<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_25_2312238</id>
	<title>Obama Wants Computer Privacy Ruling Overturned</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1259150880000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>schwit1 writes <i>"The Obama administration is seeking to reverse a federal appeals court decision that <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/11/obama-wants-computer-privacy-ruling-overturned/">dramatically narrows the government&rsquo;s search-and-seizure powers</a> in the digital age. Solicitor General Elena Kagan and Justice Department officials are asking the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider its August ruling that federal prosecutors went too far when seizing 104 professional baseball players&rsquo; drug results when they had a warrant for just 10. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>schwit1 writes " The Obama administration is seeking to reverse a federal appeals court decision that dramatically narrows the government    s search-and-seizure powers in the digital age .
Solicitor General Elena Kagan and Justice Department officials are asking the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider its August ruling that federal prosecutors went too far when seizing 104 professional baseball players    drug results when they had a warrant for just 10 .
Meet the new boss , same as the old boss .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>schwit1 writes "The Obama administration is seeking to reverse a federal appeals court decision that dramatically narrows the government’s search-and-seizure powers in the digital age.
Solicitor General Elena Kagan and Justice Department officials are asking the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider its August ruling that federal prosecutors went too far when seizing 104 professional baseball players’ drug results when they had a warrant for just 10.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30234420</id>
	<title>What a misleading headline</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257191640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look at all the jackasses that come out of the wood work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look at all the jackasses that come out of the wood work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look at all the jackasses that come out of the wood work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232146</id>
	<title>Okay, that's enough.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257168120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I liked him when he ran for president. Then he failed closing gitmo, didn't manage to push healthcare through, and I kinda attribted that to "circumstances", like FOX "News".

But now he doesn't sign this landmine treaty thingie, he doesn't promise any kind of CO2 reduction goals, he extends the PATRIOT Act and now this. I'm utterly disappointed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I liked him when he ran for president .
Then he failed closing gitmo , did n't manage to push healthcare through , and I kinda attribted that to " circumstances " , like FOX " News " .
But now he does n't sign this landmine treaty thingie , he does n't promise any kind of CO2 reduction goals , he extends the PATRIOT Act and now this .
I 'm utterly disappointed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I liked him when he ran for president.
Then he failed closing gitmo, didn't manage to push healthcare through, and I kinda attribted that to "circumstances", like FOX "News".
But now he doesn't sign this landmine treaty thingie, he doesn't promise any kind of CO2 reduction goals, he extends the PATRIOT Act and now this.
I'm utterly disappointed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233870</id>
	<title>"flamebait"? REALLY?</title>
	<author>plasmacutter</author>
	<datestamp>1257183840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Another inflammatory headline that anti government jackholes will rally around without bothering to read or think about.</p><p>This sin't about just siezing computers without warrent, this isn't about grabbingh people off the street, and this isn't about lies to cover an agenda.</p><p>This is about the definition of 'found in plain sight' during a computer investigation. In the case they want to get reviewed the law enforcement officials open a spread sheet they had a warrant to look at, and happened to scroll over in the spread sheet. The court said that's not the same as in plain sight; which is ridiculous.</p></div><p>What, exactly, is unreasonable about this observation? People are positively EXPLODING with blind, frothing rage over a fine-grained court case which has not even filtered to the supreme court. The headline is highly misleading, and it's an utter travesty the blurb made it to the front page of slashdot without editors toning down the utter partisan hackery.</p><p>I wish I had not spent my final mod point on that hilarious post a few hours ago..</p><p>This is one of the most insightful posts i've seen in a political thread in a very long time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another inflammatory headline that anti government jackholes will rally around without bothering to read or think about.This si n't about just siezing computers without warrent , this is n't about grabbingh people off the street , and this is n't about lies to cover an agenda.This is about the definition of 'found in plain sight ' during a computer investigation .
In the case they want to get reviewed the law enforcement officials open a spread sheet they had a warrant to look at , and happened to scroll over in the spread sheet .
The court said that 's not the same as in plain sight ; which is ridiculous.What , exactly , is unreasonable about this observation ?
People are positively EXPLODING with blind , frothing rage over a fine-grained court case which has not even filtered to the supreme court .
The headline is highly misleading , and it 's an utter travesty the blurb made it to the front page of slashdot without editors toning down the utter partisan hackery.I wish I had not spent my final mod point on that hilarious post a few hours ago..This is one of the most insightful posts i 've seen in a political thread in a very long time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another inflammatory headline that anti government jackholes will rally around without bothering to read or think about.This sin't about just siezing computers without warrent, this isn't about grabbingh people off the street, and this isn't about lies to cover an agenda.This is about the definition of 'found in plain sight' during a computer investigation.
In the case they want to get reviewed the law enforcement officials open a spread sheet they had a warrant to look at, and happened to scroll over in the spread sheet.
The court said that's not the same as in plain sight; which is ridiculous.What, exactly, is unreasonable about this observation?
People are positively EXPLODING with blind, frothing rage over a fine-grained court case which has not even filtered to the supreme court.
The headline is highly misleading, and it's an utter travesty the blurb made it to the front page of slashdot without editors toning down the utter partisan hackery.I wish I had not spent my final mod point on that hilarious post a few hours ago..This is one of the most insightful posts i've seen in a political thread in a very long time.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233208</id>
	<title>So you thought...</title>
	<author>RepelHistory</author>
	<datestamp>1257176460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...that when he was talking about increasing openness and accountability, he meant from <i>himself</i>?</htmltext>
<tokenext>...that when he was talking about increasing openness and accountability , he meant from himself ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...that when he was talking about increasing openness and accountability, he meant from himself?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232424</id>
	<title>Nooo !?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257169920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Must be some mistake. Let's give the guy another Nobel price, I'm sure he'll deserve it later...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Must be some mistake .
Let 's give the guy another Nobel price , I 'm sure he 'll deserve it later.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Must be some mistake.
Let's give the guy another Nobel price, I'm sure he'll deserve it later...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233638</id>
	<title>Re:Misleading Story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257180900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Elena Kagan was appointed by Obama as Solicitor General who represents the Administration's opinion before SCOTUS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Elena Kagan was appointed by Obama as Solicitor General who represents the Administration 's opinion before SCOTUS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Elena Kagan was appointed by Obama as Solicitor General who represents the Administration's opinion before SCOTUS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30234770</id>
	<title>doh</title>
	<author>Lazy Jones</author>
	<datestamp>1259226960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So that's what happens when you always vote for one of the 2 parties that represent the Establishment<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I bet the sheep will run back to the Republicans in droves.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So that 's what happens when you always vote for one of the 2 parties that represent the Establishment ... I bet the sheep will run back to the Republicans in droves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So that's what happens when you always vote for one of the 2 parties that represent the Establishment ... I bet the sheep will run back to the Republicans in droves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233220</id>
	<title>Re:So he's a politician</title>
	<author>iceborer</author>
	<datestamp>1257176580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's why I voted for Cthulhu.  Why vote for the lesser evil?</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why I voted for Cthulhu .
Why vote for the lesser evil ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why I voted for Cthulhu.
Why vote for the lesser evil?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232952</id>
	<title>Things DO change, and the law always lags behind..</title>
	<author>el\_tedward</author>
	<datestamp>1257173880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Currently, as most people here have probably already figured out, we're just starting to get our laws caught up to the new digital age. I'm currently taking a couple computer forensics classes, so I've heard my instructors go on a few rants about the current state of legislation in regard to digital evidence and cyber crime investigations. For instance, in Michigan, you don't even necessarily have to have any computer back round to be a certified computer forensics investigator. All Bob the computer-illiterate rape investigator would need to do is have a few year investigating those rape cases, be over 25, and a few years of experience investigating those rape cases.. or any other sort of crime.</p><p>The main issue Obama seems to be going at is the interpretation of "in plain site." While I think it makes perfect sense that if you don't get a search warrant to look for pictures of naked children at my house, and you don't see child porn on any screens, then your search warrant sure as hell better include my computer before you snag my hard drive and start looking for my child porn stash.</p><p>However, if you make an image of someone's hard drive (you never work with the original), I don't see how everything on that image isn't in plain site, or what reasonable expectation of privacy that person would have. Though, with the way things work, if I'm looking at an image I've legitimately for evidence about a murder and see a folder called "evil child pr0nz", I pretty much need to get a warrant before looking at it, otherwise I'm risking getting that evidence thrown out. TFA states an example about how the government, while looking at the spreadsheet of how 10 players failed their drug test, also noticed that there 104 other people who failed their drug tests and then copied all that information. HOW is this not considered in plain site, because all they had to do was copy and paste the information of those 10 players??? Exactly what does the investigator have to see on a computer for it to be considered in plain site? A big flashing banner that says "LOOK IN '***!!C:\PR0NZ' FOR CHILD PRONZ!!***"??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Currently , as most people here have probably already figured out , we 're just starting to get our laws caught up to the new digital age .
I 'm currently taking a couple computer forensics classes , so I 've heard my instructors go on a few rants about the current state of legislation in regard to digital evidence and cyber crime investigations .
For instance , in Michigan , you do n't even necessarily have to have any computer back round to be a certified computer forensics investigator .
All Bob the computer-illiterate rape investigator would need to do is have a few year investigating those rape cases , be over 25 , and a few years of experience investigating those rape cases.. or any other sort of crime.The main issue Obama seems to be going at is the interpretation of " in plain site .
" While I think it makes perfect sense that if you do n't get a search warrant to look for pictures of naked children at my house , and you do n't see child porn on any screens , then your search warrant sure as hell better include my computer before you snag my hard drive and start looking for my child porn stash.However , if you make an image of someone 's hard drive ( you never work with the original ) , I do n't see how everything on that image is n't in plain site , or what reasonable expectation of privacy that person would have .
Though , with the way things work , if I 'm looking at an image I 've legitimately for evidence about a murder and see a folder called " evil child pr0nz " , I pretty much need to get a warrant before looking at it , otherwise I 'm risking getting that evidence thrown out .
TFA states an example about how the government , while looking at the spreadsheet of how 10 players failed their drug test , also noticed that there 104 other people who failed their drug tests and then copied all that information .
HOW is this not considered in plain site , because all they had to do was copy and paste the information of those 10 players ? ? ?
Exactly what does the investigator have to see on a computer for it to be considered in plain site ?
A big flashing banner that says " LOOK IN ' * * * !
! C : \ PR0NZ ' FOR CHILD PRONZ ! ! * * * " ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Currently, as most people here have probably already figured out, we're just starting to get our laws caught up to the new digital age.
I'm currently taking a couple computer forensics classes, so I've heard my instructors go on a few rants about the current state of legislation in regard to digital evidence and cyber crime investigations.
For instance, in Michigan, you don't even necessarily have to have any computer back round to be a certified computer forensics investigator.
All Bob the computer-illiterate rape investigator would need to do is have a few year investigating those rape cases, be over 25, and a few years of experience investigating those rape cases.. or any other sort of crime.The main issue Obama seems to be going at is the interpretation of "in plain site.
" While I think it makes perfect sense that if you don't get a search warrant to look for pictures of naked children at my house, and you don't see child porn on any screens, then your search warrant sure as hell better include my computer before you snag my hard drive and start looking for my child porn stash.However, if you make an image of someone's hard drive (you never work with the original), I don't see how everything on that image isn't in plain site, or what reasonable expectation of privacy that person would have.
Though, with the way things work, if I'm looking at an image I've legitimately for evidence about a murder and see a folder called "evil child pr0nz", I pretty much need to get a warrant before looking at it, otherwise I'm risking getting that evidence thrown out.
TFA states an example about how the government, while looking at the spreadsheet of how 10 players failed their drug test, also noticed that there 104 other people who failed their drug tests and then copied all that information.
HOW is this not considered in plain site, because all they had to do was copy and paste the information of those 10 players???
Exactly what does the investigator have to see on a computer for it to be considered in plain site?
A big flashing banner that says "LOOK IN '***!
!C:\PR0NZ' FOR CHILD PRONZ!!***"?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232042</id>
	<title>I am shocked!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257167340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That it's taking people this long to realize nothing ever changes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That it 's taking people this long to realize nothing ever changes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That it's taking people this long to realize nothing ever changes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30236912</id>
	<title>Re:transparency as advertised</title>
	<author>imakemusic</author>
	<datestamp>1259250540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmmm. Does "transparency" mean you can see through it or that you can't see it at all?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmmm .
Does " transparency " mean you can see through it or that you ca n't see it at all ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmmm.
Does "transparency" mean you can see through it or that you can't see it at all?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232942</id>
	<title>Stimulus Plans (Re:Hope/Change?)</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1257173820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Now you have the highest spending EVER.</p></div> </blockquote><p>That's apples-to-oranges. During bad times *is* the time to spend. Bush spent during (relatively) good times. Ideally a "rainy-day" budget surplus is built up so that the gov't can spend it as stimulus money when the private sector goes into a funk. It's roughly comparable to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. You don't suck oil from it when you can get it elsewhere.</p><p>But, <b>Bush <i>spent</i> the rainy-day fund when it wasn't raining.</b> Stimulus spending can work. Look at China for example, they have a yearly-adjusted growth rate of 8\% despite slumped exports. But, China has sufficient cash for such, thanks largely to our lopsided trading. Without the US stimulus spending, we could be at say 20\% unemployment right now.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now you have the highest spending EVER .
That 's apples-to-oranges .
During bad times * is * the time to spend .
Bush spent during ( relatively ) good times .
Ideally a " rainy-day " budget surplus is built up so that the gov't can spend it as stimulus money when the private sector goes into a funk .
It 's roughly comparable to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve .
You do n't suck oil from it when you can get it elsewhere.But , Bush spent the rainy-day fund when it was n't raining .
Stimulus spending can work .
Look at China for example , they have a yearly-adjusted growth rate of 8 \ % despite slumped exports .
But , China has sufficient cash for such , thanks largely to our lopsided trading .
Without the US stimulus spending , we could be at say 20 \ % unemployment right now .
     </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now you have the highest spending EVER.
That's apples-to-oranges.
During bad times *is* the time to spend.
Bush spent during (relatively) good times.
Ideally a "rainy-day" budget surplus is built up so that the gov't can spend it as stimulus money when the private sector goes into a funk.
It's roughly comparable to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
You don't suck oil from it when you can get it elsewhere.But, Bush spent the rainy-day fund when it wasn't raining.
Stimulus spending can work.
Look at China for example, they have a yearly-adjusted growth rate of 8\% despite slumped exports.
But, China has sufficient cash for such, thanks largely to our lopsided trading.
Without the US stimulus spending, we could be at say 20\% unemployment right now.
     
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233604</id>
	<title>Re:Eh</title>
	<author>hoggoth</author>
	<datestamp>1257180540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am a computer forensic investigator. While I think scrolling a spreadsheet that was gathered with a warrant a little to the right should probably be allowed, certainly that line must be drawn somewhere. If I was allowed to dig through every file on ANYONE's computer I'll bet I can find enough of SOMETHING to cause them major headaches. Are you sure all those porn sites you visited didn't have a single image of child porn somewhere in those thumbnails, even down off-screen where you never saw it? Are you sure those tax returns you have on your computer match up with your actual deposit records? Are you sure you never said anything that could be considered dangerous or threatening about an elected official or member of law enforcement ever? Are you certain you have the purchase records for every MP3 song and movie on your computer?</p><p>When I'm asked to look at some financial records, that's ALL I can look at. Nothing else. When I'm looking at emails, that's it, nothing else. And that's the way it should be.</p><p>Let's face it, these days we're all criminals. It helps keep us in line.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am a computer forensic investigator .
While I think scrolling a spreadsheet that was gathered with a warrant a little to the right should probably be allowed , certainly that line must be drawn somewhere .
If I was allowed to dig through every file on ANYONE 's computer I 'll bet I can find enough of SOMETHING to cause them major headaches .
Are you sure all those porn sites you visited did n't have a single image of child porn somewhere in those thumbnails , even down off-screen where you never saw it ?
Are you sure those tax returns you have on your computer match up with your actual deposit records ?
Are you sure you never said anything that could be considered dangerous or threatening about an elected official or member of law enforcement ever ?
Are you certain you have the purchase records for every MP3 song and movie on your computer ? When I 'm asked to look at some financial records , that 's ALL I can look at .
Nothing else .
When I 'm looking at emails , that 's it , nothing else .
And that 's the way it should be.Let 's face it , these days we 're all criminals .
It helps keep us in line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am a computer forensic investigator.
While I think scrolling a spreadsheet that was gathered with a warrant a little to the right should probably be allowed, certainly that line must be drawn somewhere.
If I was allowed to dig through every file on ANYONE's computer I'll bet I can find enough of SOMETHING to cause them major headaches.
Are you sure all those porn sites you visited didn't have a single image of child porn somewhere in those thumbnails, even down off-screen where you never saw it?
Are you sure those tax returns you have on your computer match up with your actual deposit records?
Are you sure you never said anything that could be considered dangerous or threatening about an elected official or member of law enforcement ever?
Are you certain you have the purchase records for every MP3 song and movie on your computer?When I'm asked to look at some financial records, that's ALL I can look at.
Nothing else.
When I'm looking at emails, that's it, nothing else.
And that's the way it should be.Let's face it, these days we're all criminals.
It helps keep us in line.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233436</id>
	<title>Re:Okay, that's enough.</title>
	<author>ChaoticLimbs</author>
	<datestamp>1257178620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's because fundamentally we only have 1 group in power: <br> People Who Want You To Do What They Say. <br> We have no liberty, only lip-service to an ethereal concept we label "liberty". It's still possible for a majority of voters to vote to take away or prevent the granting of rights to people who do not conform to the majority's standard.

