<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_20_211243</id>
	<title>Obama DOJ Sides With RIAA Again In Tenenbaum</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1263978240000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>NewYorkCountryLawyer writes <i>"Despite having had some time to get their act together, Obama's Department of Justice <a href="http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2010/01/dept-of-justice-files-brief-opposing.html">has filed yet another brief</a> defending the RIAA's outlandish statutory damages theory &mdash; that someone who downloaded an mp3 with a 99-cent retail value, causing a maximum possible damages of 35 cents, is liable for from $750 to $150,000 for each such file downloaded, in <a href="http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/?file=/Documents.htm&amp;s=SONY\_v\_Tenenbaum">SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum</a>. The <a href="http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/?file=/Lawyer\_Copyright\_Internet\_Law/sony\_tenenbaum\_100119GovtBriefOpposition.pdf">25- page brief</a> (PDF) continues the DOJ's practice of (a) ignoring the case law which holds that the Supreme Court's due process jurisprudence is applicable to statutory damages, (b) ignoring the law review articles to like effect, (c) ignoring the actual holding of the 1919 case they rely upon, (d) ignoring the fact that the RIAA failed to prove 'distribution' as defined by the Copyright Act, and (e) ignoring the actual wording and reasoning of the Supreme Court in its leading Gore and Campbell decisions. Jon Newton of p2pnet.net attributes the Justice Department's 'oversights' to the '<a href="http://www.p2pnet.net/story/34105">eye-popping number of people</a> [in its employ] who worked for, and/or are directly connected with, Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music's RIAA.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>NewYorkCountryLawyer writes " Despite having had some time to get their act together , Obama 's Department of Justice has filed yet another brief defending the RIAA 's outlandish statutory damages theory    that someone who downloaded an mp3 with a 99-cent retail value , causing a maximum possible damages of 35 cents , is liable for from $ 750 to $ 150,000 for each such file downloaded , in SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum. The 25- page brief ( PDF ) continues the DOJ 's practice of ( a ) ignoring the case law which holds that the Supreme Court 's due process jurisprudence is applicable to statutory damages , ( b ) ignoring the law review articles to like effect , ( c ) ignoring the actual holding of the 1919 case they rely upon , ( d ) ignoring the fact that the RIAA failed to prove 'distribution ' as defined by the Copyright Act , and ( e ) ignoring the actual wording and reasoning of the Supreme Court in its leading Gore and Campbell decisions .
Jon Newton of p2pnet.net attributes the Justice Department 's 'oversights ' to the 'eye-popping number of people [ in its employ ] who worked for , and/or are directly connected with , Vivendi Universal , EMI , Warner Music and Sony Music 's RIAA .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Despite having had some time to get their act together, Obama's Department of Justice has filed yet another brief defending the RIAA's outlandish statutory damages theory — that someone who downloaded an mp3 with a 99-cent retail value, causing a maximum possible damages of 35 cents, is liable for from $750 to $150,000 for each such file downloaded, in SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum. The 25- page brief (PDF) continues the DOJ's practice of (a) ignoring the case law which holds that the Supreme Court's due process jurisprudence is applicable to statutory damages, (b) ignoring the law review articles to like effect, (c) ignoring the actual holding of the 1919 case they rely upon, (d) ignoring the fact that the RIAA failed to prove 'distribution' as defined by the Copyright Act, and (e) ignoring the actual wording and reasoning of the Supreme Court in its leading Gore and Campbell decisions.
Jon Newton of p2pnet.net attributes the Justice Department's 'oversights' to the 'eye-popping number of people [in its employ] who worked for, and/or are directly connected with, Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music's RIAA.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30849388</id>
	<title>Re:Hope and Change, baby!</title>
	<author>sinrtb</author>
	<datestamp>1264104540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am pretty sure that Democrat souls cost more than Republican souls.

Think of it this way it costs more to screw Jenna Jameson then the crack whore at the corner, but the job itself is pretty much the same. The same goes for Dems and Reps, due to the fact that democrats have advertised themselves to be unbuyable it costs more to buy them then the Reps who long ago stated they have a price and its just the free market at work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am pretty sure that Democrat souls cost more than Republican souls .
Think of it this way it costs more to screw Jenna Jameson then the crack whore at the corner , but the job itself is pretty much the same .
The same goes for Dems and Reps , due to the fact that democrats have advertised themselves to be unbuyable it costs more to buy them then the Reps who long ago stated they have a price and its just the free market at work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am pretty sure that Democrat souls cost more than Republican souls.
Think of it this way it costs more to screw Jenna Jameson then the crack whore at the corner, but the job itself is pretty much the same.
