So let me get this straight..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257195000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Let me get this straight - the case is against warrant-less wiretapping, and since the case would expose on-going warrant-less wiretapping investigations, it should be thrown out? That's about the worst circular argument I've ever heard.</p><p>Why don't they just say it - they're going to do what they want, and it doesn't matter what anyone outside the "secret" circle thinks.</p></div><p>Indeed... the correct answer would be "All previous WW activities have Top Secret clearance and anyone participating in them has amnesty.  There is now a moratorium on future WWs while we first do a secret investigation.  The findings of this investigation (not the evidence) will then be analysed in public, and should the findings be found lacking, WWs will be banned until proof of why they are necessary is made public."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me get this straight - the case is against warrant-less wiretapping , and since the case would expose on-going warrant-less wiretapping investigations , it should be thrown out ?
That 's about the worst circular argument I 've ever heard.Why do n't they just say it - they 're going to do what they want , and it does n't matter what anyone outside the " secret " circle thinks.Indeed... the correct answer would be " All previous WW activities have Top Secret clearance and anyone participating in them has amnesty .
There is now a moratorium on future WWs while we first do a secret investigation .
The findings of this investigation ( not the evidence ) will then be analysed in public , and should the findings be found lacking , WWs will be banned until proof of why they are necessary is made public .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me get this straight - the case is against warrant-less wiretapping, and since the case would expose on-going warrant-less wiretapping investigations, it should be thrown out?
That's about the worst circular argument I've ever heard.Why don't they just say it - they're going to do what they want, and it doesn't matter what anyone outside the "secret" circle thinks.Indeed... the correct answer would be "All previous WW activities have Top Secret clearance and anyone participating in them has amnesty.
There is now a moratorium on future WWs while we first do a secret investigation.
The findings of this investigation (not the evidence) will then be analysed in public, and should the findings be found lacking, WWs will be banned until proof of why they are necessary is made public.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949662</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29963766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29953968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29952292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29954388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29952296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29952690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29965326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29954278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29955652
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29953520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29952898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29952006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29953538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29959164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29952016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29952236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29952344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29959368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29953916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29952614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29952202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29952542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_132211_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_132211.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949632
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_132211.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29952016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29952236
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_132211.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949768
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29959164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951062
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_132211.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29952898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950036
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29954388
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29952296
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951372
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_132211.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29959368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29953968
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_132211.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949874
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950246
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950184
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29952202
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951130
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29953916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949988
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29953538
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29952006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951932
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_132211.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951900
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_132211.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950360
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29952292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950174
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950956
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29952542
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950896
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29953520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950104
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_132211.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949810
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949834
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951036
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951012
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949868
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950394
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950410
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29963766
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29952344
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951272
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29952614
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951678
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951966
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951474
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951240
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29954278
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950280
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950794
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950312
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951074
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950432
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949816
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951168
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_132211.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29952690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951230
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_132211.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950016
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29965326
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29951202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950588
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_132211.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950074
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_132211.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949670
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_132211.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29950204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29955652
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_132211.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_132211.29949808
</commentlist>
</conversation>