I'm straight, but the fact that people can vote to prevent gays from marrying means it's NOT a free country. We are instead oppressed by our leaders AND our peers instead of just our leaders.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's because fundamentally we only have 1 group in power : People Who Want You To Do What They Say .
We have no liberty , only lip-service to an ethereal concept we label " liberty " .
It 's still possible for a majority of voters to vote to take away or prevent the granting of rights to people who do not conform to the majority 's standard .
I 'm straight , but the fact that people can vote to prevent gays from marrying means it 's NOT a free country .
We are instead oppressed by our leaders AND our peers instead of just our leaders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's because fundamentally we only have 1 group in power:  People Who Want You To Do What They Say.
We have no liberty, only lip-service to an ethereal concept we label "liberty".
It's still possible for a majority of voters to vote to take away or prevent the granting of rights to people who do not conform to the majority's standard.
I'm straight, but the fact that people can vote to prevent gays from marrying means it's NOT a free country.
We are instead oppressed by our leaders AND our peers instead of just our leaders.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232118</id>
	<title>Re:So he's a politician</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257168000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A vote for the lesser evil is still a vote for evil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A vote for the lesser evil is still a vote for evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A vote for the lesser evil is still a vote for evil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232644</id>
	<title>Re:So he's a politician</title>
	<author>BorgAssimilator</author>
	<datestamp>1257171660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>But it's still better than not voting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But it 's still better than not voting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But it's still better than not voting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30237436</id>
	<title>Re:Okay, that's enough.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259254320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Healthcare - well instead of uncle sam paying for 50\%, he'll pay for 100\%, of our national medical expenses.  This is his biggest change.</p></div><p>What the HELL are you talking about?  Obviously those numbers are pulled out of thin air, but seriously, it's not like theres going to be a public option.  What ARE you talking about?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Healthcare - well instead of uncle sam paying for 50 \ % , he 'll pay for 100 \ % , of our national medical expenses .
This is his biggest change.What the HELL are you talking about ?
Obviously those numbers are pulled out of thin air , but seriously , it 's not like theres going to be a public option .
What ARE you talking about ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Healthcare - well instead of uncle sam paying for 50\%, he'll pay for 100\%, of our national medical expenses.
This is his biggest change.What the HELL are you talking about?
Obviously those numbers are pulled out of thin air, but seriously, it's not like theres going to be a public option.
What ARE you talking about?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232820</id>
	<title>Re:Asinine example</title>
	<author>Ibag</author>
	<datestamp>1257173040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, because getting a warrant now with too limited a scope might prevent them from ever getting admissible evidence for the other crimes, they are sending in non-federal agents to prevent a miscarriage of justice stemming from a legal technicality.  Like how some big investigations go on for years before any overt action is taken, because a bust without enough admissible evidence is just a waste of time and money.  But feel free to oversimplify things however you would like.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , because getting a warrant now with too limited a scope might prevent them from ever getting admissible evidence for the other crimes , they are sending in non-federal agents to prevent a miscarriage of justice stemming from a legal technicality .
Like how some big investigations go on for years before any overt action is taken , because a bust without enough admissible evidence is just a waste of time and money .
But feel free to oversimplify things however you would like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, because getting a warrant now with too limited a scope might prevent them from ever getting admissible evidence for the other crimes, they are sending in non-federal agents to prevent a miscarriage of justice stemming from a legal technicality.
Like how some big investigations go on for years before any overt action is taken, because a bust without enough admissible evidence is just a waste of time and money.
But feel free to oversimplify things however you would like.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233734</id>
	<title>Re:Hope/Change?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257181980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know, I am heartily sick of hearing that lazy mantra of the Baby Boomer generation. "When are you all going to learn that government is inherently bad; that it is inherently corrupt." Back in the '60s this was followed by, "All you need is love, man." By the 80s it became "Just trust the corporations. Deregulate everything, and the free market will take care of us." By 2000 it was, "All you need is God." <br> <br>

What the Boomers keep failing to understand is that government is not, and never has been, "The Man," some strange group controlled by an alien entity. Government is nothing more or less than the sum of its parts, namely the people who work to create and maintain it. In this country we happen to be blessed with a Democratic Republic, which means that group of people is everyone in the country. Everyone gets to participate, by running for office, by volunteering for a campaign or a cause, by discussing the issues with friends and family and coworkers, by voting. <br> <br>

The problem isn't that government is run by someone else, it's that the Boomers, our parents and grandparents, sold their participation, and continue selling their participation, for the dollars and promises of corporations. These corporations have turned around and used those votes to build a government that responds to their needs. This has the unfortunate result of giving us a government that doesn't respond to our needs, which only makes sense because we're not the ones with the votes anymore. <br> <br>

We CAN fix this, but we're not going to do it by staying in our parents' indolent fantasy land, and pretending that we can keep selling our votes every year and government will just go away if we ignore it enough. We have to stop selling our participation every election, and get out there and make the changes that we need. And we have to do it quickly: the EU and Japan and the BRIC nations aren't suffering from the same government-phobia that we are, and are poised to toss us into the dustbin of history.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , I am heartily sick of hearing that lazy mantra of the Baby Boomer generation .
" When are you all going to learn that government is inherently bad ; that it is inherently corrupt .
" Back in the '60s this was followed by , " All you need is love , man .
" By the 80s it became " Just trust the corporations .
Deregulate everything , and the free market will take care of us .
" By 2000 it was , " All you need is God .
" What the Boomers keep failing to understand is that government is not , and never has been , " The Man , " some strange group controlled by an alien entity .
Government is nothing more or less than the sum of its parts , namely the people who work to create and maintain it .
In this country we happen to be blessed with a Democratic Republic , which means that group of people is everyone in the country .
Everyone gets to participate , by running for office , by volunteering for a campaign or a cause , by discussing the issues with friends and family and coworkers , by voting .
The problem is n't that government is run by someone else , it 's that the Boomers , our parents and grandparents , sold their participation , and continue selling their participation , for the dollars and promises of corporations .
These corporations have turned around and used those votes to build a government that responds to their needs .
This has the unfortunate result of giving us a government that does n't respond to our needs , which only makes sense because we 're not the ones with the votes anymore .
We CAN fix this , but we 're not going to do it by staying in our parents ' indolent fantasy land , and pretending that we can keep selling our votes every year and government will just go away if we ignore it enough .
We have to stop selling our participation every election , and get out there and make the changes that we need .
And we have to do it quickly : the EU and Japan and the BRIC nations are n't suffering from the same government-phobia that we are , and are poised to toss us into the dustbin of history .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, I am heartily sick of hearing that lazy mantra of the Baby Boomer generation.
"When are you all going to learn that government is inherently bad; that it is inherently corrupt.
" Back in the '60s this was followed by, "All you need is love, man.
" By the 80s it became "Just trust the corporations.
Deregulate everything, and the free market will take care of us.
" By 2000 it was, "All you need is God.
"  

What the Boomers keep failing to understand is that government is not, and never has been, "The Man," some strange group controlled by an alien entity.
Government is nothing more or less than the sum of its parts, namely the people who work to create and maintain it.
In this country we happen to be blessed with a Democratic Republic, which means that group of people is everyone in the country.
Everyone gets to participate, by running for office, by volunteering for a campaign or a cause, by discussing the issues with friends and family and coworkers, by voting.
The problem isn't that government is run by someone else, it's that the Boomers, our parents and grandparents, sold their participation, and continue selling their participation, for the dollars and promises of corporations.
These corporations have turned around and used those votes to build a government that responds to their needs.
This has the unfortunate result of giving us a government that doesn't respond to our needs, which only makes sense because we're not the ones with the votes anymore.
We CAN fix this, but we're not going to do it by staying in our parents' indolent fantasy land, and pretending that we can keep selling our votes every year and government will just go away if we ignore it enough.
We have to stop selling our participation every election, and get out there and make the changes that we need.
And we have to do it quickly: the EU and Japan and the BRIC nations aren't suffering from the same government-phobia that we are, and are poised to toss us into the dustbin of history.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232970</id>
	<title>Re:Only pedantic comments here</title>
	<author>smchris</author>
	<datestamp>1257174000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>Just because his actions related to 4th amendment are like Bush's, doesn't mean it's a one-party system all of a sudden. Take a look at healthcare and foreign policy.....</em></p><p>umm hummm.  Public option, Iraq, Afghanistan, employment and the trade imbalance are working out \_so\_ much better than under Bush.</p><p>[And you don't "protect" the "country" by continuing policies that destroy what it stands for.  Then, it's a \_different\_ country.]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because his actions related to 4th amendment are like Bush 's , does n't mean it 's a one-party system all of a sudden .
Take a look at healthcare and foreign policy.....umm hummm .
Public option , Iraq , Afghanistan , employment and the trade imbalance are working out \ _so \ _ much better than under Bush .
[ And you do n't " protect " the " country " by continuing policies that destroy what it stands for .
Then , it 's a \ _different \ _ country .
]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because his actions related to 4th amendment are like Bush's, doesn't mean it's a one-party system all of a sudden.
Take a look at healthcare and foreign policy.....umm hummm.
Public option, Iraq, Afghanistan, employment and the trade imbalance are working out \_so\_ much better than under Bush.
[And you don't "protect" the "country" by continuing policies that destroy what it stands for.
Then, it's a \_different\_ country.
]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30270454</id>
	<title>Changing hope and changing change</title>
	<author>bobvious</author>
	<datestamp>1259599800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How's that hope and change working out for ya?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How 's that hope and change working out for ya ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How's that hope and change working out for ya?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232324</id>
	<title>Re:Okay, that's enough.</title>
	<author>east coast</author>
	<datestamp>1257169140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I want an honest answer to this from the Obama supporters: Why do you think it's really that big of a deal if he closes Gitmo but just transfers the same people elsewhere? I don't understand the gains of this.<br> <br>Aside from that, and not to feed the troll who responded to you but, the government health plan really isn't a gain (as in freedom). We've had enough dickering with the rights of the private sectors and the more the government gets their fingers into the mix the worse it gets. And with the economy in the tank it's not a good time to start a new unproven social program. Not that I agree with them under a good economy but it's a serious case of high risk to bring this out when we're already riding the edge hard.<br> <br>And how can you blame Fox? Those who pay attention to Fox news, according to the common stereotype that goes on around here, are powerless according to what I heard last November. What's changed?<br> <br>And did you HONESTLY think the Federal government was going to give up on a power grab like the PATRIOT act? Please don't tell me that you fell for this myth that the Democrats are somehow freedom lovers and the Republicans are Nazis just waiting for the right time to put on their brown shirts and hip boots. It's a disgusting bit of rhetoric that only keeps one side in power just like the myth from the other side that states the same but with the Republicans being the great defenders of freedom and the Dems being a bunch of Nazis. Why is it when one "side" says it half of you how like banshees that it's God's truth but when the other "side" says it you dismiss it as utter nonsense? <br> <br>When are you people going to take the blinders off?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I want an honest answer to this from the Obama supporters : Why do you think it 's really that big of a deal if he closes Gitmo but just transfers the same people elsewhere ?
I do n't understand the gains of this .
Aside from that , and not to feed the troll who responded to you but , the government health plan really is n't a gain ( as in freedom ) .
We 've had enough dickering with the rights of the private sectors and the more the government gets their fingers into the mix the worse it gets .
And with the economy in the tank it 's not a good time to start a new unproven social program .
Not that I agree with them under a good economy but it 's a serious case of high risk to bring this out when we 're already riding the edge hard .
And how can you blame Fox ?
Those who pay attention to Fox news , according to the common stereotype that goes on around here , are powerless according to what I heard last November .
What 's changed ?
And did you HONESTLY think the Federal government was going to give up on a power grab like the PATRIOT act ?
Please do n't tell me that you fell for this myth that the Democrats are somehow freedom lovers and the Republicans are Nazis just waiting for the right time to put on their brown shirts and hip boots .
It 's a disgusting bit of rhetoric that only keeps one side in power just like the myth from the other side that states the same but with the Republicans being the great defenders of freedom and the Dems being a bunch of Nazis .
Why is it when one " side " says it half of you how like banshees that it 's God 's truth but when the other " side " says it you dismiss it as utter nonsense ?
When are you people going to take the blinders off ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want an honest answer to this from the Obama supporters: Why do you think it's really that big of a deal if he closes Gitmo but just transfers the same people elsewhere?
I don't understand the gains of this.
Aside from that, and not to feed the troll who responded to you but, the government health plan really isn't a gain (as in freedom).
We've had enough dickering with the rights of the private sectors and the more the government gets their fingers into the mix the worse it gets.
And with the economy in the tank it's not a good time to start a new unproven social program.
Not that I agree with them under a good economy but it's a serious case of high risk to bring this out when we're already riding the edge hard.
And how can you blame Fox?
Those who pay attention to Fox news, according to the common stereotype that goes on around here, are powerless according to what I heard last November.
What's changed?
And did you HONESTLY think the Federal government was going to give up on a power grab like the PATRIOT act?
Please don't tell me that you fell for this myth that the Democrats are somehow freedom lovers and the Republicans are Nazis just waiting for the right time to put on their brown shirts and hip boots.
It's a disgusting bit of rhetoric that only keeps one side in power just like the myth from the other side that states the same but with the Republicans being the great defenders of freedom and the Dems being a bunch of Nazis.
Why is it when one "side" says it half of you how like banshees that it's God's truth but when the other "side" says it you dismiss it as utter nonsense?
When are you people going to take the blinders off?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233964</id>
	<title>Re:Misleading Story</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1257184980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It is Elena Kagan, not Obama. Her job is the United States Solicitor General.</p> </div><p>She works for him. The actions of underlings reflect on the president just as they do for any previous president.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is Elena Kagan , not Obama .
Her job is the United States Solicitor General .
She works for him .
The actions of underlings reflect on the president just as they do for any previous president .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is Elena Kagan, not Obama.
Her job is the United States Solicitor General.
She works for him.
The actions of underlings reflect on the president just as they do for any previous president.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30234590</id>
	<title>Re:Evil is a relative term.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259267460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With moral relativism like that, good men will always do nothing because they will never acknowledge the evil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With moral relativism like that , good men will always do nothing because they will never acknowledge the evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With moral relativism like that, good men will always do nothing because they will never acknowledge the evil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30234390</id>
	<title>Re:Okay, that's enough.</title>
	<author>Phroggy</author>
	<datestamp>1257191040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Really Obamas inability to get things passed is due to his own party fighting each other.</p></div><p>I'm not even sure I'd call it an inability to get things done - more of an unwillingness to get things done.  If Obama had said "here's how health care reform is going to work, here's the bill, make whatever amendments you need to make but I won't sign it unless the final bill meets these criteria" they'd be done by now.  Instead he said "hey Congress, come up with some sort of health care thing" and after months of hugely successful fearmongering followed it up with "here's an idea I think would work, but I'm not set on it; go figure out some sort of health care thing that meets most of these criteria at least somewhat, and if it doesn't actually make things worse we'll call it a victory."</p><p>Is anyone really surprised that the Democrats in Congress have been bickering?  There's no leadership.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really Obamas inability to get things passed is due to his own party fighting each other.I 'm not even sure I 'd call it an inability to get things done - more of an unwillingness to get things done .
If Obama had said " here 's how health care reform is going to work , here 's the bill , make whatever amendments you need to make but I wo n't sign it unless the final bill meets these criteria " they 'd be done by now .
Instead he said " hey Congress , come up with some sort of health care thing " and after months of hugely successful fearmongering followed it up with " here 's an idea I think would work , but I 'm not set on it ; go figure out some sort of health care thing that meets most of these criteria at least somewhat , and if it does n't actually make things worse we 'll call it a victory .
" Is anyone really surprised that the Democrats in Congress have been bickering ?
There 's no leadership .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really Obamas inability to get things passed is due to his own party fighting each other.I'm not even sure I'd call it an inability to get things done - more of an unwillingness to get things done.
If Obama had said "here's how health care reform is going to work, here's the bill, make whatever amendments you need to make but I won't sign it unless the final bill meets these criteria" they'd be done by now.
Instead he said "hey Congress, come up with some sort of health care thing" and after months of hugely successful fearmongering followed it up with "here's an idea I think would work, but I'm not set on it; go figure out some sort of health care thing that meets most of these criteria at least somewhat, and if it doesn't actually make things worse we'll call it a victory.
"Is anyone really surprised that the Democrats in Congress have been bickering?
There's no leadership.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232240</id>
	<title>Asinine example</title>
	<author>whoever57</author>
	<datestamp>1257168660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The government said the decision was already chilling at least one rape case in Washington State.
<br> <br>
"Federal agents received information from their counterparts in San Diego that two individuals had filmed themselves raping a 4-year-old girl and traded the images via the internet," the government wrote. "The agents did not obtain a warrant to search the suspects' computers, however, because of concerns that any evidence discovered about other potential victims could not be disclosed by the filter team. The agents therefore referred the case to state authorities."</p></div></blockquote><p>

So, because a warrant won't let them go on a fishing expedition for other crimes, they don't pursue the crimes that they do know about? That's like a kid saying: "If you don't play by my rules, I'll take my ball away".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The government said the decision was already chilling at least one rape case in Washington State .
" Federal agents received information from their counterparts in San Diego that two individuals had filmed themselves raping a 4-year-old girl and traded the images via the internet , " the government wrote .
" The agents did not obtain a warrant to search the suspects ' computers , however , because of concerns that any evidence discovered about other potential victims could not be disclosed by the filter team .
The agents therefore referred the case to state authorities .
" So , because a warrant wo n't let them go on a fishing expedition for other crimes , they do n't pursue the crimes that they do know about ?
That 's like a kid saying : " If you do n't play by my rules , I 'll take my ball away " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government said the decision was already chilling at least one rape case in Washington State.
"Federal agents received information from their counterparts in San Diego that two individuals had filmed themselves raping a 4-year-old girl and traded the images via the internet," the government wrote.
"The agents did not obtain a warrant to search the suspects' computers, however, because of concerns that any evidence discovered about other potential victims could not be disclosed by the filter team.
The agents therefore referred the case to state authorities.
"