The same goes for Dems and Reps, due to the fact that democrats have advertised themselves to be unbuyable it costs more to buy them then the Reps who long ago stated they have a price and its just the free market at work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838800</id>
	<title>Re:just returning the favor</title>
	<author>misexistentialist</author>
	<datestamp>1263986400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good point, but we can't switch to your ancestor's method until a hot girl runs for President. (Though various geriatric politicians got excited that she was young and easy, Grandma Palin would not count!)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good point , but we ca n't switch to your ancestor 's method until a hot girl runs for President .
( Though various geriatric politicians got excited that she was young and easy , Grandma Palin would not count !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good point, but we can't switch to your ancestor's method until a hot girl runs for President.
(Though various geriatric politicians got excited that she was young and easy, Grandma Palin would not count!
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30845252</id>
	<title>Re:Newsflash: DOJ's Job in Litigation Against US L</title>
	<author>Jason Levine</author>
	<datestamp>1264086420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In fact, didn't we all criticize Bush for doing this?  He'd sign a law into effect but just before signing it, he'd write a note saying that he won't enforce it.  (So called "Signing Statements.")  In fact, here's a Village Voice article criticizing him for this practice: <a href="http://www.villagevoice.com/2006-08-08/news/bush-s-invisible-ink/" title="villagevoice.com">http://www.villagevoice.com/2006-08-08/news/bush-s-invisible-ink/</a> [villagevoice.com]</p><p>I'm not saying I completely approve of Obama's DOJ supporting the RIAA, but I don't think the situation is as black-and-white as some people make it out to be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In fact , did n't we all criticize Bush for doing this ?
He 'd sign a law into effect but just before signing it , he 'd write a note saying that he wo n't enforce it .
( So called " Signing Statements .
" ) In fact , here 's a Village Voice article criticizing him for this practice : http : //www.villagevoice.com/2006-08-08/news/bush-s-invisible-ink/ [ villagevoice.com ] I 'm not saying I completely approve of Obama 's DOJ supporting the RIAA , but I do n't think the situation is as black-and-white as some people make it out to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fact, didn't we all criticize Bush for doing this?
He'd sign a law into effect but just before signing it, he'd write a note saying that he won't enforce it.
(So called "Signing Statements.
")  In fact, here's a Village Voice article criticizing him for this practice: http://www.villagevoice.com/2006-08-08/news/bush-s-invisible-ink/ [villagevoice.com]I'm not saying I completely approve of Obama's DOJ supporting the RIAA, but I don't think the situation is as black-and-white as some people make it out to be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30841638</id>
	<title>Re:just returning the favor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264003140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I may not like Hollywood, but there's no way I'm voting Xenu into office.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I may not like Hollywood , but there 's no way I 'm voting Xenu into office .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I may not like Hollywood, but there's no way I'm voting Xenu into office.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838588</id>
	<title>Re:Deep breaths here people</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263985680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Presidents job is to enforce criminal law, among other things - not civil law.  And last I checked, this case was RIAA v. Tenenbaum - not United States v. Tenenbaum.

What's next?  Will Team Obama start filing briefs in every custody battle and slander suit?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Presidents job is to enforce criminal law , among other things - not civil law .
And last I checked , this case was RIAA v. Tenenbaum - not United States v. Tenenbaum . What 's next ?
Will Team Obama start filing briefs in every custody battle and slander suit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Presidents job is to enforce criminal law, among other things - not civil law.
And last I checked, this case was RIAA v. Tenenbaum - not United States v. Tenenbaum.

What's next?
Will Team Obama start filing briefs in every custody battle and slander suit?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30840106</id>
	<title>Re:Deep breaths here people</title>
	<author>bmajik</author>
	<datestamp>1263992220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, the separation of powers posits that the congress can make any law they want to, but<br>- the supreme court can overrule it<br>- the EXECUTIVE BRANCH can refuse to "execute" it, i.e. they can simply choose not to do anything about that law</p><p>So it's well within the power of the executive branch to say "fine, that's the law, but none of the resources under my control are going to prosecute anybody over it".</p><p>And the congress of course has the power to impeach the president.</p><p>The Obama administration is not making some principled move here based on a deep seated respect for the law and process.  They are not tragically clinging to the process knowing full well that they hate what it implies, hands tied, blah blah.</p><p>The fact of the matter is that politicians want power.  Not justice.  Not to "help" you, not anything else.  They may or may not have various schemes of rationalizatoin or delusion about their motives, but for a long time it's all been about increasing the power of the government and taking care of #1.</p><p>There are three ways that the Obama DOJ will calm down on filesharers<br>- a few filesharers start donating substantial money to the DNC to get "heard"<br>- a HUGE pile of voters credibly threaten to "Scott Brown" the current administration over this issue.<br>- somebody between Obama and the RIAA pisses off Obama and he decides to squeeze them a bit..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , the separation of powers posits that the congress can make any law they want to , but- the supreme court can overrule it- the EXECUTIVE BRANCH can refuse to " execute " it , i.e .
they can simply choose not to do anything about that lawSo it 's well within the power of the executive branch to say " fine , that 's the law , but none of the resources under my control are going to prosecute anybody over it " .And the congress of course has the power to impeach the president.The Obama administration is not making some principled move here based on a deep seated respect for the law and process .
They are not tragically clinging to the process knowing full well that they hate what it implies , hands tied , blah blah.The fact of the matter is that politicians want power .
Not justice .
Not to " help " you , not anything else .
They may or may not have various schemes of rationalizatoin or delusion about their motives , but for a long time it 's all been about increasing the power of the government and taking care of # 1.There are three ways that the Obama DOJ will calm down on filesharers- a few filesharers start donating substantial money to the DNC to get " heard " - a HUGE pile of voters credibly threaten to " Scott Brown " the current administration over this issue.- somebody between Obama and the RIAA pisses off Obama and he decides to squeeze them a bit. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, the separation of powers posits that the congress can make any law they want to, but- the supreme court can overrule it- the EXECUTIVE BRANCH can refuse to "execute" it, i.e.
they can simply choose not to do anything about that lawSo it's well within the power of the executive branch to say "fine, that's the law, but none of the resources under my control are going to prosecute anybody over it".And the congress of course has the power to impeach the president.The Obama administration is not making some principled move here based on a deep seated respect for the law and process.
They are not tragically clinging to the process knowing full well that they hate what it implies, hands tied, blah blah.The fact of the matter is that politicians want power.
Not justice.
Not to "help" you, not anything else.
They may or may not have various schemes of rationalizatoin or delusion about their motives, but for a long time it's all been about increasing the power of the government and taking care of #1.There are three ways that the Obama DOJ will calm down on filesharers- a few filesharers start donating substantial money to the DNC to get "heard"- a HUGE pile of voters credibly threaten to "Scott Brown" the current administration over this issue.- somebody between Obama and the RIAA pisses off Obama and he decides to squeeze them a bit..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838070</id>
	<title>The reason for the large fines</title>
	<author>sn00pers</author>
	<datestamp>1263983880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The fine's arne't simply based on the damages on the download of the individual song itself. When someone downloads those songs with the file sharing client, almost always it then makes that song available or downloading by others. So the damages done by that person are far more than the cost o a single song. The damage don is how many copies of that song are then downloaded from that copy which could be in the 1000's easily.

But of course everyone would much prefer to pretend there's some big government conspiracy because that's so much easier than actually looking at the details of the issue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fine 's arne't simply based on the damages on the download of the individual song itself .
When someone downloads those songs with the file sharing client , almost always it then makes that song available or downloading by others .
So the damages done by that person are far more than the cost o a single song .
The damage don is how many copies of that song are then downloaded from that copy which could be in the 1000 's easily .
But of course everyone would much prefer to pretend there 's some big government conspiracy because that 's so much easier than actually looking at the details of the issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fine's arne't simply based on the damages on the download of the individual song itself.
When someone downloads those songs with the file sharing client, almost always it then makes that song available or downloading by others.
So the damages done by that person are far more than the cost o a single song.
The damage don is how many copies of that song are then downloaded from that copy which could be in the 1000's easily.
But of course everyone would much prefer to pretend there's some big government conspiracy because that's so much easier than actually looking at the details of the issue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30840070</id>
	<title>Re:Why is this "Obama's" department of justice?</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1263992040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It was never "Bush's" doj or "Clinton's" doj before.</p></div><p>That is pure bullshit. It most certainly <em>was</em> Bush's DOJ which, for example, gave Microsoft a free pass after Clinton's DOJ did the work to find Microsoft guilty of anticompetitive practices, <em>which the DOJ did</em>, whoever's it was at the time. Kiss your credibility goodbye.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was never " Bush 's " doj or " Clinton 's " doj before.That is pure bullshit .
It most certainly was Bush 's DOJ which , for example , gave Microsoft a free pass after Clinton 's DOJ did the work to find Microsoft guilty of anticompetitive practices , which the DOJ did , whoever 's it was at the time .
Kiss your credibility goodbye .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was never "Bush's" doj or "Clinton's" doj before.That is pure bullshit.
It most certainly was Bush's DOJ which, for example, gave Microsoft a free pass after Clinton's DOJ did the work to find Microsoft guilty of anticompetitive practices, which the DOJ did, whoever's it was at the time.