So, because a warrant won't let them go on a fishing expedition for other crimes, they don't pursue the crimes that they do know about?
That's like a kid saying: "If you don't play by my rules, I'll take my ball away".
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232390</id>
	<title>Yeah</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257169680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another inflammatory headline that anti government jackholes will rally around without bothering to read or think about.</p><p>This sin't about just siezing computers without warrent, this isn't about grabbingh people off the street, and this isn't about lies to cover an agenda.</p><p>This is about the definition of 'found in plain sight' during a computer investigation. In the case they want to get reviewed the law enforcement officials open a spread sheet they had a warrant to look at, and happened to scroll over in the spread sheet. The court said that's not the same as in plain sight; which is ridiculous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another inflammatory headline that anti government jackholes will rally around without bothering to read or think about.This si n't about just siezing computers without warrent , this is n't about grabbingh people off the street , and this is n't about lies to cover an agenda.This is about the definition of 'found in plain sight ' during a computer investigation .
In the case they want to get reviewed the law enforcement officials open a spread sheet they had a warrant to look at , and happened to scroll over in the spread sheet .
The court said that 's not the same as in plain sight ; which is ridiculous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another inflammatory headline that anti government jackholes will rally around without bothering to read or think about.This sin't about just siezing computers without warrent, this isn't about grabbingh people off the street, and this isn't about lies to cover an agenda.This is about the definition of 'found in plain sight' during a computer investigation.
In the case they want to get reviewed the law enforcement officials open a spread sheet they had a warrant to look at, and happened to scroll over in the spread sheet.
The court said that's not the same as in plain sight; which is ridiculous.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232950</id>
	<title>Re:Hope/Change?</title>
	<author>Falconhell</author>
	<datestamp>1257173880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"At least Bush had a war to justify his need to breach privacy.</p><p>Ah I see, I must have missed the end of the war against terror, the war in Iraq and afghanistan.</p><p>Musta blinked and missed it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" At least Bush had a war to justify his need to breach privacy.Ah I see , I must have missed the end of the war against terror , the war in Iraq and afghanistan.Musta blinked and missed it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"At least Bush had a war to justify his need to breach privacy.Ah I see, I must have missed the end of the war against terror, the war in Iraq and afghanistan.Musta blinked and missed it!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30234964</id>
	<title>Re:Misleading Story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259229900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Killers also just do their job. There can be a big difference between doing your job and whether this job works against certain or most people. Not to mention no matter how criminal the activity of any government is it always hides behind "good will" and other bullshit.<br>And in case you didn't know, often people don't just do their job, but execute orders so they don't have control over their own actions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Killers also just do their job .
There can be a big difference between doing your job and whether this job works against certain or most people .
Not to mention no matter how criminal the activity of any government is it always hides behind " good will " and other bullshit.And in case you did n't know , often people do n't just do their job , but execute orders so they do n't have control over their own actions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Killers also just do their job.
There can be a big difference between doing your job and whether this job works against certain or most people.
Not to mention no matter how criminal the activity of any government is it always hides behind "good will" and other bullshit.And in case you didn't know, often people don't just do their job, but execute orders so they don't have control over their own actions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233008</id>
	<title>Re:Okay, that's enough.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257174480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am also disappointed, he said he would make world peace.  Ahem we are still waiting, I mean we have only failed to achieve world peace since we walked this earth, should be fixable in only two minuets right? here is the thing these are all big decisions and he never said that electing him would make them all come true by his election alone.  But he would work towards those goals, one of the first things he did in office was to announce that gitmo is going to close and he has worked to move the prisoners to more adequate facilities such as the Uighurs who were innocent but  still held despite no clear evidence that they were guilty and China was happy to call them guilty anyways so we could not send them back to China.  For the corruption and business as usual well what do you expect he is just one part of the government he is not all powerful and should not be not to mention his powers far exceed what the founding fathers would have allowed him.  If you really want change violent revolution is in order to remind the leaders that their power comes from the people, remember the right to bear arms has little to do with hunting and protection from robbers but making us the fourth branch of the government, and that we can revoke their license to use it at any time and being the leader is dangerous just remember the cost of violent revolution on our society as a whole and that if you loose only more draconian measures will be taken to suppress any revolution which even if it did succeed look at the revolutions through history.  How many ended well?  Just remember as well Obama is making many of the right decision, correctness however is not universal so you will likely disagree. Just ask yourself which option do you prefer?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am also disappointed , he said he would make world peace .
Ahem we are still waiting , I mean we have only failed to achieve world peace since we walked this earth , should be fixable in only two minuets right ?
here is the thing these are all big decisions and he never said that electing him would make them all come true by his election alone .
But he would work towards those goals , one of the first things he did in office was to announce that gitmo is going to close and he has worked to move the prisoners to more adequate facilities such as the Uighurs who were innocent but still held despite no clear evidence that they were guilty and China was happy to call them guilty anyways so we could not send them back to China .
For the corruption and business as usual well what do you expect he is just one part of the government he is not all powerful and should not be not to mention his powers far exceed what the founding fathers would have allowed him .
If you really want change violent revolution is in order to remind the leaders that their power comes from the people , remember the right to bear arms has little to do with hunting and protection from robbers but making us the fourth branch of the government , and that we can revoke their license to use it at any time and being the leader is dangerous just remember the cost of violent revolution on our society as a whole and that if you loose only more draconian measures will be taken to suppress any revolution which even if it did succeed look at the revolutions through history .
How many ended well ?
Just remember as well Obama is making many of the right decision , correctness however is not universal so you will likely disagree .
Just ask yourself which option do you prefer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am also disappointed, he said he would make world peace.
Ahem we are still waiting, I mean we have only failed to achieve world peace since we walked this earth, should be fixable in only two minuets right?
here is the thing these are all big decisions and he never said that electing him would make them all come true by his election alone.
But he would work towards those goals, one of the first things he did in office was to announce that gitmo is going to close and he has worked to move the prisoners to more adequate facilities such as the Uighurs who were innocent but  still held despite no clear evidence that they were guilty and China was happy to call them guilty anyways so we could not send them back to China.
For the corruption and business as usual well what do you expect he is just one part of the government he is not all powerful and should not be not to mention his powers far exceed what the founding fathers would have allowed him.
If you really want change violent revolution is in order to remind the leaders that their power comes from the people, remember the right to bear arms has little to do with hunting and protection from robbers but making us the fourth branch of the government, and that we can revoke their license to use it at any time and being the leader is dangerous just remember the cost of violent revolution on our society as a whole and that if you loose only more draconian measures will be taken to suppress any revolution which even if it did succeed look at the revolutions through history.
How many ended well?
Just remember as well Obama is making many of the right decision, correctness however is not universal so you will likely disagree.
Just ask yourself which option do you prefer?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233158</id>
	<title>Screwed Up Plain View Case</title>
	<author>MarkvW</author>
	<datestamp>1257175800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>9th Circuit essentially stated (maybe not held) that there is no plain view in computer searches.  They embedded this ruling (which all the lower courts in the 9th Circuit will follow) in an opinion in a case that the feds have no very good chance of appealing successfully because of procedural error (law of the case doctrine).</p><p>The 9th Circuit has included some really wackazoid dicta in their opinion.  They're telling the magistrates that they shouldn't be giving computer search warrants to the feds unless the feds WAIVE the plain view exception to the warrant requirement.  This seems incredibly weird to me.</p><p>If the Supremos take this case it will be a strong indicator that they disapprove of the breadth of the 9th Circuit's ruling.</p><p>This case is screwed up on at least a couple levels.</p><p>And, FWIW, this has abso--lutely nothing to do with Obama.  The 9th Circuit went way out on a limb in this case (I think).  Be interesting to see if the Supremos chop that limb off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>9th Circuit essentially stated ( maybe not held ) that there is no plain view in computer searches .
They embedded this ruling ( which all the lower courts in the 9th Circuit will follow ) in an opinion in a case that the feds have no very good chance of appealing successfully because of procedural error ( law of the case doctrine ) .The 9th Circuit has included some really wackazoid dicta in their opinion .
They 're telling the magistrates that they should n't be giving computer search warrants to the feds unless the feds WAIVE the plain view exception to the warrant requirement .
This seems incredibly weird to me.If the Supremos take this case it will be a strong indicator that they disapprove of the breadth of the 9th Circuit 's ruling.This case is screwed up on at least a couple levels.And , FWIW , this has abso--lutely nothing to do with Obama .
The 9th Circuit went way out on a limb in this case ( I think ) .
Be interesting to see if the Supremos chop that limb off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>9th Circuit essentially stated (maybe not held) that there is no plain view in computer searches.
They embedded this ruling (which all the lower courts in the 9th Circuit will follow) in an opinion in a case that the feds have no very good chance of appealing successfully because of procedural error (law of the case doctrine).The 9th Circuit has included some really wackazoid dicta in their opinion.
They're telling the magistrates that they shouldn't be giving computer search warrants to the feds unless the feds WAIVE the plain view exception to the warrant requirement.
This seems incredibly weird to me.If the Supremos take this case it will be a strong indicator that they disapprove of the breadth of the 9th Circuit's ruling.This case is screwed up on at least a couple levels.And, FWIW, this has abso--lutely nothing to do with Obama.
The 9th Circuit went way out on a limb in this case (I think).
Be interesting to see if the Supremos chop that limb off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30236556</id>
	<title>Re:Hope/Change?</title>
	<author>Aceticon</author>
	<datestamp>1259247720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please let me know how your community of Anarchists solves Tragedy of the Commons problems with shared resources and sorts out conflicts with other communities without having some form of centralized organization-and-control and without their citizens killing each other, depleting said shared resources or being wiped-out by another community that does have some form of centralized organization-and-control.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please let me know how your community of Anarchists solves Tragedy of the Commons problems with shared resources and sorts out conflicts with other communities without having some form of centralized organization-and-control and without their citizens killing each other , depleting said shared resources or being wiped-out by another community that does have some form of centralized organization-and-control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please let me know how your community of Anarchists solves Tragedy of the Commons problems with shared resources and sorts out conflicts with other communities without having some form of centralized organization-and-control and without their citizens killing each other, depleting said shared resources or being wiped-out by another community that does have some form of centralized organization-and-control.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30234880</id>
	<title>Nitpick nazi here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259228940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> (I think the percentage of innocent people is probably between 3 and 10 percent)</p></div><p>Golly, that's a bleak outlook on society.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( I think the percentage of innocent people is probably between 3 and 10 percent ) Golly , that 's a bleak outlook on society .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> (I think the percentage of innocent people is probably between 3 and 10 percent)Golly, that's a bleak outlook on society.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233930</id>
	<title>RE: Obama  Hitler + Stallin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257184620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Evil has a new name: Its name<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Barak Hussain Obama!</p><p>Pray for death.</p><p>Pray for "His" Death.</p><p>Pray for salvation at the feet of "His" Death.</p><p>A good death, "His."</p><p>PS.  Unfortunate that the Air Force did not drop the "a-bomb" on G. W. Bush just when it had a chance.  Pitty that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Evil has a new name : Its name ... Barak Hussain Obama ! Pray for death.Pray for " His " Death.Pray for salvation at the feet of " His " Death.A good death , " His. " PS .
Unfortunate that the Air Force did not drop the " a-bomb " on G. W. Bush just when it had a chance .
Pitty that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Evil has a new name: Its name ... Barak Hussain Obama!Pray for death.Pray for "His" Death.Pray for salvation at the feet of "His" Death.A good death, "His."PS.
Unfortunate that the Air Force did not drop the "a-bomb" on G. W. Bush just when it had a chance.
Pitty that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232054</id>
	<title>So he's a politician</title>
	<author>Shadow of Eternity</author>
	<datestamp>1257167400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and as such is just like pretty much all of the others. The question isn't whether he's everything the advertising billed him as, it's whether he was a better choice than the alternative.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and as such is just like pretty much all of the others .
The question is n't whether he 's everything the advertising billed him as , it 's whether he was a better choice than the alternative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and as such is just like pretty much all of the others.
The question isn't whether he's everything the advertising billed him as, it's whether he was a better choice than the alternative.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233110</id>
	<title>Re:Hope/Change?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257175380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>thank you!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>thank you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>thank you!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30239298</id>
	<title>Re:from TFA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259226540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>This... doesn't actually sound that objectionable. Scrolling to the right breaks the Fourth Amendment?</i> </p><p>It does indeed.</p><p>The names initially visible before scrolling were "particularly" (Constitutional wording) described in the warrant. Anything beyond that is fishing, inasmuch as the other names were not "particularly" described.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This... does n't actually sound that objectionable .
Scrolling to the right breaks the Fourth Amendment ?
It does indeed.The names initially visible before scrolling were " particularly " ( Constitutional wording ) described in the warrant .
Anything beyond that is fishing , inasmuch as the other names were not " particularly " described .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This... doesn't actually sound that objectionable.
Scrolling to the right breaks the Fourth Amendment?
It does indeed.The names initially visible before scrolling were "particularly" (Constitutional wording) described in the warrant.
Anything beyond that is fishing, inasmuch as the other names were not "particularly" described.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233448</id>
	<title>Re:Misleading Story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257178680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As pointed out above<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... his not acting against an action on behalf of one of his appointees is silent endorsement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As pointed out above ... his not acting against an action on behalf of one of his appointees is silent endorsement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As pointed out above ... his not acting against an action on behalf of one of his appointees is silent endorsement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232852</id>
	<title>Re:Hope/Change?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257173220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For me, voting for Obama was never about thinking he would fix things or be much different from any of today's politicians. Until we reform the way elections are held, financed and decided, the whole system will remain horribly corrupt.</p><p>But my vote for Obama was for 2 reasons. First, it was we needed to apologize to the rest of the world for the past 8 years. I never voted for GWB, but his presidency resulted in a loss of credibility on the world stage and an overall dislike for Americans to a greater extent than before. We needed to elect Obama to send the message to the rest of the world that we were at least trying to be a better world citizen.</p><p>And my vote for Obama was to send a message to younger generations of minorities. I don't think any child should grow up feeling like there is a limit on how far they can go or how accepted they will be by society. Regardless of how much he acts like GWT, the president is now a African-American man and the fact that the citizens of the US elected him in overwhelming numbers cannot be taken away from all the minority children growing up in this country.</p><p>If anyone believes that anything would be different if McCain had won, they're just as deluded as anyone who believed in Obama's campaign rhetoric and promises of change. We had no real choice in the election just like we always don't. So all things considered, if we're going to be in the absolute cluster fuck we're currently in anyway, I'm happy we're doing it in a way that has other benefits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For me , voting for Obama was never about thinking he would fix things or be much different from any of today 's politicians .
Until we reform the way elections are held , financed and decided , the whole system will remain horribly corrupt.But my vote for Obama was for 2 reasons .
First , it was we needed to apologize to the rest of the world for the past 8 years .
I never voted for GWB , but his presidency resulted in a loss of credibility on the world stage and an overall dislike for Americans to a greater extent than before .
We needed to elect Obama to send the message to the rest of the world that we were at least trying to be a better world citizen.And my vote for Obama was to send a message to younger generations of minorities .
I do n't think any child should grow up feeling like there is a limit on how far they can go or how accepted they will be by society .
Regardless of how much he acts like GWT , the president is now a African-American man and the fact that the citizens of the US elected him in overwhelming numbers can not be taken away from all the minority children growing up in this country.If anyone believes that anything would be different if McCain had won , they 're just as deluded as anyone who believed in Obama 's campaign rhetoric and promises of change .
We had no real choice in the election just like we always do n't .
So all things considered , if we 're going to be in the absolute cluster fuck we 're currently in anyway , I 'm happy we 're doing it in a way that has other benefits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For me, voting for Obama was never about thinking he would fix things or be much different from any of today's politicians.
Until we reform the way elections are held, financed and decided, the whole system will remain horribly corrupt.But my vote for Obama was for 2 reasons.
First, it was we needed to apologize to the rest of the world for the past 8 years.
I never voted for GWB, but his presidency resulted in a loss of credibility on the world stage and an overall dislike for Americans to a greater extent than before.
We needed to elect Obama to send the message to the rest of the world that we were at least trying to be a better world citizen.And my vote for Obama was to send a message to younger generations of minorities.
I don't think any child should grow up feeling like there is a limit on how far they can go or how accepted they will be by society.
Regardless of how much he acts like GWT, the president is now a African-American man and the fact that the citizens of the US elected him in overwhelming numbers cannot be taken away from all the minority children growing up in this country.If anyone believes that anything would be different if McCain had won, they're just as deluded as anyone who believed in Obama's campaign rhetoric and promises of change.
We had no real choice in the election just like we always don't.
So all things considered, if we're going to be in the absolute cluster fuck we're currently in anyway, I'm happy we're doing it in a way that has other benefits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233036</id>
	<title>Re:Okay, that's enough.</title>
	<author>east coast</author>
	<datestamp>1257174720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Republican push back? Are you joking? Talk about a straw man.<br> <br>Republicans can not effectively push back at this point. It's mathematically impossible. 100\%. Please stop blaming those who were declared as powerless a year ago.<br> <br>This can not be a Republican problem. If you need mathematical proof of this I'll go get my third grade teacher to prove it to you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Republican push back ?
Are you joking ?
Talk about a straw man .
Republicans can not effectively push back at this point .
It 's mathematically impossible .
100 \ % . Please stop blaming those who were declared as powerless a year ago .
This can not be a Republican problem .
If you need mathematical proof of this I 'll go get my third grade teacher to prove it to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Republican push back?
Are you joking?
Talk about a straw man.
Republicans can not effectively push back at this point.
It's mathematically impossible.
100\%. Please stop blaming those who were declared as powerless a year ago.
This can not be a Republican problem.
If you need mathematical proof of this I'll go get my third grade teacher to prove it to you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232282</id>
	<title>Legislating from the bench</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257168840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This story is misleading in what it leaves out: this wasn't just a narrow decision saying that this particular seizure violated the "plain view" test.  The 9th Circuit Court apparently decided to go far beyond deciding the case based on those precedents and instead set out specific detailed new rules to be followed in computer searches.</p><p>Even if the Supreme Court were to do something like this, it would probably be considered by many to be overstepping its bounds a bit; the usual process is for the courts to declare that the search was unconstitutional, after which another branch of government will introduce policies or legislation to ensure that future searches aren't likely to be thrown out for the same reason.  Here the court took it upon itself to create those policies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This story is misleading in what it leaves out : this was n't just a narrow decision saying that this particular seizure violated the " plain view " test .
The 9th Circuit Court apparently decided to go far beyond deciding the case based on those precedents and instead set out specific detailed new rules to be followed in computer searches.Even if the Supreme Court were to do something like this , it would probably be considered by many to be overstepping its bounds a bit ; the usual process is for the courts to declare that the search was unconstitutional , after which another branch of government will introduce policies or legislation to ensure that future searches are n't likely to be thrown out for the same reason .
Here the court took it upon itself to create those policies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This story is misleading in what it leaves out: this wasn't just a narrow decision saying that this particular seizure violated the "plain view" test.
The 9th Circuit Court apparently decided to go far beyond deciding the case based on those precedents and instead set out specific detailed new rules to be followed in computer searches.Even if the Supreme Court were to do something like this, it would probably be considered by many to be overstepping its bounds a bit; the usual process is for the courts to declare that the search was unconstitutional, after which another branch of government will introduce policies or legislation to ensure that future searches aren't likely to be thrown out for the same reason.
Here the court took it upon itself to create those policies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232642</id>
	<title>Re:Hope/Change?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257171660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree with you but actually we are in war at Afghanistan</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you but actually we are in war at Afghanistan</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you but actually we are in war at Afghanistan</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232184</id>
	<title>translation loud and clear</title>
	<author>epine</author>
	<datestamp>1257168360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would regard it as a credible difference if, when you asked Obama the reason, he gave an intelligible answer, regardless of whether the answer was one you liked or not.</p><p>What I'd like to see from Obama is saying to his insiders, "OK, I see why you want this and I'll back you on it, but you're going to have to explain yourself to the public a lot better than you used to".</p><p>That's what I hated most about Bush, how entitled he felt about operating in the shadows.  From a leadership perspective, bad policy is often better than no policy.  I accept mistakes.  The problem was that the little cretin never stood up for his reasons.  That old excuse "national security" sounds exactly the same whether you pronounce it in English, Chinese, or North Korean.</p><p>It's the surrounding discussion that makes the difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would regard it as a credible difference if , when you asked Obama the reason , he gave an intelligible answer , regardless of whether the answer was one you liked or not.What I 'd like to see from Obama is saying to his insiders , " OK , I see why you want this and I 'll back you on it , but you 're going to have to explain yourself to the public a lot better than you used to " .That 's what I hated most about Bush , how entitled he felt about operating in the shadows .
From a leadership perspective , bad policy is often better than no policy .
I accept mistakes .
The problem was that the little cretin never stood up for his reasons .
That old excuse " national security " sounds exactly the same whether you pronounce it in English , Chinese , or North Korean.It 's the surrounding discussion that makes the difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would regard it as a credible difference if, when you asked Obama the reason, he gave an intelligible answer, regardless of whether the answer was one you liked or not.What I'd like to see from Obama is saying to his insiders, "OK, I see why you want this and I'll back you on it, but you're going to have to explain yourself to the public a lot better than you used to".That's what I hated most about Bush, how entitled he felt about operating in the shadows.
From a leadership perspective, bad policy is often better than no policy.
I accept mistakes.
The problem was that the little cretin never stood up for his reasons.
That old excuse "national security" sounds exactly the same whether you pronounce it in English, Chinese, or North Korean.It's the surrounding discussion that makes the difference.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233012</id>
	<title>Re:Hope/Change?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257174540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Be sure to make a copy of these statements.  You'll have a chance to use them again and again as the years roll along.  Why ad lib a new response each and every time?  Just recycle the common disgust.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Be sure to make a copy of these statements .
You 'll have a chance to use them again and again as the years roll along .
Why ad lib a new response each and every time ?
Just recycle the common disgust .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Be sure to make a copy of these statements.
You'll have a chance to use them again and again as the years roll along.
Why ad lib a new response each and every time?
Just recycle the common disgust.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30234304</id>
	<title>Re:Misleading Story</title>
	<author>Deanalator</author>
	<datestamp>1257189180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you.  It takes maybe 3 seconds of glancing at that article to see how much sensationalist bullshit the headline is.  I spoke with Obama personally about privacy, net neutrality, and telecom immunity last August.  He may not know the field as deep as people like us do, but he really does understand the core issues.  Just look at how straightforward he was with Hu Jintao last week, telling him directly that China should stop filtering their Internet, and announcing in his live speech that free expression of dissidence is a critical part of a successful nation.</p><p>I really don't agree with many of the things he has done while in office, but I do think he is doing exactly what he said he would be doing from the day he started running.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you .
It takes maybe 3 seconds of glancing at that article to see how much sensationalist bullshit the headline is .
I spoke with Obama personally about privacy , net neutrality , and telecom immunity last August .
He may not know the field as deep as people like us do , but he really does understand the core issues .
Just look at how straightforward he was with Hu Jintao last week , telling him directly that China should stop filtering their Internet , and announcing in his live speech that free expression of dissidence is a critical part of a successful nation.I really do n't agree with many of the things he has done while in office , but I do think he is doing exactly what he said he would be doing from the day he started running .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you.
It takes maybe 3 seconds of glancing at that article to see how much sensationalist bullshit the headline is.
I spoke with Obama personally about privacy, net neutrality, and telecom immunity last August.
He may not know the field as deep as people like us do, but he really does understand the core issues.
Just look at how straightforward he was with Hu Jintao last week, telling him directly that China should stop filtering their Internet, and announcing in his live speech that free expression of dissidence is a critical part of a successful nation.I really don't agree with many of the things he has done while in office, but I do think he is doing exactly what he said he would be doing from the day he started running.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232444</id>
	<title>Hope and Change</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257170040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't Zero's wife look like a man? Maybe it is a man.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't Zero 's wife look like a man ?
Maybe it is a man .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't Zero's wife look like a man?
Maybe it is a man.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30234356</id>
	<title>Re:Okay, that's enough.</title>
	<author>Phroggy</author>
	<datestamp>1257190380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The whole purpose of having a prison at Guantanamo Bay is to create a legal grey area, where it could be argued that US law does not apply because it's not technically on US soil.  It's an attempt to create a loophole in the Constitution, a way to bypass the rights that would be guaranteed to prisoners detained within our own borders.  This is reprehensible, and it must stop.</p><p>Unfortunately we have a problem:  most of the detainees are likely dangerous criminals, and should not be released, but because of the previous administration's incompetent bungling, we may not have sufficient evidence to convict them in a court of law.  Those we can't convict must be released, and doing so will cause huge political problems for whoever releases them (although why nobody seemed to mind when President Bush released some of the Gitmo detainees, without trial, who then went back to rejoin the fight against us, is beyond me).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole purpose of having a prison at Guantanamo Bay is to create a legal grey area , where it could be argued that US law does not apply because it 's not technically on US soil .
It 's an attempt to create a loophole in the Constitution , a way to bypass the rights that would be guaranteed to prisoners detained within our own borders .
This is reprehensible , and it must stop.Unfortunately we have a problem : most of the detainees are likely dangerous criminals , and should not be released , but because of the previous administration 's incompetent bungling , we may not have sufficient evidence to convict them in a court of law .
Those we ca n't convict must be released , and doing so will cause huge political problems for whoever releases them ( although why nobody seemed to mind when President Bush released some of the Gitmo detainees , without trial , who then went back to rejoin the fight against us , is beyond me ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole purpose of having a prison at Guantanamo Bay is to create a legal grey area, where it could be argued that US law does not apply because it's not technically on US soil.
It's an attempt to create a loophole in the Constitution, a way to bypass the rights that would be guaranteed to prisoners detained within our own borders.
This is reprehensible, and it must stop.Unfortunately we have a problem:  most of the detainees are likely dangerous criminals, and should not be released, but because of the previous administration's incompetent bungling, we may not have sufficient evidence to convict them in a court of law.
Those we can't convict must be released, and doing so will cause huge political problems for whoever releases them (although why nobody seemed to mind when President Bush released some of the Gitmo detainees, without trial, who then went back to rejoin the fight against us, is beyond me).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233648</id>
	<title>Re:Hope/Change?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257181020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Couldn't agree more! Before the election some people said these things about Democrats in general:<br>1. They are "Tax and Spend"  CHECK<br>2. They are weak on foreign policy CHECK<br>3. They are "elitest" CHECK</p><p>Ok, with all that said Bush being the lousy president that he was made this all possible!</p><p>So, now what do we do? When the government controls everything, and power is all that matters to them,<br>what do we do?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could n't agree more !
Before the election some people said these things about Democrats in general : 1 .
They are " Tax and Spend " CHECK2 .
They are weak on foreign policy CHECK3 .
They are " elitest " CHECKOk , with all that said Bush being the lousy president that he was made this all possible ! So , now what do we do ?
When the government controls everything , and power is all that matters to them,what do we do ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Couldn't agree more!
Before the election some people said these things about Democrats in general:1.
They are "Tax and Spend"  CHECK2.
They are weak on foreign policy CHECK3.
They are "elitest" CHECKOk, with all that said Bush being the lousy president that he was made this all possible!So, now what do we do?
When the government controls everything, and power is all that matters to them,what do we do?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232216</id>
	<title>Well of course he does</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1257168540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He is with the federal government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He is with the federal government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He is with the federal government.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233156</id>
	<title>Re:So he's a politician</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257175800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>A vote for the lesser evil is still a vote for evil.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's an unrealistic and excessively idealistic position. There is no "perfect" person even if we could all agree on what "perfect" is. Life is messy, politics is messy, etc. The best we can strive for is least mess.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A vote for the lesser evil is still a vote for evil.That 's an unrealistic and excessively idealistic position .
There is no " perfect " person even if we could all agree on what " perfect " is .
Life is messy , politics is messy , etc .
The best we can strive for is least mess .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>A vote for the lesser evil is still a vote for evil.That's an unrealistic and excessively idealistic position.
There is no "perfect" person even if we could all agree on what "perfect" is.
Life is messy, politics is messy, etc.
The best we can strive for is least mess.
   
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233788</id>
	<title>I thought Bush lost?</title>
	<author>Russ Nelson</author>
	<datestamp>1257182640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought Bush lost the election, but here we have him in blackface.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought Bush lost the election , but here we have him in blackface .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought Bush lost the election, but here we have him in blackface.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30234006</id>
	<title>Re:translation loud and clear</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257185400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>That old excuse "national security" sounds exactly the same whether you pronounce it in English, Chinese, or North Korean.</i> </p><p>Congratulations. You are the owner of one of the very few rational statements in this thread.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That old excuse " national security " sounds exactly the same whether you pronounce it in English , Chinese , or North Korean .
Congratulations. You are the owner of one of the very few rational statements in this thread .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That old excuse "national security" sounds exactly the same whether you pronounce it in English, Chinese, or North Korean.
Congratulations. You are the owner of one of the very few rational statements in this thread.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232702</id>
	<title>Re:Hope/Change?</title>
	<author>Scrameustache</author>
	<datestamp>1257172140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>At least Bush had a war to justify his need to breach privacy. Obama has no legitimate reason</p></div><p>War's over? Must have missed a memo...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At least Bush had a war to justify his need to breach privacy .
Obama has no legitimate reasonWar 's over ?
Must have missed a memo.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least Bush had a war to justify his need to breach privacy.
Obama has no legitimate reasonWar's over?
Must have missed a memo...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232860</id>
	<title>Re:Hope/Change?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257173280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now you have the highest spending EVER. Now you can see the beginning of security corruption as well. At least Bush had a war to justify his need to breach privacy. Obama has no legitimate reason and yet he's going to do it.</p></div><p>A ha! So now you're admitting that since Obama is in power, all our enemies were banished to the netherworld! Our arm? On extended vacation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now you have the highest spending EVER .
Now you can see the beginning of security corruption as well .
At least Bush had a war to justify his need to breach privacy .
Obama has no legitimate reason and yet he 's going to do it.A ha !
So now you 're admitting that since Obama is in power , all our enemies were banished to the netherworld !
Our arm ?
On extended vacation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now you have the highest spending EVER.
Now you can see the beginning of security corruption as well.
At least Bush had a war to justify his need to breach privacy.
Obama has no legitimate reason and yet he's going to do it.A ha!
So now you're admitting that since Obama is in power, all our enemies were banished to the netherworld!
Our arm?
On extended vacation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232784</id>
	<title>Why the bias?</title>
	<author>Paxtez</author>
	<datestamp>1257172740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's the point of the jab against the Obama (and Bush) administration(s).  The point of the article was made in the first part of the summery it just seems like it was troll-bait. I know this is 'just a blog' and not a newspaper or something, but what is wrong with a least pretending to be impartial?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's the point of the jab against the Obama ( and Bush ) administration ( s ) .
The point of the article was made in the first part of the summery it just seems like it was troll-bait .
I know this is 'just a blog ' and not a newspaper or something , but what is wrong with a least pretending to be impartial ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's the point of the jab against the Obama (and Bush) administration(s).
The point of the article was made in the first part of the summery it just seems like it was troll-bait.
I know this is 'just a blog' and not a newspaper or something, but what is wrong with a least pretending to be impartial?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232192</id>
	<title>Set Aside?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257168420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The government is asking the court to review the case with all of its 27 judges, which it has never done. If the court agrees to a rehearing, a new decision is not expected for years, and the August decision would be set aside pending a new ruling. Either way, the U.S. Supreme Court has the final say. "</p><p>So if they agree to re-evaluate the ruling, the current ruling is "set aside", meaning as if it never happened? Ain't that about a bitch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The government is asking the court to review the case with all of its 27 judges , which it has never done .
If the court agrees to a rehearing , a new decision is not expected for years , and the August decision would be set aside pending a new ruling .
Either way , the U.S. Supreme Court has the final say .
" So if they agree to re-evaluate the ruling , the current ruling is " set aside " , meaning as if it never happened ?
Ai n't that about a bitch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The government is asking the court to review the case with all of its 27 judges, which it has never done.
If the court agrees to a rehearing, a new decision is not expected for years, and the August decision would be set aside pending a new ruling.
Either way, the U.S. Supreme Court has the final say.
"So if they agree to re-evaluate the ruling, the current ruling is "set aside", meaning as if it never happened?
Ain't that about a bitch.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233034</id>
	<title>What Do You Expect?</title>
	<author>tom's a-cold</author>
	<datestamp>1257174720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you want change, why vote for a centrist?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want change , why vote for a centrist ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want change, why vote for a centrist?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232640</id>
	<title>Re:Okay, that's enough.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257171660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK then.</p><p>Let's take some of the main points.</p><p>Economy - Same as bush, even more, bailing out companies, printing money, ect ect.<br>Civil Liberties - the same as bush.  so he's closing down gitmo, so what? enemy combatants can still be held indefinitely.  So, just a political move with no real change.<br>Wars - mmm same iraq policy as bush's!!!!  oh and shipping more troops to afghanistan, i guess that's a slight change<br>Healthcare - well instead of uncle sam paying for 50\%, he'll pay for 100\%, of our national medical expenses.  This is his biggest change.</p><p>There's not a lot of a non superficial differences between their administrations.  Of course, feel free to enlighten me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK then.Let 's take some of the main points.Economy - Same as bush , even more , bailing out companies , printing money , ect ect.Civil Liberties - the same as bush .
so he 's closing down gitmo , so what ?
enemy combatants can still be held indefinitely .
So , just a political move with no real change.Wars - mmm same iraq policy as bush 's ! ! ! !
oh and shipping more troops to afghanistan , i guess that 's a slight changeHealthcare - well instead of uncle sam paying for 50 \ % , he 'll pay for 100 \ % , of our national medical expenses .
This is his biggest change.There 's not a lot of a non superficial differences between their administrations .
Of course , feel free to enlighten me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK then.Let's take some of the main points.Economy - Same as bush, even more, bailing out companies, printing money, ect ect.Civil Liberties - the same as bush.
so he's closing down gitmo, so what?
enemy combatants can still be held indefinitely.
So, just a political move with no real change.Wars - mmm same iraq policy as bush's!!!!
oh and shipping more troops to afghanistan, i guess that's a slight changeHealthcare - well instead of uncle sam paying for 50\%, he'll pay for 100\%, of our national medical expenses.
This is his biggest change.There's not a lot of a non superficial differences between their administrations.
Of course, feel free to enlighten me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232686</id>
	<title>Re:Hope/Change?</title>
	<author>VocationalZero</author>
	<datestamp>1257172020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>At least Bush had a war to justify his need to breach privacy. Obama has no legitimate reason and yet he's going to do it.</p></div><p> This means that the war must be over! Hooray!</p><p><div class="quote"><p>When are you all going to learn that government is inherently bad; that it is inherently corrupt. And while there are a couple of functions it should provide to maintain civilization, the smaller we keep it the better... for all of us.</p></div><p> When are you going to learn that government is the only thing stopping corporations from turning [completely] into the mafia. The smaller we keep it the larger corporate lobbying has an effect, and the faster the hurdles we put up to stop shady business get knocked back down, much to the peril of public safety, human rights, small business, market stability, the environment, and any class other than the top 2\%.
<br> <br>--<br>
The only things a truly free market fixes are the prices.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At least Bush had a war to justify his need to breach privacy .
Obama has no legitimate reason and yet he 's going to do it .
This means that the war must be over !
Hooray ! When are you all going to learn that government is inherently bad ; that it is inherently corrupt .
And while there are a couple of functions it should provide to maintain civilization , the smaller we keep it the better... for all of us .
When are you going to learn that government is the only thing stopping corporations from turning [ completely ] into the mafia .
The smaller we keep it the larger corporate lobbying has an effect , and the faster the hurdles we put up to stop shady business get knocked back down , much to the peril of public safety , human rights , small business , market stability , the environment , and any class other than the top 2 \ % .
-- The only things a truly free market fixes are the prices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least Bush had a war to justify his need to breach privacy.
Obama has no legitimate reason and yet he's going to do it.
This means that the war must be over!
Hooray!When are you all going to learn that government is inherently bad; that it is inherently corrupt.
And while there are a couple of functions it should provide to maintain civilization, the smaller we keep it the better... for all of us.
When are you going to learn that government is the only thing stopping corporations from turning [completely] into the mafia.
The smaller we keep it the larger corporate lobbying has an effect, and the faster the hurdles we put up to stop shady business get knocked back down, much to the peril of public safety, human rights, small business, market stability, the environment, and any class other than the top 2\%.
--
The only things a truly free market fixes are the prices.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30235656</id>
	<title>Re:Misleading Story</title>
	<author>unix1</author>
	<datestamp>1259237580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>She is represents the US as a prosecutor for the Supreme Court. Isn't she just doing her job?</p></div><p>Help me out here.</p><p>How is a public official (appointed, elected or otherwise) is "just doing her job" by coming out and publicly asking the courts to rule against the Constitution of the United States that the said public official took an oath to support?</p><p>Let me see - article VI, clause 3:</p><p><i>The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.</i></p><p>In fact, the Constitution provides that if you violate that oath you have to be removed from office and can never be elected or serve any public office ever again (unless you can get 2/3 congress' support).</p><p>So, we have media and politicians up in arms about some guy who is sharing a couple of hundred songs (which nobody wants to buy or sell anymore) who has to pay $150,000 or some outrageous number per file, plus serve XX number of years in federal prison. But on the other hand we have elected public officials (or those appointed by elected public officials), who have taken the Oath of Affirmation to support the Constitution, taking 30\% of all of our income in taxes, wasting our money on needless "projects", accumulating our national debt to where most of them can't even count anymore, "bailing out" their billionaire buddies, and most importantly, spend nearly every day of their elected/appointed life not only failing to support, but publicly renouncing and fighting against the very constitution that got them elected/appointed and that they took the oath to support?</p><p>And we just collectively say - oh, they are "just doing [their] job" and move on to more important stuff, like watching another episode of Kardiashians? +5 Insightful? This is why nothing will ever "change."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>She is represents the US as a prosecutor for the Supreme Court .
Is n't she just doing her job ? Help me out here.How is a public official ( appointed , elected or otherwise ) is " just doing her job " by coming out and publicly asking the courts to rule against the Constitution of the United States that the said public official took an oath to support ? Let me see - article VI , clause 3 : The Senators and Representatives before mentioned , and the Members of the several State Legislatures , and all executive and judicial Officers , both of the United States and of the several States , shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation , to support this Constitution ; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.In fact , the Constitution provides that if you violate that oath you have to be removed from office and can never be elected or serve any public office ever again ( unless you can get 2/3 congress ' support ) .So , we have media and politicians up in arms about some guy who is sharing a couple of hundred songs ( which nobody wants to buy or sell anymore ) who has to pay $ 150,000 or some outrageous number per file , plus serve XX number of years in federal prison .
But on the other hand we have elected public officials ( or those appointed by elected public officials ) , who have taken the Oath of Affirmation to support the Constitution , taking 30 \ % of all of our income in taxes , wasting our money on needless " projects " , accumulating our national debt to where most of them ca n't even count anymore , " bailing out " their billionaire buddies , and most importantly , spend nearly every day of their elected/appointed life not only failing to support , but publicly renouncing and fighting against the very constitution that got them elected/appointed and that they took the oath to support ? And we just collectively say - oh , they are " just doing [ their ] job " and move on to more important stuff , like watching another episode of Kardiashians ?
+ 5 Insightful ?
This is why nothing will ever " change .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>She is represents the US as a prosecutor for the Supreme Court.
Isn't she just doing her job?Help me out here.How is a public official (appointed, elected or otherwise) is "just doing her job" by coming out and publicly asking the courts to rule against the Constitution of the United States that the said public official took an oath to support?Let me see - article VI, clause 3:The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.In fact, the Constitution provides that if you violate that oath you have to be removed from office and can never be elected or serve any public office ever again (unless you can get 2/3 congress' support).So, we have media and politicians up in arms about some guy who is sharing a couple of hundred songs (which nobody wants to buy or sell anymore) who has to pay $150,000 or some outrageous number per file, plus serve XX number of years in federal prison.
But on the other hand we have elected public officials (or those appointed by elected public officials), who have taken the Oath of Affirmation to support the Constitution, taking 30\% of all of our income in taxes, wasting our money on needless "projects", accumulating our national debt to where most of them can't even count anymore, "bailing out" their billionaire buddies, and most importantly, spend nearly every day of their elected/appointed life not only failing to support, but publicly renouncing and fighting against the very constitution that got them elected/appointed and that they took the oath to support?And we just collectively say - oh, they are "just doing [their] job" and move on to more important stuff, like watching another episode of Kardiashians?
+5 Insightful?
This is why nothing will ever "change.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30247090</id>
	<title>Re:Stimulus Plans (Re:Hope/Change?)</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1259348220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Bush spent the rainy-day fund when it wasn't raining. </i></p><p>The Dollar has been declining since 1999.  That's why Greenspan created the Housing Bubble.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bush spent the rainy-day fund when it was n't raining .
The Dollar has been declining since 1999 .
That 's why Greenspan created the Housing Bubble .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bush spent the rainy-day fund when it wasn't raining.
The Dollar has been declining since 1999.
That's why Greenspan created the Housing Bubble.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232466</id>
	<title>Re:Okay, that's enough.</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1257170160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, just...wow.</p><p>gitmo is the the process of closing; sadly there ahs been republican push back as well as republican pundent FUD about containing them. Like we can't keep them locked up an American soil. sheesh</p><p>Healthcare is moving along; again there is large republican pushback, and a very large insurance lobby fight it, again. So far he ahs gotten farther along then anyone else had. Did you expect him to just take office, close gitmo and institute healthcare day 1? One of the best qualities president Obama has, IMO, is his recodnition that these things need a smart plan.</p><p>"But now he doesn't sign this landmine treaty thingie, he doesn't promise any kind of CO2 reduction goals, "</p><p>Did you bother to read why? seriously, it would hamstring the US to agree to those goals. The joke here is that China still manages third world status because of all the benefits even though they are clearly no longer a third world.</p><p>"he extends the PATRIOT Act and now this"<br>That was disappointing.</p><p>DO you do anything besides complain and show off your ignorance?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , just...wow.gitmo is the the process of closing ; sadly there ahs been republican push back as well as republican pundent FUD about containing them .
Like we ca n't keep them locked up an American soil .
sheeshHealthcare is moving along ; again there is large republican pushback , and a very large insurance lobby fight it , again .
So far he ahs gotten farther along then anyone else had .
Did you expect him to just take office , close gitmo and institute healthcare day 1 ?
One of the best qualities president Obama has , IMO , is his recodnition that these things need a smart plan .
" But now he does n't sign this landmine treaty thingie , he does n't promise any kind of CO2 reduction goals , " Did you bother to read why ?
seriously , it would hamstring the US to agree to those goals .
The joke here is that China still manages third world status because of all the benefits even though they are clearly no longer a third world .
" he extends the PATRIOT Act and now this " That was disappointing.DO you do anything besides complain and show off your ignorance ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, just...wow.gitmo is the the process of closing; sadly there ahs been republican push back as well as republican pundent FUD about containing them.
Like we can't keep them locked up an American soil.
sheeshHealthcare is moving along; again there is large republican pushback, and a very large insurance lobby fight it, again.
So far he ahs gotten farther along then anyone else had.
Did you expect him to just take office, close gitmo and institute healthcare day 1?
One of the best qualities president Obama has, IMO, is his recodnition that these things need a smart plan.
"But now he doesn't sign this landmine treaty thingie, he doesn't promise any kind of CO2 reduction goals, "Did you bother to read why?
seriously, it would hamstring the US to agree to those goals.
The joke here is that China still manages third world status because of all the benefits even though they are clearly no longer a third world.
"he extends the PATRIOT Act and now this"That was disappointing.DO you do anything besides complain and show off your ignorance?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233024</id>
	<title>Re:Hope/Change?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257174660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>At least Bush had a war to justify his need to breach privacy. Obama has no legitimate reason and yet he's going to do it.</p></div><p>So you are saying Bush's war was legitimate?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At least Bush had a war to justify his need to breach privacy .
Obama has no legitimate reason and yet he 's going to do it.So you are saying Bush 's war was legitimate ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least Bush had a war to justify his need to breach privacy.
Obama has no legitimate reason and yet he's going to do it.So you are saying Bush's war was legitimate?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232470</id>
	<title>Hope/Change?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257170160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Happy now? This is what you all wanted... For the past decade I've read post after post after post about Bush spending too much or having too tight an iron fist on privacy issues.</p><p>Well, you all voted for change...</p><p>Now you have the highest spending EVER. Now you can see the beginning of security corruption as well. At least Bush had a war to justify his need to breach privacy. Obama has no legitimate reason and yet he's going to do it.</p><p>When are you all going to learn that government is inherently bad; that it is inherently corrupt. And while there are a couple of functions it should provide to maintain civilization, the smaller we keep it the better... for all of us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Happy now ?
This is what you all wanted... For the past decade I 've read post after post after post about Bush spending too much or having too tight an iron fist on privacy issues.Well , you all voted for change...Now you have the highest spending EVER .
Now you can see the beginning of security corruption as well .
At least Bush had a war to justify his need to breach privacy .
Obama has no legitimate reason and yet he 's going to do it.When are you all going to learn that government is inherently bad ; that it is inherently corrupt .
And while there are a couple of functions it should provide to maintain civilization , the smaller we keep it the better... for all of us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Happy now?
This is what you all wanted... For the past decade I've read post after post after post about Bush spending too much or having too tight an iron fist on privacy issues.Well, you all voted for change...Now you have the highest spending EVER.
Now you can see the beginning of security corruption as well.
At least Bush had a war to justify his need to breach privacy.
Obama has no legitimate reason and yet he's going to do it.When are you all going to learn that government is inherently bad; that it is inherently corrupt.
And while there are a couple of functions it should provide to maintain civilization, the smaller we keep it the better... for all of us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233014</id>
	<title>If only it was printed...</title>
	<author>GumphMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1257174540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If these same results had been printed and stapled together then there'd be no argument at all.  The document would be the item described in the warrant and the whole document would be seized and ultimately presented intact in court (becoming a matter of public record).  "Why should a digital document be any different?", is what the Govt. seems to be arguing.</p><p>Seems there's a bit of a double standard on both sides: the court is ignoring its own precedents in "won't someone think of the children" cases, and the Govt. is toting the equivalence line while actively pursuing ACTA, which is prescribing a massive divide between works in digital form and on paper.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If these same results had been printed and stapled together then there 'd be no argument at all .
The document would be the item described in the warrant and the whole document would be seized and ultimately presented intact in court ( becoming a matter of public record ) .
" Why should a digital document be any different ?
" , is what the Govt .
seems to be arguing.Seems there 's a bit of a double standard on both sides : the court is ignoring its own precedents in " wo n't someone think of the children " cases , and the Govt .
is toting the equivalence line while actively pursuing ACTA , which is prescribing a massive divide between works in digital form and on paper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If these same results had been printed and stapled together then there'd be no argument at all.
The document would be the item described in the warrant and the whole document would be seized and ultimately presented intact in court (becoming a matter of public record).
"Why should a digital document be any different?
", is what the Govt.
seems to be arguing.Seems there's a bit of a double standard on both sides: the court is ignoring its own precedents in "won't someone think of the children" cases, and the Govt.
is toting the equivalence line while actively pursuing ACTA, which is prescribing a massive divide between works in digital form and on paper.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30234178</id>
	<title>Re:Hope/Change?</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1257187440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You know, I am heartily sick of hearing that lazy mantra of the Baby Boomer generation.</p> </div><p>I'm tired of hearing idiots blame a pile of stuff on the baby boomer generation. It's a stupid idea that never made sense. They're just a bunch of people that happened to be born during a certain period of time.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"When are you all going to learn that government is inherently bad; that it is inherently corrupt." Back in the '60s this was followed by, "All you need is love, man." By the 80s it became "Just trust the corporations. Deregulate everything, and the free market will take care of us." By 2000 it was, "All you need is God."</p></div><p>These words don't come from the same source. Perhaps you've heard of the term strawman? Where the debater constructs a phony argument based on an imaginary and artificial weak opponent? An example of this is treating tens of millions of people as if they collectively said the above in sequence. They didn't. Further, you ignore that there were genuine problems (for example, government elites breaking the law liberally to punish political opposition or assisting organized crime) that resulted in the variety of attitudes you caricature. It is stupid to make such a claim in ignorance of why they appeared.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>What the Boomers keep failing to understand is that government is not, and never has been, "The Man," some strange group controlled by an alien entity. Government is nothing more or less than the sum of its parts, namely the people who work to create and maintain it. In this country we happen to be blessed with a Democratic Republic, which means that group of people is everyone in the country. Everyone gets to participate, by running for office, by volunteering for a campaign or a cause, by discussing the issues with friends and family and coworkers, by voting.</p></div><p>What you seem to neglect is just as government can do touchie feelie good stuff, it can also do tyranny and corruption. I'm not one of those people who believe government is automatically bad. But there's simply way too much stuff the US government is doing now (and that it has done in the past) that it simply should not be involved in. It results in the problems that the baby boomer generation struggled against.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>We CAN fix this, but we're not going to do it by staying in our parents' indolent fantasy land, and pretending that we can keep selling our votes every year and government will just go away if we ignore it enough. We have to stop selling our participation every election, and get out there and make the changes that we need. And we have to do it quickly: the EU and Japan and the BRIC nations aren't suffering from the same government-phobia that we are, and are poised to toss us into the dustbin of history.</p></div><p>And we're not suffering from the same problems they are. I don't know why you're obsessed with "government-phobia". A distrust of government is warranted both by history, and by the current inability of government to address or even recognize real problems today. You seem to imply that you understand this which makes your ire even more misguided IMHO. Maybe you should worry more about real problems and not about what your parents think.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , I am heartily sick of hearing that lazy mantra of the Baby Boomer generation .