Kiss your credibility goodbye.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837930</id>
	<title>Re:Newsflash: DOJ's Job in Litigation Against US L</title>
	<author>CrimsonAvenger</author>
	<datestamp>1263983460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>People, the DOJ's job is to defend the laws as standing as passed.</p></div></blockquote><p>No, its job is to defend the Constitution first, the laws second.
</p><p>Note, for the record, that very few DOJs have bothered with that nasty old Constitution thing.  <br>Though FDR's early DOJ prevented him from doing a few things that were unconstitutional, and GWB's actually argued once to overturn a law due to unconstitutionality....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People , the DOJ 's job is to defend the laws as standing as passed.No , its job is to defend the Constitution first , the laws second .
Note , for the record , that very few DOJs have bothered with that nasty old Constitution thing .
Though FDR 's early DOJ prevented him from doing a few things that were unconstitutional , and GWB 's actually argued once to overturn a law due to unconstitutionality... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People, the DOJ's job is to defend the laws as standing as passed.No, its job is to defend the Constitution first, the laws second.
Note, for the record, that very few DOJs have bothered with that nasty old Constitution thing.
Though FDR's early DOJ prevented him from doing a few things that were unconstitutional, and GWB's actually argued once to overturn a law due to unconstitutionality....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838626</id>
	<title>Re:Newsflash: DOJ's Job in Litigation Against US L</title>
	<author>Dalambertian</author>
	<datestamp>1263985800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>/. really needs to create some kind of LAML (Logical Argument Markup Language) so knara doesn't have to keep addressing the same damn issue over and over ad infinitum. In fact, the whole internet could really cut down on redundancy if there were a premiss-conclusion data type, perhaps with some cross-site referencing thrown in. Will someone please make it so?</htmltext>
<tokenext>/ .
really needs to create some kind of LAML ( Logical Argument Markup Language ) so knara does n't have to keep addressing the same damn issue over and over ad infinitum .
In fact , the whole internet could really cut down on redundancy if there were a premiss-conclusion data type , perhaps with some cross-site referencing thrown in .
Will someone please make it so ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>/.
really needs to create some kind of LAML (Logical Argument Markup Language) so knara doesn't have to keep addressing the same damn issue over and over ad infinitum.
In fact, the whole internet could really cut down on redundancy if there were a premiss-conclusion data type, perhaps with some cross-site referencing thrown in.
Will someone please make it so?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30841496</id>
	<title>Re:The reason for the large fines</title>
	<author>KwKSilver</author>
	<datestamp>1264002060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>There was no proof of distribution.  Downloading songs without permission is copyright infringement and that is illegal.  The fines assessed on Tenenbaum are are disproportionate and therefore unconstitutional. In what moral calculus do two wrongs make a right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>There was no proof of distribution .
Downloading songs without permission is copyright infringement and that is illegal .
The fines assessed on Tenenbaum are are disproportionate and therefore unconstitutional .
In what moral calculus do two wrongs make a right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was no proof of distribution.
Downloading songs without permission is copyright infringement and that is illegal.
The fines assessed on Tenenbaum are are disproportionate and therefore unconstitutional.
In what moral calculus do two wrongs make a right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839256</id>
	<title>Re:Hope my @ss.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263988380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>hope???</p><p>your only hope is a mass uprising and overthrow of the the so called government<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. and what do you think the chance of that happening is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. while the ruling class have everybody entertained with 600 plus channels and Chit chatting about it in on-line forums like this one<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. thinking that 50\% plus 1 has something to do with demon-mocracy<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</p><p>must admit a perfect name for it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</p><p>there is no HOPE<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</p><p>and you think voting for the other side would have been better<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</p><p>it almost amazes me<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. that you keep talking about the government as if they exist<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. and are there to fulfill the wishes of the people<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. the ruling class have assumed complete ownership and control of the planet<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. and most specifically the united states (now there is an oxymoron) through the corporation's limited legal liability and having the rights of persons<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</p><p>the government is just the corporate puppet show to keep you in the illusion that the people have some power<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</p><p>wakeup and smell the shit<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</p><p>and look forward to sarah palin as your next puppet and commander in chief<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. a gun toting apocalyptic "so called" christian<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</p><p>move along there is nothing to see here<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>hope ? ?
? your only hope is a mass uprising and overthrow of the the so called government .. and what do you think the chance of that happening is .. while the ruling class have everybody entertained with 600 plus channels and Chit chatting about it in on-line forums like this one .. thinking that 50 \ % plus 1 has something to do with demon-mocracy ..must admit a perfect name for it ..there is no HOPE ..and you think voting for the other side would have been better ..it almost amazes me .. that you keep talking about the government as if they exist .. and are there to fulfill the wishes of the people .. the ruling class have assumed complete ownership and control of the planet .. and most specifically the united states ( now there is an oxymoron ) through the corporation 's limited legal liability and having the rights of persons ..the government is just the corporate puppet show to keep you in the illusion that the people have some power ..wakeup and smell the shit ..and look forward to sarah palin as your next puppet and commander in chief .. a gun toting apocalyptic " so called " christian ..move along there is nothing to see here . .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hope??