I 'm tired of hearing idiots blame a pile of stuff on the baby boomer generation .
It 's a stupid idea that never made sense .
They 're just a bunch of people that happened to be born during a certain period of time .
" When are you all going to learn that government is inherently bad ; that it is inherently corrupt .
" Back in the '60s this was followed by , " All you need is love , man .
" By the 80s it became " Just trust the corporations .
Deregulate everything , and the free market will take care of us .
" By 2000 it was , " All you need is God .
" These words do n't come from the same source .
Perhaps you 've heard of the term strawman ?
Where the debater constructs a phony argument based on an imaginary and artificial weak opponent ?
An example of this is treating tens of millions of people as if they collectively said the above in sequence .
They did n't .
Further , you ignore that there were genuine problems ( for example , government elites breaking the law liberally to punish political opposition or assisting organized crime ) that resulted in the variety of attitudes you caricature .
It is stupid to make such a claim in ignorance of why they appeared.What the Boomers keep failing to understand is that government is not , and never has been , " The Man , " some strange group controlled by an alien entity .
Government is nothing more or less than the sum of its parts , namely the people who work to create and maintain it .
In this country we happen to be blessed with a Democratic Republic , which means that group of people is everyone in the country .
Everyone gets to participate , by running for office , by volunteering for a campaign or a cause , by discussing the issues with friends and family and coworkers , by voting.What you seem to neglect is just as government can do touchie feelie good stuff , it can also do tyranny and corruption .
I 'm not one of those people who believe government is automatically bad .
But there 's simply way too much stuff the US government is doing now ( and that it has done in the past ) that it simply should not be involved in .
It results in the problems that the baby boomer generation struggled against.We CAN fix this , but we 're not going to do it by staying in our parents ' indolent fantasy land , and pretending that we can keep selling our votes every year and government will just go away if we ignore it enough .
We have to stop selling our participation every election , and get out there and make the changes that we need .
And we have to do it quickly : the EU and Japan and the BRIC nations are n't suffering from the same government-phobia that we are , and are poised to toss us into the dustbin of history.And we 're not suffering from the same problems they are .
I do n't know why you 're obsessed with " government-phobia " .
A distrust of government is warranted both by history , and by the current inability of government to address or even recognize real problems today .
You seem to imply that you understand this which makes your ire even more misguided IMHO .
Maybe you should worry more about real problems and not about what your parents think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, I am heartily sick of hearing that lazy mantra of the Baby Boomer generation.
I'm tired of hearing idiots blame a pile of stuff on the baby boomer generation.
It's a stupid idea that never made sense.
They're just a bunch of people that happened to be born during a certain period of time.
"When are you all going to learn that government is inherently bad; that it is inherently corrupt.
" Back in the '60s this was followed by, "All you need is love, man.
" By the 80s it became "Just trust the corporations.
Deregulate everything, and the free market will take care of us.
" By 2000 it was, "All you need is God.
"These words don't come from the same source.
Perhaps you've heard of the term strawman?
Where the debater constructs a phony argument based on an imaginary and artificial weak opponent?
An example of this is treating tens of millions of people as if they collectively said the above in sequence.
They didn't.
Further, you ignore that there were genuine problems (for example, government elites breaking the law liberally to punish political opposition or assisting organized crime) that resulted in the variety of attitudes you caricature.
It is stupid to make such a claim in ignorance of why they appeared.What the Boomers keep failing to understand is that government is not, and never has been, "The Man," some strange group controlled by an alien entity.
Government is nothing more or less than the sum of its parts, namely the people who work to create and maintain it.
In this country we happen to be blessed with a Democratic Republic, which means that group of people is everyone in the country.
Everyone gets to participate, by running for office, by volunteering for a campaign or a cause, by discussing the issues with friends and family and coworkers, by voting.What you seem to neglect is just as government can do touchie feelie good stuff, it can also do tyranny and corruption.
I'm not one of those people who believe government is automatically bad.
But there's simply way too much stuff the US government is doing now (and that it has done in the past) that it simply should not be involved in.
It results in the problems that the baby boomer generation struggled against.We CAN fix this, but we're not going to do it by staying in our parents' indolent fantasy land, and pretending that we can keep selling our votes every year and government will just go away if we ignore it enough.
We have to stop selling our participation every election, and get out there and make the changes that we need.
And we have to do it quickly: the EU and Japan and the BRIC nations aren't suffering from the same government-phobia that we are, and are poised to toss us into the dustbin of history.And we're not suffering from the same problems they are.
I don't know why you're obsessed with "government-phobia".
A distrust of government is warranted both by history, and by the current inability of government to address or even recognize real problems today.
You seem to imply that you understand this which makes your ire even more misguided IMHO.
Maybe you should worry more about real problems and not about what your parents think.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30234250</id>
	<title>Astroturfing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257188520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems like a lot of astroturfing going on here, many of the posts not much discussion of the subject just political me too statements.  A bit of browsing you can find the people who have RTFA and showed the truth behind the sensational headline as well as other with enough brains to hold a discussion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems like a lot of astroturfing going on here , many of the posts not much discussion of the subject just political me too statements .
A bit of browsing you can find the people who have RTFA and showed the truth behind the sensational headline as well as other with enough brains to hold a discussion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems like a lot of astroturfing going on here, many of the posts not much discussion of the subject just political me too statements.
A bit of browsing you can find the people who have RTFA and showed the truth behind the sensational headline as well as other with enough brains to hold a discussion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233028</id>
	<title>Re:Hope/Change?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257174660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you think the war under Bush was a legitimate reason for his actions then you should have no problems excusing Obama's actions because that war hasn't ended.</p><p>Is anybody talking about war with Iran? Change.<br>Are we refusing to engage in diplomacy? Change.<br>Are we poking Russia along its borders? Change.</p><p>I didn't think Obama was going to change on power and anybody who did was na&#239;ve. The same goes for the next election and every one after that.</p><p>No, the change we needed was to get the neo-cons out of power. The next change we need is to get them out of controlling a major political party. Every other issue is unimportant because there is no chance we will see any changes as long as those guys have a seat at the table.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you think the war under Bush was a legitimate reason for his actions then you should have no problems excusing Obama 's actions because that war has n't ended.Is anybody talking about war with Iran ?
Change.Are we refusing to engage in diplomacy ?
Change.Are we poking Russia along its borders ?
Change.I did n't think Obama was going to change on power and anybody who did was na   ve .
The same goes for the next election and every one after that.No , the change we needed was to get the neo-cons out of power .
The next change we need is to get them out of controlling a major political party .
Every other issue is unimportant because there is no chance we will see any changes as long as those guys have a seat at the table .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you think the war under Bush was a legitimate reason for his actions then you should have no problems excusing Obama's actions because that war hasn't ended.Is anybody talking about war with Iran?
Change.Are we refusing to engage in diplomacy?
Change.Are we poking Russia along its borders?
Change.I didn't think Obama was going to change on power and anybody who did was naïve.
The same goes for the next election and every one after that.No, the change we needed was to get the neo-cons out of power.
The next change we need is to get them out of controlling a major political party.
Every other issue is unimportant because there is no chance we will see any changes as long as those guys have a seat at the table.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232882</id>
	<title>Re:Hope/Change?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257173400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pulling at straw men, eh?</p><p>The expenditures your complaining about are largely remnants of the last administration.  The security corruption began back in the 60's with a steady decline until the patriot act and the telco immunity act which gave the last administration unchecked legal authority to monitor all your electronic traffic anyway they like and only have to get a warrant within a year "after" finding something of interest.  War?  War my ass!  The last official declaration of war was June, 1942.  This is not a war.  This is a money making venture for a few of the last administrations buddies.  I have been there and other places over the last 6 years.</p><p>The current administration has no more reasons for these things than the last but does seem to want to continue down the same path.</p><p>I do agree with the rest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pulling at straw men , eh ? The expenditures your complaining about are largely remnants of the last administration .
The security corruption began back in the 60 's with a steady decline until the patriot act and the telco immunity act which gave the last administration unchecked legal authority to monitor all your electronic traffic anyway they like and only have to get a warrant within a year " after " finding something of interest .
War ? War my ass !
The last official declaration of war was June , 1942 .
This is not a war .
This is a money making venture for a few of the last administrations buddies .
I have been there and other places over the last 6 years.The current administration has no more reasons for these things than the last but does seem to want to continue down the same path.I do agree with the rest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pulling at straw men, eh?The expenditures your complaining about are largely remnants of the last administration.
The security corruption began back in the 60's with a steady decline until the patriot act and the telco immunity act which gave the last administration unchecked legal authority to monitor all your electronic traffic anyway they like and only have to get a warrant within a year "after" finding something of interest.
War?  War my ass!
The last official declaration of war was June, 1942.
This is not a war.
This is a money making venture for a few of the last administrations buddies.
I have been there and other places over the last 6 years.The current administration has no more reasons for these things than the last but does seem to want to continue down the same path.I do agree with the rest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232572</id>
	<title>We need more discipline in public office</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257171060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They all know their jobs and the limits of their office and mission.  For various reasons, both good and bad, they seek more power and expansion of current power.  I hold that there was great wisdom in the limiting of those powers from the very beginning.  That wisdom was established by previous abuses of such overreaching powers of the previous government the founding fathers were living under.  They knew where all the government power abuses lead to because they had lived with those abuses until they could tolerate it no longer.  This is how the U.S. Revolution began!</p><p>The people in various offices seek to repeat those same abuses by seeking to go beyond the limits that were artfully and successfully crafted by the authors of the U.S. Constitution.  They may have good intentions, but the evils that can result from it outweighs the benefit of prosecuting one or two more child rapists.  And yes, I said it.  Protecting the constitution is FAR more important than protecting children from rapists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They all know their jobs and the limits of their office and mission .
For various reasons , both good and bad , they seek more power and expansion of current power .
I hold that there was great wisdom in the limiting of those powers from the very beginning .
That wisdom was established by previous abuses of such overreaching powers of the previous government the founding fathers were living under .
They knew where all the government power abuses lead to because they had lived with those abuses until they could tolerate it no longer .
This is how the U.S. Revolution began ! The people in various offices seek to repeat those same abuses by seeking to go beyond the limits that were artfully and successfully crafted by the authors of the U.S. Constitution. They may have good intentions , but the evils that can result from it outweighs the benefit of prosecuting one or two more child rapists .
And yes , I said it .
Protecting the constitution is FAR more important than protecting children from rapists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They all know their jobs and the limits of their office and mission.
For various reasons, both good and bad, they seek more power and expansion of current power.
I hold that there was great wisdom in the limiting of those powers from the very beginning.
That wisdom was established by previous abuses of such overreaching powers of the previous government the founding fathers were living under.
They knew where all the government power abuses lead to because they had lived with those abuses until they could tolerate it no longer.
This is how the U.S. Revolution began!The people in various offices seek to repeat those same abuses by seeking to go beyond the limits that were artfully and successfully crafted by the authors of the U.S. Constitution.  They may have good intentions, but the evils that can result from it outweighs the benefit of prosecuting one or two more child rapists.
And yes, I said it.
Protecting the constitution is FAR more important than protecting children from rapists.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30234096</id>
	<title>Re:from TFA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257186480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Scrolling to the right in this case is the same as opening a cupboard door during a search and then claiming the inside was in 'plain sight'. Its not in 'plain sight' if they have to scroll. What, you think just because it was easy to look at that other data, that its acceptable? With data being on computer nowadays, its trivial to access massive amounts of info. Just because it only takes a few keystrokes, doesn't make it any more constitutionally acceptable.</p><p>If they manage to reverse this decision, be prepared for lots more 'fishing' expeditions. Where will the line be drawn? Will they be able to use one lawbreaker to look through databases of millions of people for evidence of wrongdoing, without any probably cause for any of those millions of people?</p><p>Every law enforcement agency thinks they could make the world a better place if there were no checks on their powers. However, the authors of the constitution knew that this would lead to oppression and tyranny if this was allowed.</p><p>I'm constantly amazed at how America keeps making so much of their constitution, declaration of independence, etc (rightly so IMHO), yet it has allowed it to be watered down, modified, and 'reinterpreted' for quite some time. Unfortunately, America has gone far from its initial role of being a beacon of equality and liberty. Non US citizens not entitled to the same basic human and judicial rights as citizens? Ok for Americans to torture people, as long as its not done in North America, even tho done on American leased soil? Such things have harmed Americas reputation for many years to come, and until these things are corrected (if ever) it seems we need to look to parts of Europe to be the leaders of freedom nowadays.</p><p>I really hope that some leader could pull America out of this situation, as I dont even believe the citizenry could effectively resist an authoritarian government anymore. They have disarmed you systematically, weakened your tools for successful revolution, taken your weapons without legal right (Katrina anyone?), and now you are weak enough that they know they can herd you wherever they want and you will have no chance to resist. They control your weapons, your communications, and your transport systems. Most of the technologies for fighting 'insurgents' are the ones that will be used against you without hesitation if you attempt to resist their plans to totally control you. Of course, as long as they have TV, video games and alcohol to achieve temporary happiness, most will just keep their heads down and try to enjoy life as much as they are permitted, rather than throwing their existence away fighting a vastly superior power structure.</p><p>Please note I am not saying that other countries are any/much better - but the difference is, other countries havn't claimed to be the land of the free. The sad thing is that some Americans still believe it is. Unfortunately, Americas biggest export for at least the last 10 years has been hypocrisy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Scrolling to the right in this case is the same as opening a cupboard door during a search and then claiming the inside was in 'plain sight' .
Its not in 'plain sight ' if they have to scroll .
What , you think just because it was easy to look at that other data , that its acceptable ?
With data being on computer nowadays , its trivial to access massive amounts of info .
Just because it only takes a few keystrokes , does n't make it any more constitutionally acceptable.If they manage to reverse this decision , be prepared for lots more 'fishing ' expeditions .
Where will the line be drawn ?
Will they be able to use one lawbreaker to look through databases of millions of people for evidence of wrongdoing , without any probably cause for any of those millions of people ? Every law enforcement agency thinks they could make the world a better place if there were no checks on their powers .
However , the authors of the constitution knew that this would lead to oppression and tyranny if this was allowed.I 'm constantly amazed at how America keeps making so much of their constitution , declaration of independence , etc ( rightly so IMHO ) , yet it has allowed it to be watered down , modified , and 'reinterpreted ' for quite some time .
Unfortunately , America has gone far from its initial role of being a beacon of equality and liberty .
Non US citizens not entitled to the same basic human and judicial rights as citizens ?
Ok for Americans to torture people , as long as its not done in North America , even tho done on American leased soil ?
Such things have harmed Americas reputation for many years to come , and until these things are corrected ( if ever ) it seems we need to look to parts of Europe to be the leaders of freedom nowadays.I really hope that some leader could pull America out of this situation , as I dont even believe the citizenry could effectively resist an authoritarian government anymore .
They have disarmed you systematically , weakened your tools for successful revolution , taken your weapons without legal right ( Katrina anyone ?
) , and now you are weak enough that they know they can herd you wherever they want and you will have no chance to resist .
They control your weapons , your communications , and your transport systems .
Most of the technologies for fighting 'insurgents ' are the ones that will be used against you without hesitation if you attempt to resist their plans to totally control you .
Of course , as long as they have TV , video games and alcohol to achieve temporary happiness , most will just keep their heads down and try to enjoy life as much as they are permitted , rather than throwing their existence away fighting a vastly superior power structure.Please note I am not saying that other countries are any/much better - but the difference is , other countries hav n't claimed to be the land of the free .
The sad thing is that some Americans still believe it is .
Unfortunately , Americas biggest export for at least the last 10 years has been hypocrisy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scrolling to the right in this case is the same as opening a cupboard door during a search and then claiming the inside was in 'plain sight'.
Its not in 'plain sight' if they have to scroll.
What, you think just because it was easy to look at that other data, that its acceptable?
With data being on computer nowadays, its trivial to access massive amounts of info.
Just because it only takes a few keystrokes, doesn't make it any more constitutionally acceptable.If they manage to reverse this decision, be prepared for lots more 'fishing' expeditions.
Where will the line be drawn?
Will they be able to use one lawbreaker to look through databases of millions of people for evidence of wrongdoing, without any probably cause for any of those millions of people?Every law enforcement agency thinks they could make the world a better place if there were no checks on their powers.
However, the authors of the constitution knew that this would lead to oppression and tyranny if this was allowed.I'm constantly amazed at how America keeps making so much of their constitution, declaration of independence, etc (rightly so IMHO), yet it has allowed it to be watered down, modified, and 'reinterpreted' for quite some time.
Unfortunately, America has gone far from its initial role of being a beacon of equality and liberty.
Non US citizens not entitled to the same basic human and judicial rights as citizens?
Ok for Americans to torture people, as long as its not done in North America, even tho done on American leased soil?
Such things have harmed Americas reputation for many years to come, and until these things are corrected (if ever) it seems we need to look to parts of Europe to be the leaders of freedom nowadays.I really hope that some leader could pull America out of this situation, as I dont even believe the citizenry could effectively resist an authoritarian government anymore.
They have disarmed you systematically, weakened your tools for successful revolution, taken your weapons without legal right (Katrina anyone?
), and now you are weak enough that they know they can herd you wherever they want and you will have no chance to resist.
They control your weapons, your communications, and your transport systems.
Most of the technologies for fighting 'insurgents' are the ones that will be used against you without hesitation if you attempt to resist their plans to totally control you.
Of course, as long as they have TV, video games and alcohol to achieve temporary happiness, most will just keep their heads down and try to enjoy life as much as they are permitted, rather than throwing their existence away fighting a vastly superior power structure.Please note I am not saying that other countries are any/much better - but the difference is, other countries havn't claimed to be the land of the free.
The sad thing is that some Americans still believe it is.
Unfortunately, Americas biggest export for at least the last 10 years has been hypocrisy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233786</id>
	<title>Re:Misleading Story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257182640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>did obama return those love letters you sent?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>did obama return those love letters you sent ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>did obama return those love letters you sent?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232900</id>
	<title>Re:Hope/Change?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257173520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please give the actual article a read, what's going on here really doesn't sound unreasonable.  They're supposed to only read some lines of an Excel spreadsheet and ignore the others?  This is evidence of "inherently corrupt"?</p><p>You seem to think Bush starting a couple wars makes his excessive spending okay?</p><p>Obama entering office during a massive recession that was started during the Bash administration.  He has continued the <i>conservative</i> Bush administration's policy of stimulus spending AND kept their same Federal Reserve Chairman.</p><p>How exactly do you justify your claim that stimulus spending is a Bad Thing when there's every indication that any other president would be doing the exact same thing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please give the actual article a read , what 's going on here really does n't sound unreasonable .
They 're supposed to only read some lines of an Excel spreadsheet and ignore the others ?
This is evidence of " inherently corrupt " ? You seem to think Bush starting a couple wars makes his excessive spending okay ? Obama entering office during a massive recession that was started during the Bash administration .
He has continued the conservative Bush administration 's policy of stimulus spending AND kept their same Federal Reserve Chairman.How exactly do you justify your claim that stimulus spending is a Bad Thing when there 's every indication that any other president would be doing the exact same thing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please give the actual article a read, what's going on here really doesn't sound unreasonable.
They're supposed to only read some lines of an Excel spreadsheet and ignore the others?
This is evidence of "inherently corrupt"?You seem to think Bush starting a couple wars makes his excessive spending okay?Obama entering office during a massive recession that was started during the Bash administration.
He has continued the conservative Bush administration's policy of stimulus spending AND kept their same Federal Reserve Chairman.How exactly do you justify your claim that stimulus spending is a Bad Thing when there's every indication that any other president would be doing the exact same thing?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30234826</id>
	<title>Re:Hope/Change?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259227980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>At least Bush had a war to justify his need to breach privacy.</i> </p><p>At least Bush had a war to justify^W<b> <i>use as a lame, deceitful excuse for</i> </b> his need^W<b> <i>meretricious, criminal desire</i> </b> to breach privacy.</p><p>Corrections provided gratis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least Bush had a war to justify his need to breach privacy .
At least Bush had a war to justify ^ W use as a lame , deceitful excuse for his need ^ W meretricious , criminal desire to breach privacy.Corrections provided gratis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least Bush had a war to justify his need to breach privacy.
At least Bush had a war to justify^W use as a lame, deceitful excuse for  his need^W meretricious, criminal desire  to breach privacy.Corrections provided gratis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232368</id>
	<title>In defense of...</title>
	<author>DaMP12000</author>
	<datestamp>1257169560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the attempt to appeal the decision, TFA states that the court said they illegally obtained the names because the authorities 'actively scrolled to the right side of the spreadsheet'... Isn't that defense like "Sir, you had a warrant for my computer and found marijuana on the table... you actively looked at the table when your warrant was just for my computer".
I think this is an example of the American Justice not working. If a file that incriminates people subject to the warrant also incriminates other people, I don't see how this is an abuse. The judge's decision was absurd.