?your only hope is a mass uprising and overthrow of the the so called government .. and what do you think the chance of that happening is .. while the ruling class have everybody entertained with 600 plus channels and Chit chatting about it in on-line forums like this one .. thinking that 50\% plus 1 has something to do with demon-mocracy ..must admit a perfect name for it ..there is no HOPE ..and you think voting for the other side would have been better ..it almost amazes me .. that you keep talking about the government as if they exist .. and are there to fulfill the wishes of the people .. the ruling class have assumed complete ownership and control of the planet .. and most specifically the united states (now there is an oxymoron) through the corporation's limited legal liability and having the rights of persons ..the government is just the corporate puppet show to keep you in the illusion that the people have some power ..wakeup and smell the shit ..and look forward to sarah palin as your next puppet and commander in chief .. a gun toting apocalyptic "so called" christian ..move along there is nothing to see here ..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838944</id>
	<title>Re:Crap</title>
	<author>Montezumaa</author>
	<datestamp>1263986940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let us look at the failure that is your logic.  Perhaps you will see the flaws in your wish for the world to be the utopia that it will never be.</p><p>Patent Reform?  Aside from some small amounts of stupidity, it is better than stripping the rights of legitimate patent holders.  Patent extension is one big area that is a problem and what can be patented is another.  Change will come if people will push for it.</p><p>Environmental protect?  Goddamn it.  You people really need to get over the "save the world" bullshit.  Yeah, you might be able to force people into shitty electric cars and into using "alternate" energy sources, but you will never stop other countries from continuing to do the same thing they have been doing since the inception of the current age.  Aside from needless destruction of forest(which I am against, since I love the outdoors and nature), I have no problem with the continued use of coal plants, and other activities that are deemed "dangerous" and "destructive" by the idiots that attended the Copenhagen conference.</p><p>Humans attribute to less than five-fucking-percent of the carbon dioxide output over the entire planet.  That includes normal excretions and production from industrial activities(power generation, equipment use, etc), but people want to limit the product of the gas that supports plant life.  Could these people be anymore insane?  If we doubled the amount of natural air, do you think that humans would start dying?  No, and the same goes for CO2.</p><p>Taxation?  The rich people in the United States all pay a majority of revenue the governments(federal, state, and local) generates through taxation.  The top 5\% of wage earners pay well over 50\% of the tax bill, with 10\% paying well over 60\% of the tax bill.  When you look at the top 50\%, or 1/2, of earners in the United States, they pay a little over 96\% of the tax bill in the United States.  Why in the hell should they pay more?  Just because someone is successful, they should not be open to oppression by the government, or slackers, such as yourself.  They work hard and they deserve to enjoy the fruits of their labor.</p><p>You also need to remember that the people you want to see taxed more are the people that open businesses, create jobs, and stimulate the economy the greatest.</p><p>Stopping the war?  As long as there are people on the Earth, there will always be war.  It is who we are and it is high time that you deal with it.  Humans have been at war since there were more than two of us, so wishing away war will get you no further than being laughed at for watching too many fantasy movies.  How about you talk to people who are from other countries, especially "middle-eastern" countries or just talk to some of the older, reasonable people alive in the United States today.</p><p>Stopping the MPAA/RIAA from walking all over American citizens?  From what?  Protecting their interest?  What if you created something and I decided to walk in and steal it?  You would be utterly pissed.  I do believe that the MPAA/RIAA are only due the true losses, not the imaginary damages that the courts have been handing out.  If I download a song and I am caught, then I should have to pay for the real retail price for each song.  If I have stolen thousands of songs, then the amount to be paid back will be high.  I believe that the compensation that the MPAA/RIAA have been receiving is illegal, but I doubt anything will change in the near future.</p><p>If people do not want to pay the price for theft, then they need to quit stealing.  It is simple as that.  Hopefully, even you will realize that.  Of course, it is very obvious that you are a staunch support of the "dream candidate" and "savior" that so many believe Obama was, but certainly was not.  Let us hope that 2012 will see Obama evicted from the White House.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let us look at the failure that is your logic .
Perhaps you will see the flaws in your wish for the world to be the utopia that it will never be.Patent Reform ?
Aside from some small amounts of stupidity , it is better than stripping the rights of legitimate patent holders .
Patent extension is one big area that is a problem and what can be patented is another .
Change will come if people will push for it.Environmental protect ?
Goddamn it .
You people really need to get over the " save the world " bullshit .