And don't get me wrong, I usually don't like big brother stuff, but on the other hand, tying the hand of the authorities when they're trying to do a decent job is not going to help the situation either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>the attempt to appeal the decision , TFA states that the court said they illegally obtained the names because the authorities 'actively scrolled to the right side of the spreadsheet'... Is n't that defense like " Sir , you had a warrant for my computer and found marijuana on the table... you actively looked at the table when your warrant was just for my computer " .
I think this is an example of the American Justice not working .
If a file that incriminates people subject to the warrant also incriminates other people , I do n't see how this is an abuse .
The judge 's decision was absurd .
And do n't get me wrong , I usually do n't like big brother stuff , but on the other hand , tying the hand of the authorities when they 're trying to do a decent job is not going to help the situation either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the attempt to appeal the decision, TFA states that the court said they illegally obtained the names because the authorities 'actively scrolled to the right side of the spreadsheet'... Isn't that defense like "Sir, you had a warrant for my computer and found marijuana on the table... you actively looked at the table when your warrant was just for my computer".
I think this is an example of the American Justice not working.
If a file that incriminates people subject to the warrant also incriminates other people, I don't see how this is an abuse.
The judge's decision was absurd.
And don't get me wrong, I usually don't like big brother stuff, but on the other hand, tying the hand of the authorities when they're trying to do a decent job is not going to help the situation either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232316</id>
	<title>Eh</title>
	<author>ShooterNeo</author>
	<datestamp>1257169080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with trying to apply old precedents to this matter is that digital databases can be so much vaster than any real place being searched.  If the cops have a warrant to search the safe in someone's house for something illegal, they aren't allowed to go search the cupboards.  Only if the evidence is in plain sight as they go about their business are they allowed to use it.</p><p>This is very relevant.  What if the cops bust in to your house looking for marijuana in your safe, based on an anonymous tip, and don't find anything?  Maybe they find you've stored chemicals in your kitchen cabinets in violation of federal law for storage, or maybe you've got some prescription med bottles for a person who is no longer living in the house.  If the cops are allowed to rifle through everything a private citizen owns, and they get creative, they can almost certainly find SOMETHING to charge you with.  Their perspective is "since you were accused, you must be guilty of SOMETHING...let's find what it is because I don't want to go back to the station empty handed"</p><p>Well, now, if suppose you were a credit bureau like Equifax.  If the cops had the authority to search your database to get someone's credit record in order to prove illegal activity, they could search the records of every citizen in the united states because those records are in "plain sight" within the database!  Bet they could find SOMETHING if they are allowed to basically open an investigation against every citizen of the country.</p><p>And for those arguing "if we're soft on crime, we're letting teh criminals win".  The U.S. has already declared and imprisoned more of its citizens for being 'criminals' than any other nation on earth as a \% of population.  Now, I'm not saying that a large percentage of those people are innocent, just that this extreme level of imprisonment is not an appropriate way for society to deal with those who misbehave.  (I think the percentage of innocent people is probably between 3 and 10 percent)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with trying to apply old precedents to this matter is that digital databases can be so much vaster than any real place being searched .
If the cops have a warrant to search the safe in someone 's house for something illegal , they are n't allowed to go search the cupboards .
Only if the evidence is in plain sight as they go about their business are they allowed to use it.This is very relevant .
What if the cops bust in to your house looking for marijuana in your safe , based on an anonymous tip , and do n't find anything ?
Maybe they find you 've stored chemicals in your kitchen cabinets in violation of federal law for storage , or maybe you 've got some prescription med bottles for a person who is no longer living in the house .
If the cops are allowed to rifle through everything a private citizen owns , and they get creative , they can almost certainly find SOMETHING to charge you with .
Their perspective is " since you were accused , you must be guilty of SOMETHING...let 's find what it is because I do n't want to go back to the station empty handed " Well , now , if suppose you were a credit bureau like Equifax .
If the cops had the authority to search your database to get someone 's credit record in order to prove illegal activity , they could search the records of every citizen in the united states because those records are in " plain sight " within the database !
Bet they could find SOMETHING if they are allowed to basically open an investigation against every citizen of the country.And for those arguing " if we 're soft on crime , we 're letting teh criminals win " .
The U.S. has already declared and imprisoned more of its citizens for being 'criminals ' than any other nation on earth as a \ % of population .
Now , I 'm not saying that a large percentage of those people are innocent , just that this extreme level of imprisonment is not an appropriate way for society to deal with those who misbehave .
( I think the percentage of innocent people is probably between 3 and 10 percent )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with trying to apply old precedents to this matter is that digital databases can be so much vaster than any real place being searched.
If the cops have a warrant to search the safe in someone's house for something illegal, they aren't allowed to go search the cupboards.
Only if the evidence is in plain sight as they go about their business are they allowed to use it.This is very relevant.
What if the cops bust in to your house looking for marijuana in your safe, based on an anonymous tip, and don't find anything?
Maybe they find you've stored chemicals in your kitchen cabinets in violation of federal law for storage, or maybe you've got some prescription med bottles for a person who is no longer living in the house.
If the cops are allowed to rifle through everything a private citizen owns, and they get creative, they can almost certainly find SOMETHING to charge you with.
Their perspective is "since you were accused, you must be guilty of SOMETHING...let's find what it is because I don't want to go back to the station empty handed"Well, now, if suppose you were a credit bureau like Equifax.
If the cops had the authority to search your database to get someone's credit record in order to prove illegal activity, they could search the records of every citizen in the united states because those records are in "plain sight" within the database!
Bet they could find SOMETHING if they are allowed to basically open an investigation against every citizen of the country.And for those arguing "if we're soft on crime, we're letting teh criminals win".
The U.S. has already declared and imprisoned more of its citizens for being 'criminals' than any other nation on earth as a \% of population.
Now, I'm not saying that a large percentage of those people are innocent, just that this extreme level of imprisonment is not an appropriate way for society to deal with those who misbehave.
(I think the percentage of innocent people is probably between 3 and 10 percent)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232602</id>
	<title>if secrets are outlawed.....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257171360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>in the next breath, if ?we? fail to monitor some evile critters' (including our own (illuminati etc...) psycho activities, many (more) of us might get hurt... or even worse, mistaken for evile when not doing so? yikes, maybe just stop doing stuff that even smells evile? there must be some limits to this freedumb thing?</p><p>no matter, the lights are coming up all over now. fortunately, many of us, despite our questionable training, are on the not wrong side of history.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in the next breath , if ? we ?
fail to monitor some evile critters ' ( including our own ( illuminati etc... ) psycho activities , many ( more ) of us might get hurt... or even worse , mistaken for evile when not doing so ?
yikes , maybe just stop doing stuff that even smells evile ?
there must be some limits to this freedumb thing ? no matter , the lights are coming up all over now .
fortunately , many of us , despite our questionable training , are on the not wrong side of history .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in the next breath, if ?we?
fail to monitor some evile critters' (including our own (illuminati etc...) psycho activities, many (more) of us might get hurt... or even worse, mistaken for evile when not doing so?
yikes, maybe just stop doing stuff that even smells evile?
there must be some limits to this freedumb thing?no matter, the lights are coming up all over now.
fortunately, many of us, despite our questionable training, are on the not wrong side of history.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233032</id>
	<title>Re:So he's a politician</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1257174720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_political\_parties\_in\_the\_United\_States" title="wikipedia.org">Here you go</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here you go [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here you go [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232428</id>
	<title>Funny...</title>
	<author>Schnoogs</author>
	<datestamp>1257169920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...if Bush had done this people would be reacting differently.  Hope and Change is a joke.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...if Bush had done this people would be reacting differently .
Hope and Change is a joke .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...if Bush had done this people would be reacting differently.
Hope and Change is a joke.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233560</id>
	<title>Elana has been very busy lately</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257180120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the SaveJPL.com website:</p><p><i>On Monday, November 2, Solicitor General Elena Kagan filed for a writ of certiorari before the United States Supreme Court, requesting a review of a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals injunction that protected employees at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory from intrusive, open ended background investigations under Homeland Security Presidential Directive #12 (NASA et al. v. Nelson et al., No. 09-530). If granted, the writ would permit the Supreme Court to hear arguments and rule on the legality of government investigations into the private lives of federal contractors who do non-classified work. On June 4, 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied a motion from the Department of Justice for an en banc hearing (a hearing before a large panel of the Ninth Circuit) that sought to overturn an injunction issued last year against NASA and the California Institute of Technology by a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit. The panel's ruling was unanimous in favor of the JPL employees.</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the SaveJPL.com website : On Monday , November 2 , Solicitor General Elena Kagan filed for a writ of certiorari before the United States Supreme Court , requesting a review of a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals injunction that protected employees at NASA 's Jet Propulsion Laboratory from intrusive , open ended background investigations under Homeland Security Presidential Directive # 12 ( NASA et al .
v. Nelson et al. , No .
09-530 ) . If granted , the writ would permit the Supreme Court to hear arguments and rule on the legality of government investigations into the private lives of federal contractors who do non-classified work .
On June 4 , 2009 , the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied a motion from the Department of Justice for an en banc hearing ( a hearing before a large panel of the Ninth Circuit ) that sought to overturn an injunction issued last year against NASA and the California Institute of Technology by a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit .
The panel 's ruling was unanimous in favor of the JPL employees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the SaveJPL.com website:On Monday, November 2, Solicitor General Elena Kagan filed for a writ of certiorari before the United States Supreme Court, requesting a review of a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals injunction that protected employees at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory from intrusive, open ended background investigations under Homeland Security Presidential Directive #12 (NASA et al.
v. Nelson et al., No.
09-530). If granted, the writ would permit the Supreme Court to hear arguments and rule on the legality of government investigations into the private lives of federal contractors who do non-classified work.
On June 4, 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied a motion from the Department of Justice for an en banc hearing (a hearing before a large panel of the Ninth Circuit) that sought to overturn an injunction issued last year against NASA and the California Institute of Technology by a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit.
The panel's ruling was unanimous in favor of the JPL employees.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232660</id>
	<title>Re:So he's a politician</title>
	<author>smitty777</author>
	<datestamp>1257171840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, you're suggesting just avoiding voting?  It's easy to criticize - how about you offer an alternative.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , you 're suggesting just avoiding voting ?
It 's easy to criticize - how about you offer an alternative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, you're suggesting just avoiding voting?
It's easy to criticize - how about you offer an alternative.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232966</id>
	<title>Re:Hope/Change?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257174000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>When are you all going to learn that government is inherently bad; that it is inherently corrupt. And while there are a couple of functions it should provide to maintain civilization, the smaller we keep it the better... for all of us.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>Why the backpedal?  If government is inherently bad, then it can't be needed at all.</p><p>Unless, that is, somewhere deep down, you do realize that statement is ludicrous.  If we can use government to maintain civilization, then we can use it to improve daily life, prevent injustice, and all the other stuff that would make things better.</p><p>In short, when your computer is infected with malware, the solution is not to just stop using computers, it's to clean the computer up.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When are you all going to learn that government is inherently bad ; that it is inherently corrupt .
And while there are a couple of functions it should provide to maintain civilization , the smaller we keep it the better... for all of us .
Why the backpedal ?
If government is inherently bad , then it ca n't be needed at all.Unless , that is , somewhere deep down , you do realize that statement is ludicrous .
If we can use government to maintain civilization , then we can use it to improve daily life , prevent injustice , and all the other stuff that would make things better.In short , when your computer is infected with malware , the solution is not to just stop using computers , it 's to clean the computer up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> When are you all going to learn that government is inherently bad; that it is inherently corrupt.
And while there are a couple of functions it should provide to maintain civilization, the smaller we keep it the better... for all of us.
Why the backpedal?
If government is inherently bad, then it can't be needed at all.Unless, that is, somewhere deep down, you do realize that statement is ludicrous.
If we can use government to maintain civilization, then we can use it to improve daily life, prevent injustice, and all the other stuff that would make things better.In short, when your computer is infected with malware, the solution is not to just stop using computers, it's to clean the computer up.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232806</id>
	<title>Same as the old boss?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257172860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does this guy talk about war with Iran? The last guy wanted it and so did his replacement.<br>Does this guy consider negotiation to be appeasement? The last guy did and so did his replacement.<br>Is this guy screwing with the Russian border? The last guy did and his replacement thought it was a good idea, too.</p><p>Don't like what you lost under the previous administration? Pissed that this guy said he was going to make a difference but he isn't doing it? Well, the next time you think about complaining to the public, remember the other guy wasn't even promising to try to make a difference and he actually thought you were an idiot for wanting change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this guy talk about war with Iran ?
The last guy wanted it and so did his replacement.Does this guy consider negotiation to be appeasement ?
The last guy did and so did his replacement.Is this guy screwing with the Russian border ?
The last guy did and his replacement thought it was a good idea , too.Do n't like what you lost under the previous administration ?
Pissed that this guy said he was going to make a difference but he is n't doing it ?
Well , the next time you think about complaining to the public , remember the other guy was n't even promising to try to make a difference and he actually thought you were an idiot for wanting change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this guy talk about war with Iran?
The last guy wanted it and so did his replacement.Does this guy consider negotiation to be appeasement?
The last guy did and so did his replacement.Is this guy screwing with the Russian border?
The last guy did and his replacement thought it was a good idea, too.Don't like what you lost under the previous administration?
Pissed that this guy said he was going to make a difference but he isn't doing it?
Well, the next time you think about complaining to the public, remember the other guy wasn't even promising to try to make a difference and he actually thought you were an idiot for wanting change.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233224</id>
	<title>Those wars didn't end with Bush's term.</title>
	<author>Beelzebud</author>
	<datestamp>1257176580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So if you think those wars were a justification under Bush, but not Obama, then that just makes you a big 'ole hypocrite.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So if you think those wars were a justification under Bush , but not Obama , then that just makes you a big 'ole hypocrite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if you think those wars were a justification under Bush, but not Obama, then that just makes you a big 'ole hypocrite.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232956</id>
	<title>Re:Hope/Change?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257173880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When are you all going to learn that government is inherently bad; that it is inherently corrupt. And while there are a couple of functions it should provide to maintain civilization, the smaller we keep it the better... for all of us.</p></div><p>Hard to accomplish large-scale things when there is no large central management.  As an example, how would the US Highway system ever have gotten done without a large pool of centrally managed resources?  Consider that America might not even exist without its large pool of resources that its military is made from (eg. what would have happened if the US did not have the resources to join in WWII?  Or for posturing in the cold war... etc, etc).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When are you all going to learn that government is inherently bad ; that it is inherently corrupt .
And while there are a couple of functions it should provide to maintain civilization , the smaller we keep it the better... for all of us.Hard to accomplish large-scale things when there is no large central management .
As an example , how would the US Highway system ever have gotten done without a large pool of centrally managed resources ?
Consider that America might not even exist without its large pool of resources that its military is made from ( eg .
what would have happened if the US did not have the resources to join in WWII ?
Or for posturing in the cold war... etc , etc ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When are you all going to learn that government is inherently bad; that it is inherently corrupt.
And while there are a couple of functions it should provide to maintain civilization, the smaller we keep it the better... for all of us.Hard to accomplish large-scale things when there is no large central management.
As an example, how would the US Highway system ever have gotten done without a large pool of centrally managed resources?
Consider that America might not even exist without its large pool of resources that its military is made from (eg.
what would have happened if the US did not have the resources to join in WWII?
Or for posturing in the cold war... etc, etc).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30234100</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah</title>
	<author>ArsonSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1257186540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Warrants for inspection of computer databases should come with specific search string queries attached.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Warrants for inspection of computer databases should come with specific search string queries attached .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Warrants for inspection of computer databases should come with specific search string queries attached.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233936</id>
	<title>Re:from TFA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257184620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This... doesn't actually sound that objectionable. Scrolling to the right breaks the Fourth Amendment?</p></div></blockquote><p>
You're right, it doesn't <em>sound</em> that objectionable.  That's why it's such a dangerous precedent; it's the thin edge of the wedge.
</p><p>
Back in pre-9/11 America, look at the hoops through which NSA jumped to make sure they <em>weren't</em> spying on Americans.  Any <em>hint</em> of it, and the whole data set got thrown out.
</p><p>
A few years ago it was the infrared leaking from your house.  Invisible to the naked eye,  it's "in plain view" if the cop has an IR imager.  Today it's scrolling to the right to read the results of 104 people, 94 of whom weren't named on the warrant.  Tomorrow it's everything on the hard drive.   Next week it's everything on the RAID array at the hosting company that hosts 500 virtual domains, including your perfectly legitimate domain even though the warrant only specifies the stuff in (phishsite)://~phisher.  Next month it's everything on every hard drive Google ever owned.
</p><p>
The extreme examples aren't defensible today.  But they will be, and this precedent is yet another step on the road.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This... does n't actually sound that objectionable .
Scrolling to the right breaks the Fourth Amendment ?
You 're right , it does n't sound that objectionable .
That 's why it 's such a dangerous precedent ; it 's the thin edge of the wedge .
Back in pre-9/11 America , look at the hoops through which NSA jumped to make sure they were n't spying on Americans .
Any hint of it , and the whole data set got thrown out .
A few years ago it was the infrared leaking from your house .
Invisible to the naked eye , it 's " in plain view " if the cop has an IR imager .
Today it 's scrolling to the right to read the results of 104 people , 94 of whom were n't named on the warrant .
Tomorrow it 's everything on the hard drive .
Next week it 's everything on the RAID array at the hosting company that hosts 500 virtual domains , including your perfectly legitimate domain even though the warrant only specifies the stuff in ( phishsite ) : // ~ phisher .
Next month it 's everything on every hard drive Google ever owned .
The extreme examples are n't defensible today .
But they will be , and this precedent is yet another step on the road .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This... doesn't actually sound that objectionable.
Scrolling to the right breaks the Fourth Amendment?
You're right, it doesn't sound that objectionable.
That's why it's such a dangerous precedent; it's the thin edge of the wedge.
Back in pre-9/11 America, look at the hoops through which NSA jumped to make sure they weren't spying on Americans.
Any hint of it, and the whole data set got thrown out.
A few years ago it was the infrared leaking from your house.
Invisible to the naked eye,  it's "in plain view" if the cop has an IR imager.
Today it's scrolling to the right to read the results of 104 people, 94 of whom weren't named on the warrant.
Tomorrow it's everything on the hard drive.
Next week it's everything on the RAID array at the hosting company that hosts 500 virtual domains, including your perfectly legitimate domain even though the warrant only specifies the stuff in (phishsite)://~phisher.
Next month it's everything on every hard drive Google ever owned.
The extreme examples aren't defensible today.
But they will be, and this precedent is yet another step on the road.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232746</id>
	<title>Re:Hope/Change?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257172560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What? And McCain/Palin would have been a huge departure from the previous administration's policies? In the Internet age we're supposed to trust an ancient PoW that can't operate a BlackBerry and a white-trash jesus-freak evolution-denier who only appeals to masturbating gun fetishists?</p><p>Sure you can say we're naive for agreeing with his rhetoric, but at least the substance of his rhetoric was leaps and bounds ahead of the competition's. As a progressive liberal, I knew that Obama was going to attempt to appease conservatives who won't support him no matter what he does. All Americans would be hard-pressed to vote for a presidential candidate with whom they agree 100\% on policy/agenda.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What ?
And McCain/Palin would have been a huge departure from the previous administration 's policies ?
In the Internet age we 're supposed to trust an ancient PoW that ca n't operate a BlackBerry and a white-trash jesus-freak evolution-denier who only appeals to masturbating gun fetishists ? Sure you can say we 're naive for agreeing with his rhetoric , but at least the substance of his rhetoric was leaps and bounds ahead of the competition 's .
As a progressive liberal , I knew that Obama was going to attempt to appease conservatives who wo n't support him no matter what he does .
All Americans would be hard-pressed to vote for a presidential candidate with whom they agree 100 \ % on policy/agenda .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?
And McCain/Palin would have been a huge departure from the previous administration's policies?
In the Internet age we're supposed to trust an ancient PoW that can't operate a BlackBerry and a white-trash jesus-freak evolution-denier who only appeals to masturbating gun fetishists?Sure you can say we're naive for agreeing with his rhetoric, but at least the substance of his rhetoric was leaps and bounds ahead of the competition's.
As a progressive liberal, I knew that Obama was going to attempt to appease conservatives who won't support him no matter what he does.
All Americans would be hard-pressed to vote for a presidential candidate with whom they agree 100\% on policy/agenda.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233026</id>