Yeah , you might be able to force people into shitty electric cars and into using " alternate " energy sources , but you will never stop other countries from continuing to do the same thing they have been doing since the inception of the current age .
Aside from needless destruction of forest ( which I am against , since I love the outdoors and nature ) , I have no problem with the continued use of coal plants , and other activities that are deemed " dangerous " and " destructive " by the idiots that attended the Copenhagen conference.Humans attribute to less than five-fucking-percent of the carbon dioxide output over the entire planet .
That includes normal excretions and production from industrial activities ( power generation , equipment use , etc ) , but people want to limit the product of the gas that supports plant life .
Could these people be anymore insane ?
If we doubled the amount of natural air , do you think that humans would start dying ?
No , and the same goes for CO2.Taxation ?
The rich people in the United States all pay a majority of revenue the governments ( federal , state , and local ) generates through taxation .
The top 5 \ % of wage earners pay well over 50 \ % of the tax bill , with 10 \ % paying well over 60 \ % of the tax bill .
When you look at the top 50 \ % , or 1/2 , of earners in the United States , they pay a little over 96 \ % of the tax bill in the United States .
Why in the hell should they pay more ?
Just because someone is successful , they should not be open to oppression by the government , or slackers , such as yourself .
They work hard and they deserve to enjoy the fruits of their labor.You also need to remember that the people you want to see taxed more are the people that open businesses , create jobs , and stimulate the economy the greatest.Stopping the war ?
As long as there are people on the Earth , there will always be war .
It is who we are and it is high time that you deal with it .
Humans have been at war since there were more than two of us , so wishing away war will get you no further than being laughed at for watching too many fantasy movies .
How about you talk to people who are from other countries , especially " middle-eastern " countries or just talk to some of the older , reasonable people alive in the United States today.Stopping the MPAA/RIAA from walking all over American citizens ?
From what ?
Protecting their interest ?
What if you created something and I decided to walk in and steal it ?
You would be utterly pissed .
I do believe that the MPAA/RIAA are only due the true losses , not the imaginary damages that the courts have been handing out .
If I download a song and I am caught , then I should have to pay for the real retail price for each song .
If I have stolen thousands of songs , then the amount to be paid back will be high .
I believe that the compensation that the MPAA/RIAA have been receiving is illegal , but I doubt anything will change in the near future.If people do not want to pay the price for theft , then they need to quit stealing .
It is simple as that .
Hopefully , even you will realize that .
Of course , it is very obvious that you are a staunch support of the " dream candidate " and " savior " that so many believe Obama was , but certainly was not .
Let us hope that 2012 will see Obama evicted from the White House .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let us look at the failure that is your logic.
Perhaps you will see the flaws in your wish for the world to be the utopia that it will never be.Patent Reform?
Aside from some small amounts of stupidity, it is better than stripping the rights of legitimate patent holders.
Patent extension is one big area that is a problem and what can be patented is another.
Change will come if people will push for it.Environmental protect?
Goddamn it.
You people really need to get over the "save the world" bullshit.
Yeah, you might be able to force people into shitty electric cars and into using "alternate" energy sources, but you will never stop other countries from continuing to do the same thing they have been doing since the inception of the current age.
Aside from needless destruction of forest(which I am against, since I love the outdoors and nature), I have no problem with the continued use of coal plants, and other activities that are deemed "dangerous" and "destructive" by the idiots that attended the Copenhagen conference.Humans attribute to less than five-fucking-percent of the carbon dioxide output over the entire planet.
That includes normal excretions and production from industrial activities(power generation, equipment use, etc), but people want to limit the product of the gas that supports plant life.
Could these people be anymore insane?
If we doubled the amount of natural air, do you think that humans would start dying?
No, and the same goes for CO2.Taxation?
The rich people in the United States all pay a majority of revenue the governments(federal, state, and local) generates through taxation.
The top 5\% of wage earners pay well over 50\% of the tax bill, with 10\% paying well over 60\% of the tax bill.
When you look at the top 50\%, or 1/2, of earners in the United States, they pay a little over 96\% of the tax bill in the United States.
Why in the hell should they pay more?
Just because someone is successful, they should not be open to oppression by the government, or slackers, such as yourself.
They work hard and they deserve to enjoy the fruits of their labor.You also need to remember that the people you want to see taxed more are the people that open businesses, create jobs, and stimulate the economy the greatest.Stopping the war?
As long as there are people on the Earth, there will always be war.
It is who we are and it is high time that you deal with it.
Humans have been at war since there were more than two of us, so wishing away war will get you no further than being laughed at for watching too many fantasy movies.
How about you talk to people who are from other countries, especially "middle-eastern" countries or just talk to some of the older, reasonable people alive in the United States today.Stopping the MPAA/RIAA from walking all over American citizens?
From what?
Protecting their interest?
What if you created something and I decided to walk in and steal it?
You would be utterly pissed.
I do believe that the MPAA/RIAA are only due the true losses, not the imaginary damages that the courts have been handing out.
If I download a song and I am caught, then I should have to pay for the real retail price for each song.
If I have stolen thousands of songs, then the amount to be paid back will be high.
I believe that the compensation that the MPAA/RIAA have been receiving is illegal, but I doubt anything will change in the near future.If people do not want to pay the price for theft, then they need to quit stealing.
It is simple as that.
Hopefully, even you will realize that.
Of course, it is very obvious that you are a staunch support of the "dream candidate" and "savior" that so many believe Obama was, but certainly was not.
Let us hope that 2012 will see Obama evicted from the White House.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838124</id>
	<title>Re:Obama was a Constitutional Law Prof.</title>
	<author>NewYorkCountryLawyer</author>
	<datestamp>1263984060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It is behavior and outcomes like this that cost his party Mass. last night, and may well cost him his re-election bid in 2012. Pollingplace.com showed that last night in Mass., 37\% of voters that voted for this independent that won, did so in protest of Democrats favoring Wall Street in the bailout.

The lesson is simple: Either the DOJ and the Obama administration stop taking sides against Main Street and for the big corporate interest, or they will keep losing.</p></div><p>Very interesting point, GPLDAN. I focus on the legal side of it, but you make a very good point about the political ramifications of what President Obama is doing when he consistently sides with the major corporations against<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... the voters.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is behavior and outcomes like this that cost his party Mass .
last night , and may well cost him his re-election bid in 2012 .
Pollingplace.com showed that last night in Mass. , 37 \ % of voters that voted for this independent that won , did so in protest of Democrats favoring Wall Street in the bailout .
The lesson is simple : Either the DOJ and the Obama administration stop taking sides against Main Street and for the big corporate interest , or they will keep losing.Very interesting point , GPLDAN .
I focus on the legal side of it , but you make a very good point about the political ramifications of what President Obama is doing when he consistently sides with the major corporations against .... the voters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is behavior and outcomes like this that cost his party Mass.
last night, and may well cost him his re-election bid in 2012.
Pollingplace.com showed that last night in Mass., 37\% of voters that voted for this independent that won, did so in protest of Democrats favoring Wall Street in the bailout.
The lesson is simple: Either the DOJ and the Obama administration stop taking sides against Main Street and for the big corporate interest, or they will keep losing.Very interesting point, GPLDAN.
I focus on the legal side of it, but you make a very good point about the political ramifications of what President Obama is doing when he consistently sides with the major corporations against .... the voters.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838340</id>
	<title>Re:"Obama DOJ"? Come on...</title>
	<author>NewYorkCountryLawyer</author>
	<datestamp>1263984840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why is it the "Obama DOJ" when last year it wasn't the "Bush DOJ"?</p></div><p>I used the term "Obama DOJ" because <br> <br>-Mr. Obama when campaigning, did so upon a platform of "change"<br>-he campaigned as though he would be working on behalf of the people, rather than large corporations, and <br>-there was a great deal of skepticism about his appointment of RIAA lawyers to many of the highest positions in the DOJ.<br> <br>So I think it is a legitimately significant point to note that on this issue there has been no "change", and that the DOJ continues to act as an intellectually dishonest rubber stamp for Pres. Obama's RIAA overlords.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it the " Obama DOJ " when last year it was n't the " Bush DOJ " ? I used the term " Obama DOJ " because -Mr. Obama when campaigning , did so upon a platform of " change " -he campaigned as though he would be working on behalf of the people , rather than large corporations , and -there was a great deal of skepticism about his appointment of RIAA lawyers to many of the highest positions in the DOJ .
So I think it is a legitimately significant point to note that on this issue there has been no " change " , and that the DOJ continues to act as an intellectually dishonest rubber stamp for Pres .
Obama 's RIAA overlords .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it the "Obama DOJ" when last year it wasn't the "Bush DOJ"?I used the term "Obama DOJ" because  -Mr. Obama when campaigning, did so upon a platform of "change"-he campaigned as though he would be working on behalf of the people, rather than large corporations, and -there was a great deal of skepticism about his appointment of RIAA lawyers to many of the highest positions in the DOJ.
So I think it is a legitimately significant point to note that on this issue there has been no "change", and that the DOJ continues to act as an intellectually dishonest rubber stamp for Pres.