	<title>Evil is a relative term.</title>
	<author>ciroknight</author>
	<datestamp>1257174660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Therefore all votes are evil? So we shouldn't express an opinion at all then?
<br> <br>
<i>All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Therefore all votes are evil ?
So we should n't express an opinion at all then ?
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Therefore all votes are evil?
So we shouldn't express an opinion at all then?
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232790</id>
	<title>Re:Asinine example</title>
	<author>ukyoCE</author>
	<datestamp>1257172800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's an odd example.  It says they DID refer the case to state authorities, so it's not exactly "I'll take my ball away".  There's gotta be something more there to explain why state authorities would charge for it but the federal agents wouldn't?</p><p>Maybe something as simple as "if they only committed 1 crime in a 1 state, it would be out of federal jurisdiction and they would be unable to proceed with the case anyway"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's an odd example .
It says they DID refer the case to state authorities , so it 's not exactly " I 'll take my ball away " .
There 's got ta be something more there to explain why state authorities would charge for it but the federal agents would n't ? Maybe something as simple as " if they only committed 1 crime in a 1 state , it would be out of federal jurisdiction and they would be unable to proceed with the case anyway " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's an odd example.
It says they DID refer the case to state authorities, so it's not exactly "I'll take my ball away".
There's gotta be something more there to explain why state authorities would charge for it but the federal agents wouldn't?Maybe something as simple as "if they only committed 1 crime in a 1 state, it would be out of federal jurisdiction and they would be unable to proceed with the case anyway"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233416</id>
	<title>Re:Eh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257178320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Arguing that warrants should be limited so the police are restricted in their ability to discover other crimes is no way to sell your point to anyone over 25.</p><p>No one is going to care that your privacy is invaded if it stops a child receiving drugs, or puts a rapist in jail.</p><p>Warrants should be restrictive to stop police abusing the system. I don't like X, I'm going to get a warrant, turn over his house. Then next month, I'll do the same thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Arguing that warrants should be limited so the police are restricted in their ability to discover other crimes is no way to sell your point to anyone over 25.No one is going to care that your privacy is invaded if it stops a child receiving drugs , or puts a rapist in jail.Warrants should be restrictive to stop police abusing the system .
I do n't like X , I 'm going to get a warrant , turn over his house .
Then next month , I 'll do the same thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Arguing that warrants should be limited so the police are restricted in their ability to discover other crimes is no way to sell your point to anyone over 25.No one is going to care that your privacy is invaded if it stops a child receiving drugs, or puts a rapist in jail.Warrants should be restrictive to stop police abusing the system.
I don't like X, I'm going to get a warrant, turn over his house.
Then next month, I'll do the same thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232352</id>
	<title>His only term</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257169380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think he has both sides of the line pissed enough now that he will never be elected again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think he has both sides of the line pissed enough now that he will never be elected again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think he has both sides of the line pissed enough now that he will never be elected again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232338</id>
	<title>Only pedantic comments here</title>
	<author>mathimus1863</author>
	<datestamp>1257169320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All this talk about him being the same guy as the last one...?  Just because his actions related to 4th amendment are like Bush's, doesn't mean it's a one-party system all of a sudden.  Take a look at healthcare and foreign policy.  I think this boils down to the fact that ANY PRESIDENT will take as much 4th amendement liberties as the can if it helps him protect the country.  Is it right?  No, and it's our obligation to fight it.  But I'd say it's not surprising in the least.  If he can avoid having a major disaster/attack during his first term, that completely makes up for any loss of support he gets for being a dick about the 4th amendment.  Does it guarantee no terrorist attacks could happen?  No, but I'd say the conditional probabilities work out in his favor, politically.
<br> <br>
Again, I'm not supporting it.  We need him to know that these policies are unpopular.  But to say that our extremely liberal president is suddenly just like Bush because of his stance on a single issue like this, is ludicrous.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All this talk about him being the same guy as the last one... ?
Just because his actions related to 4th amendment are like Bush 's , does n't mean it 's a one-party system all of a sudden .
Take a look at healthcare and foreign policy .
I think this boils down to the fact that ANY PRESIDENT will take as much 4th amendement liberties as the can if it helps him protect the country .
Is it right ?
No , and it 's our obligation to fight it .
But I 'd say it 's not surprising in the least .
If he can avoid having a major disaster/attack during his first term , that completely makes up for any loss of support he gets for being a dick about the 4th amendment .
Does it guarantee no terrorist attacks could happen ?
No , but I 'd say the conditional probabilities work out in his favor , politically .
Again , I 'm not supporting it .
We need him to know that these policies are unpopular .
But to say that our extremely liberal president is suddenly just like Bush because of his stance on a single issue like this , is ludicrous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All this talk about him being the same guy as the last one...?
Just because his actions related to 4th amendment are like Bush's, doesn't mean it's a one-party system all of a sudden.
Take a look at healthcare and foreign policy.
I think this boils down to the fact that ANY PRESIDENT will take as much 4th amendement liberties as the can if it helps him protect the country.
Is it right?
No, and it's our obligation to fight it.
But I'd say it's not surprising in the least.
If he can avoid having a major disaster/attack during his first term, that completely makes up for any loss of support he gets for being a dick about the 4th amendment.
Does it guarantee no terrorist attacks could happen?
No, but I'd say the conditional probabilities work out in his favor, politically.
Again, I'm not supporting it.
We need him to know that these policies are unpopular.
But to say that our extremely liberal president is suddenly just like Bush because of his stance on a single issue like this, is ludicrous.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232824</id>
	<title>Shocking: another legal issue beyond Slashdot</title>
	<author>KiahZero</author>
	<datestamp>1257173040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once again the editors have demonstrated that, as much as geeks like to complain about lawyers not understanding technology, techies have far greater problems understanding legal issues.</p><p>I could go into a ton of detail as to the potential issues with the Ninth Circuit's approach, and the reasons why it makes sense for this case to continue through the process of judicial review. However, that would be redundant, because Orin Kerr, who's an expert on the topic, does an excellent job of doing it for me. Incidentally, it only took one Google search to pull up his analysis:</p><p><a href="http://volokh.com/posts/1228354570.shtml" title="volokh.com">http://volokh.com/posts/1228354570.shtml</a> [volokh.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once again the editors have demonstrated that , as much as geeks like to complain about lawyers not understanding technology , techies have far greater problems understanding legal issues.I could go into a ton of detail as to the potential issues with the Ninth Circuit 's approach , and the reasons why it makes sense for this case to continue through the process of judicial review .
However , that would be redundant , because Orin Kerr , who 's an expert on the topic , does an excellent job of doing it for me .
Incidentally , it only took one Google search to pull up his analysis : http : //volokh.com/posts/1228354570.shtml [ volokh.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once again the editors have demonstrated that, as much as geeks like to complain about lawyers not understanding technology, techies have far greater problems understanding legal issues.I could go into a ton of detail as to the potential issues with the Ninth Circuit's approach, and the reasons why it makes sense for this case to continue through the process of judicial review.
However, that would be redundant, because Orin Kerr, who's an expert on the topic, does an excellent job of doing it for me.
Incidentally, it only took one Google search to pull up his analysis:http://volokh.com/posts/1228354570.shtml [volokh.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232974</id>
	<title>Re:Hope/Change?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257174120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>very well written point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>very well written point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>very well written point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30234422</id>
	<title>Re:Hope/Change?</title>
	<author>Phroggy</author>
	<datestamp>1257191640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> When are you all going to learn that government is inherently bad; that it is inherently corrupt. And while there are a couple of functions it should provide to maintain civilization, the smaller we keep it the better... for all of us.</p></div><p>You don't think we knew that when we elected Obama?  Of course we did, we just thought McCain/Palin would be even worse.  Were we wrong?  Maybe, but there's no way to know for sure.</p><p>I know, I know, we could have taken the principled stand and voted for a third party candidate...  but what would that have accomplished, really?  We'd still have either Obama or McCain in the White House.  The election was surprisingly close, and some of us felt that doing our part to tip the balance in favor of the less undesirable of the two possible victors was important.</p><p>Besides, I hate Libertarians.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When are you all going to learn that government is inherently bad ; that it is inherently corrupt .
And while there are a couple of functions it should provide to maintain civilization , the smaller we keep it the better... for all of us.You do n't think we knew that when we elected Obama ?
Of course we did , we just thought McCain/Palin would be even worse .
Were we wrong ?
Maybe , but there 's no way to know for sure.I know , I know , we could have taken the principled stand and voted for a third party candidate... but what would that have accomplished , really ?
We 'd still have either Obama or McCain in the White House .
The election was surprisingly close , and some of us felt that doing our part to tip the balance in favor of the less undesirable of the two possible victors was important.Besides , I hate Libertarians .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> When are you all going to learn that government is inherently bad; that it is inherently corrupt.
And while there are a couple of functions it should provide to maintain civilization, the smaller we keep it the better... for all of us.You don't think we knew that when we elected Obama?
Of course we did, we just thought McCain/Palin would be even worse.
Were we wrong?
Maybe, but there's no way to know for sure.I know, I know, we could have taken the principled stand and voted for a third party candidate...  but what would that have accomplished, really?
We'd still have either Obama or McCain in the White House.
The election was surprisingly close, and some of us felt that doing our part to tip the balance in favor of the less undesirable of the two possible victors was important.Besides, I hate Libertarians.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232800</id>
	<title>Re:Only pedantic comments here</title>
	<author>rodgster</author>
	<datestamp>1257172860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am not afraid of another terrorist attack.</p><p>Why?</p><p>It is 100X more likely to die from smoking<br><a href="http://thescooponsmoking.org/xhtml/faq.php" title="thescooponsmoking.org">http://thescooponsmoking.org/xhtml/faq.php</a> [thescooponsmoking.org]</p><p>It is 10X more likely to die in a car accident<br><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/22/AR2006082201152.html" title="washingtonpost.com">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/22/AR2006082201152.html</a> [washingtonpost.com]</p><p>And 9/11 was a single event.  There others happen every year.</p><p>By the way, about 500 people a year are hit by lightening<br><a href="http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/users/holle/public\_html/phx6.html" title="noaa.gov">http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/users/holle/public\_html/phx6.html</a> [noaa.gov]</p><p>I'm not worried about that either</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not afraid of another terrorist attack.Why ? It is 100X more likely to die from smokinghttp : //thescooponsmoking.org/xhtml/faq.php [ thescooponsmoking.org ] It is 10X more likely to die in a car accidenthttp : //www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/22/AR2006082201152.html [ washingtonpost.com ] And 9/11 was a single event .
There others happen every year.By the way , about 500 people a year are hit by lighteninghttp : //www.nssl.noaa.gov/users/holle/public \ _html/phx6.html [ noaa.gov ] I 'm not worried about that either</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not afraid of another terrorist attack.Why?It is 100X more likely to die from smokinghttp://thescooponsmoking.org/xhtml/faq.php [thescooponsmoking.org]It is 10X more likely to die in a car accidenthttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/22/AR2006082201152.html [washingtonpost.com]And 9/11 was a single event.
There others happen every year.By the way, about 500 people a year are hit by lighteninghttp://www.nssl.noaa.gov/users/holle/public\_html/phx6.html [noaa.gov]I'm not worried about that either</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233264</id>
	<title>Re:translation loud and clear</title>
	<author>Anonymous Psychopath</author>
	<datestamp>1257176880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That old excuse "national security" sounds exactly the same whether you pronounce it in English, Chinese, or North Korean.</p></div><p>Oddly enough, that was exactly why Bush said we needed Gitmo, which Obama was vehemently and frequently opposed to many times during the election. Then when he became President, not so much. Makes one wonder what they know that we do not, doesn't it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That old excuse " national security " sounds exactly the same whether you pronounce it in English , Chinese , or North Korean.Oddly enough , that was exactly why Bush said we needed Gitmo , which Obama was vehemently and frequently opposed to many times during the election .
Then when he became President , not so much .
Makes one wonder what they know that we do not , does n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That old excuse "national security" sounds exactly the same whether you pronounce it in English, Chinese, or North Korean.Oddly enough, that was exactly why Bush said we needed Gitmo, which Obama was vehemently and frequently opposed to many times during the election.
Then when he became President, not so much.
Makes one wonder what they know that we do not, doesn't it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30234244</id>
	<title>Re:Eh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257188520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt; The U.S. has already declared and imprisoned more of its citizens for being 'criminals' than any other nation on earth as a \% of population. Now, I'm not saying that a large percentage of those people are innocent</p><p>So what you're saying is Americans despite a formerly high standard of living compared to the rest of the world feel entitled to commit more crimes, check.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; The U.S. has already declared and imprisoned more of its citizens for being 'criminals ' than any other nation on earth as a \ % of population .
Now , I 'm not saying that a large percentage of those people are innocentSo what you 're saying is Americans despite a formerly high standard of living compared to the rest of the world feel entitled to commit more crimes , check .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; The U.S. has already declared and imprisoned more of its citizens for being 'criminals' than any other nation on earth as a \% of population.
Now, I'm not saying that a large percentage of those people are innocentSo what you're saying is Americans despite a formerly high standard of living compared to the rest of the world feel entitled to commit more crimes, check.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232462</id>
	<title>transparency as advertised</title>
	<author>hort\_wort</author>
	<datestamp>1257170160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hasn't he been saying that he's into transparency this whole time?  What?  Did you guys think it was a one way street?  We're lucky there aren't webcams in all our bathrooms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has n't he been saying that he 's into transparency this whole time ?
What ? Did you guys think it was a one way street ?
We 're lucky there are n't webcams in all our bathrooms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hasn't he been saying that he's into transparency this whole time?
What?  Did you guys think it was a one way street?
We're lucky there aren't webcams in all our bathrooms.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30234180</id>
	<title>That does it.</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1257187500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>im dropping my support for obama.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>im dropping my support for obama .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>im dropping my support for obama.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233394</id>
	<title>Re:Hope/Change?</title>
	<author>MrMista\_B</author>
	<datestamp>1257178140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Troll much? Not just troll, entirely off-topic. From another poster:</p><p>"<br>The title of the story is, "Obama Wants Computer Privacy Ruling Overturned" except that the story has nothing to do with Obama and calling this the 'Obama Administration' is a bit of a stretch as well.</p><p>It is Elena Kagan, not Obama. Her job is the United States Solicitor General. She is represents the US as a prosecutor for the Supreme Court. Isn't she just doing her job?</p><p>I don't understand how one person doing what they are suppose to be doing means Obama is against our rights. The connection just isn't there for me.<br>"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Troll much ?
Not just troll , entirely off-topic .
From another poster : " The title of the story is , " Obama Wants Computer Privacy Ruling Overturned " except that the story has nothing to do with Obama and calling this the 'Obama Administration ' is a bit of a stretch as well.It is Elena Kagan , not Obama .
Her job is the United States Solicitor General .
She is represents the US as a prosecutor for the Supreme Court .
Is n't she just doing her job ? I do n't understand how one person doing what they are suppose to be doing means Obama is against our rights .
The connection just is n't there for me .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Troll much?
Not just troll, entirely off-topic.
From another poster:"The title of the story is, "Obama Wants Computer Privacy Ruling Overturned" except that the story has nothing to do with Obama and calling this the 'Obama Administration' is a bit of a stretch as well.It is Elena Kagan, not Obama.
Her job is the United States Solicitor General.
She is represents the US as a prosecutor for the Supreme Court.
Isn't she just doing her job?I don't understand how one person doing what they are suppose to be doing means Obama is against our rights.
The connection just isn't there for me.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233194</id>
	<title>Re:Hope/Change?</title>
	<author>ktappe</author>
	<datestamp>1257176340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Happy now? This is what you all wanted... For the past decade I've read post after post after post about Bush spending too much or having too tight an iron fist on privacy issues.</p><p>Well, you all voted for change...  Now you have the highest spending EVER.</p></div><p>And just how many times did you object to Bush's spending? Be honest. Because if you never did, then your post here is nothing more than more partisanism, and has little-to-nothing to do with actually objecting to gov't spending.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Happy now ?
This is what you all wanted... For the past decade I 've read post after post after post about Bush spending too much or having too tight an iron fist on privacy issues.Well , you all voted for change... Now you have the highest spending EVER.And just how many times did you object to Bush 's spending ?
Be honest .
Because if you never did , then your post here is nothing more than more partisanism , and has little-to-nothing to do with actually objecting to gov't spending .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Happy now?
This is what you all wanted... For the past decade I've read post after post after post about Bush spending too much or having too tight an iron fist on privacy issues.Well, you all voted for change...  Now you have the highest spending EVER.And just how many times did you object to Bush's spending?
Be honest.
Because if you never did, then your post here is nothing more than more partisanism, and has little-to-nothing to do with actually objecting to gov't spending.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232398</id>
	<title>PANIC! PANIC! PANIC!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257169740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am amused at all the of outrage over<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... well<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. whatever Obama did, it must be horrible! None of these outraged early comments address the topic, they're all slogans like "he's a politician", "he's the government", and sure as hell none of the commenters read the article's attached PDFs. I'm still reading it, so I'll hold off on declaring Obama's satanic provenance. Let's see some comments that show some basic understanding of what a waiver of the plain-view doctrine is and how and whether this doctrine should apply to computer searches.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am amused at all the of outrage over ... well .. whatever Obama did , it must be horrible !
None of these outraged early comments address the topic , they 're all slogans like " he 's a politician " , " he 's the government " , and sure as hell none of the commenters read the article 's attached PDFs .
I 'm still reading it , so I 'll hold off on declaring Obama 's satanic provenance .
Let 's see some comments that show some basic understanding of what a waiver of the plain-view doctrine is and how and whether this doctrine should apply to computer searches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am amused at all the of outrage over ... well .. whatever Obama did, it must be horrible!
None of these outraged early comments address the topic, they're all slogans like "he's a politician", "he's the government", and sure as hell none of the commenters read the article's attached PDFs.
I'm still reading it, so I'll hold off on declaring Obama's satanic provenance.
Let's see some comments that show some basic understanding of what a waiver of the plain-view doctrine is and how and whether this doctrine should apply to computer searches.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232866</id>
	<title>Misleading Story</title>
	<author>angelbunny</author>
	<datestamp>1257173340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The title of the story is, "Obama Wants Computer Privacy Ruling Overturned" except that the story has nothing to do with Obama and calling this the 'Obama Administration' is a bit of a stretch as well.</p><p>It is Elena Kagan, not Obama. Her job is the United States Solicitor General. She is represents the US as a prosecutor for the Supreme Court. Isn't she just doing her job?</p><p>I don't understand how one person doing what they are suppose to be doing means Obama is against our rights. The connection just isn't there for me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The title of the story is , " Obama Wants Computer Privacy Ruling Overturned " except that the story has nothing to do with Obama and calling this the 'Obama Administration ' is a bit of a stretch as well.It is Elena Kagan , not Obama .
Her job is the United States Solicitor General .
She is represents the US as a prosecutor for the Supreme Court .
Is n't she just doing her job ? I do n't understand how one person doing what they are suppose to be doing means Obama is against our rights .
The connection just is n't there for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The title of the story is, "Obama Wants Computer Privacy Ruling Overturned" except that the story has nothing to do with Obama and calling this the 'Obama Administration' is a bit of a stretch as well.It is Elena Kagan, not Obama.
Her job is the United States Solicitor General.
She is represents the US as a prosecutor for the Supreme Court.
Isn't she just doing her job?I don't understand how one person doing what they are suppose to be doing means Obama is against our rights.
The connection just isn't there for me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30234238</id>
	<title>Re:Misleading Story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257188280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>being a fascist shouldn't be in her job description</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>being a fascist should n't be in her job description</tokentext>
<sentencetext>being a fascist shouldn't be in her job description</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30236982</id>
	<title>Re:from TFA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259251020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They 'accidentally' found the evidence. Or they were too stupid to get the evidence correctly.<br>Come on, don't you see how that sort of thing can be abused?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 'accidentally ' found the evidence .
Or they were too stupid to get the evidence correctly.Come on , do n't you see how that sort of thing can be abused ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They 'accidentally' found the evidence.
Or they were too stupid to get the evidence correctly.Come on, don't you see how that sort of thing can be abused?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233174</id>
	<title>Re:So he's a politician</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257176100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you don't vote for the lesser evil, you're vote will indirectly go to the greater evil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't vote for the lesser evil , you 're vote will indirectly go to the greater evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't vote for the lesser evil, you're vote will indirectly go to the greater evil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232374</id>
	<title>from TFA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257169560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The circuit&rsquo;s ruling came in a case that dates to 2004, when federal prosecutors probing a Northern California steroid ring obtained warrants to seize the results of urine samples of 10 pro baseball players at a Long Beach, California drug-testing facility. The players had been tested as part of a voluntary drug-deterrence program implemented by Major League Baseball.<br> <br>

Federal agents serving the search warrant on the Comprehensive Drug Testing lab wound up making a copy of a directory containing a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet with results of every player that was tested in the program. Then, back in the office, they scrolled freely through the spreadsheet, ultimately noting the names of all 104 players who tested positive.<br> <br>

The government argued that the information was lawfully found in &ldquo;plain sight,&rdquo; just like marijuana being discovered on a dining room table during a court-authorized weapons search of a home. But the court noted that the agents actively scrolled to the right side of the spreadsheet to peek at all the players test results, when they could easily have selected, copied and pasted only the rows listing the players named in the search warrant.</p></div></blockquote><p>

This... doesn't actually sound that objectionable. Scrolling to the right breaks the Fourth Amendment?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The circuit    s ruling came in a case that dates to 2004 , when federal prosecutors probing a Northern California steroid ring obtained warrants to seize the results of urine samples of 10 pro baseball players at a Long Beach , California drug-testing facility .
The players had been tested as part of a voluntary drug-deterrence program implemented by Major League Baseball .
Federal agents serving the search warrant on the Comprehensive Drug Testing lab wound up making a copy of a directory containing a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet with results of every player that was tested in the program .
Then , back in the office , they scrolled freely through the spreadsheet , ultimately noting the names of all 104 players who tested positive .
The government argued that the information was lawfully found in    plain sight ,    just like marijuana being discovered on a dining room table during a court-authorized weapons search of a home .
But the court noted that the agents actively scrolled to the right side of the spreadsheet to peek at all the players test results , when they could easily have selected , copied and pasted only the rows listing the players named in the search warrant .
This... does n't actually sound that objectionable .
Scrolling to the right breaks the Fourth Amendment ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The circuit’s ruling came in a case that dates to 2004, when federal prosecutors probing a Northern California steroid ring obtained warrants to seize the results of urine samples of 10 pro baseball players at a Long Beach, California drug-testing facility.
The players had been tested as part of a voluntary drug-deterrence program implemented by Major League Baseball.
Federal agents serving the search warrant on the Comprehensive Drug Testing lab wound up making a copy of a directory containing a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet with results of every player that was tested in the program.
Then, back in the office, they scrolled freely through the spreadsheet, ultimately noting the names of all 104 players who tested positive.
The government argued that the information was lawfully found in “plain sight,” just like marijuana being discovered on a dining room table during a court-authorized weapons search of a home.
But the court noted that the agents actively scrolled to the right side of the spreadsheet to peek at all the players test results, when they could easily have selected, copied and pasted only the rows listing the players named in the search warrant.
This... doesn't actually sound that objectionable.
Scrolling to the right breaks the Fourth Amendment?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30234700</id>
	<title>Re:Misleading Story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259268900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>no, this is not her job.  any court officials first job is to respect and protect the rights of citizens over and above any duty to prosecute.  that's the duty of any public official as far as i know.  most offices have an oath that includes an oath to the constitution.  the purpose of the constitution is not just to ensure rights to the people but most importantly to *limit* the government, keeping it an organization that lacks the power to infringe upon rights.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>no , this is not her job .
any court officials first job is to respect and protect the rights of citizens over and above any duty to prosecute .
that 's the duty of any public official as far as i know .
most offices have an oath that includes an oath to the constitution .
the purpose of the constitution is not just to ensure rights to the people but most importantly to * limit * the government , keeping it an organization that lacks the power to infringe upon rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no, this is not her job.
any court officials first job is to respect and protect the rights of citizens over and above any duty to prosecute.
that's the duty of any public official as far as i know.
most offices have an oath that includes an oath to the constitution.
the purpose of the constitution is not just to ensure rights to the people but most importantly to *limit* the government, keeping it an organization that lacks the power to infringe upon rights.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232822</id>
	<title>Re:Okay, that's enough.</title>
	<author>Rasperin</author>
	<datestamp>1257173040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My only concern about gitmo is the lack of a trial. Even though we know the trial will be weighted against who ever is on it, the person would have otherwise been dead if not in there so quality of life doesn't make a difference to me.<br> <br> <br>


As for the Health Care plan, this is one of the biggest reasons I voted for him. I want a public option. Public Option != dead private sector, but it makes it a real benefit for a company to pay for it instead of a necessity. Not only that, but it would force the insurance companies to compete with the government. If they can't do that they die, welcome to capitalism. On the other hand the FORCED insurance is fucking bullshit, you can't require someone to pay for health insurance and make it akin to needing car insurance. The right to drive a car is not a right, the right to exist is. I will not support any bill requiring that.
<br> <br> <br>
Fox may not have power in the house per-se, if they make one of there republican canidates look bad, say good by to your republican career.

<br> <br> <br>
On a related note: It's kinda funny here though, the Democrat party will never get anything done like the republicans do. The republicans all say "we will vote on issue X" and they all vote for it while the democrats squabble and argue about it and fail to beat a filibusterer. Really Obamas inability to get things passed is due to his own party fighting each other. Meh, fuck it, voting republican from here on out and will just try to change the party to kill useless corp programs and reagenomics (the stupidest fucking idea ever) and empower them for something else.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My only concern about gitmo is the lack of a trial .
Even though we know the trial will be weighted against who ever is on it , the person would have otherwise been dead if not in there so quality of life does n't make a difference to me .
As for the Health Care plan , this is one of the biggest reasons I voted for him .
I want a public option .
Public Option ! = dead private sector , but it makes it a real benefit for a company to pay for it instead of a necessity .
Not only that , but it would force the insurance companies to compete with the government .
If they ca n't do that they die , welcome to capitalism .
On the other hand the FORCED insurance is fucking bullshit , you ca n't require someone to pay for health insurance and make it akin to needing car insurance .
The right to drive a car is not a right , the right to exist is .
I will not support any bill requiring that .
Fox may not have power in the house per-se , if they make one of there republican canidates look bad , say good by to your republican career .
On a related note : It 's kinda funny here though , the Democrat party will never get anything done like the republicans do .
The republicans all say " we will vote on issue X " and they all vote for it while the democrats squabble and argue about it and fail to beat a filibusterer .
Really Obamas inability to get things passed is due to his own party fighting each other .
Meh , fuck it , voting republican from here on out and will just try to change the party to kill useless corp programs and reagenomics ( the stupidest fucking idea ever ) and empower them for something else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My only concern about gitmo is the lack of a trial.
Even though we know the trial will be weighted against who ever is on it, the person would have otherwise been dead if not in there so quality of life doesn't make a difference to me.
As for the Health Care plan, this is one of the biggest reasons I voted for him.
I want a public option.
Public Option != dead private sector, but it makes it a real benefit for a company to pay for it instead of a necessity.
Not only that, but it would force the insurance companies to compete with the government.
If they can't do that they die, welcome to capitalism.
On the other hand the FORCED insurance is fucking bullshit, you can't require someone to pay for health insurance and make it akin to needing car insurance.
The right to drive a car is not a right, the right to exist is.
I will not support any bill requiring that.
Fox may not have power in the house per-se, if they make one of there republican canidates look bad, say good by to your republican career.
On a related note: It's kinda funny here though, the Democrat party will never get anything done like the republicans do.
The republicans all say "we will vote on issue X" and they all vote for it while the democrats squabble and argue about it and fail to beat a filibusterer.
Really Obamas inability to get things passed is due to his own party fighting each other.
Meh, fuck it, voting republican from here on out and will just try to change the party to kill useless corp programs and reagenomics (the stupidest fucking idea ever) and empower them for something else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232324</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30235656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30239298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30236912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30234304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30234590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30234244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30234422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30234880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30234096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30247090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30234238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30234964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30234100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30234826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30234390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30234356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30237436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30236982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30234700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30234006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30234178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30236556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_2312238_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_2312238.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30234006
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_2312238.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232942
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30247090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233734
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30234178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30234826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30234422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30236556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232852
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_2312238.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232118
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233220
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233174
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232660
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233032
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233026
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30234590
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233156
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232644
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_2312238.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30239298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30236982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30234096
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_2312238.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233034
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_2312238.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232324
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30234356
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232822
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30234390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232466
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232640
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30237436
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233036
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_2312238.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233158
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_2312238.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232800
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_2312238.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30236912
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_2312238.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232820
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_2312238.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232042
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_2312238.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30234244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30234880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233604
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_2312238.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232572
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_2312238.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30234100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233870
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_2312238.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30232866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30234304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30234964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30234700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30234238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30235656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_2312238.30233638
</commentlist>
</conversation>