Obama's RIAA overlords.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838110</id>
	<title>Although the buck stops at the WH...</title>
	<author>JerryLove</author>
	<datestamp>1263984000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Might it be possible that, with UHC, Afghanistan, Iraq, now Hati, re-election campaigns, issues of open-government, Gitmo, bailouts, unemployment, etc.... might it be possible that awards to the RIAA simply aren't on Obama's radar at all?</p><p>Couldn't this just be the people of the Justice Department, most of whom predate Obama and who Obama has never met, being (as pointed out) in the music-industry's pocket?</p><p>Don't get me wrong: I don't know where the president stands on this issue, and he may indeed support the RIAA position... I just don't see that this instance establishes that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Might it be possible that , with UHC , Afghanistan , Iraq , now Hati , re-election campaigns , issues of open-government , Gitmo , bailouts , unemployment , etc.... might it be possible that awards to the RIAA simply are n't on Obama 's radar at all ? Could n't this just be the people of the Justice Department , most of whom predate Obama and who Obama has never met , being ( as pointed out ) in the music-industry 's pocket ? Do n't get me wrong : I do n't know where the president stands on this issue , and he may indeed support the RIAA position... I just do n't see that this instance establishes that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Might it be possible that, with UHC, Afghanistan, Iraq, now Hati, re-election campaigns, issues of open-government, Gitmo, bailouts, unemployment, etc.... might it be possible that awards to the RIAA simply aren't on Obama's radar at all?Couldn't this just be the people of the Justice Department, most of whom predate Obama and who Obama has never met, being (as pointed out) in the music-industry's pocket?Don't get me wrong: I don't know where the president stands on this issue, and he may indeed support the RIAA position... I just don't see that this instance establishes that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838976</id>
	<title>Re:Obama was a Constitutional Law Prof.</title>
	<author>rliden</author>
	<datestamp>1263987060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What will they (his party) keep losing?  Let's say he loses the vote because people aren't seeing the change they want fast enough.  Now what?  The fickle populous will vote in the next person who still won't be able to enact change fast enough (in either direction).  Look at what happened to the last president who didn't play by the Washington insider rulebook.</p><p>We just voted out a strong Republican grip because we didn't like what they're doing.  Are we going to vote that Republican party back in because now they're going to do it all right?  You post the looming threat of election losses to the other party like it's going to solve anything.</p><p>I guess we'll see what this new Senator from Mass has to offer.  It's a little early yet to be saying "I told you so."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What will they ( his party ) keep losing ?
Let 's say he loses the vote because people are n't seeing the change they want fast enough .
Now what ?
The fickle populous will vote in the next person who still wo n't be able to enact change fast enough ( in either direction ) .
Look at what happened to the last president who did n't play by the Washington insider rulebook.We just voted out a strong Republican grip because we did n't like what they 're doing .
Are we going to vote that Republican party back in because now they 're going to do it all right ?
You post the looming threat of election losses to the other party like it 's going to solve anything.I guess we 'll see what this new Senator from Mass has to offer .
It 's a little early yet to be saying " I told you so .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What will they (his party) keep losing?
Let's say he loses the vote because people aren't seeing the change they want fast enough.
Now what?
The fickle populous will vote in the next person who still won't be able to enact change fast enough (in either direction).
Look at what happened to the last president who didn't play by the Washington insider rulebook.We just voted out a strong Republican grip because we didn't like what they're doing.
Are we going to vote that Republican party back in because now they're going to do it all right?
You post the looming threat of election losses to the other party like it's going to solve anything.I guess we'll see what this new Senator from Mass has to offer.
It's a little early yet to be saying "I told you so.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838364</id>
	<title>Re:Crap</title>
	<author>twidarkling</author>
	<datestamp>1263984900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like everyone has said, doesn't matter whether your candidate has a chance of winning, the important part is to vote for someone who actually represents your interests. You know why?</p><p>Canadian politics shows the answer quite nicely. The NDP continually come up with new policies that Canadians show interest in, and start to swing votes their way. The parties that actually stand a chance of winning notice this, steal the policies that are winning votes, and pull the votes back to them. But if people didn't vote NDP in the first place, those policies would never be adopted. They do it because they're scared that if they don't, the numbers will *keep* swinging to the other people. I think it could work the same way in the US. If everyone just voted for candidates they liked, rather than "the one I like best out of the ones who might win," then the candidates would see what policies people actually want, and would be more likely to steal those policies to steal those votes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like everyone has said , does n't matter whether your candidate has a chance of winning , the important part is to vote for someone who actually represents your interests .
You know why ? Canadian politics shows the answer quite nicely .
The NDP continually come up with new policies that Canadians show interest in , and start to swing votes their way .
The parties that actually stand a chance of winning notice this , steal the policies that are winning votes , and pull the votes back to them .
But if people did n't vote NDP in the first place , those policies would never be adopted .
They do it because they 're scared that if they do n't , the numbers will * keep * swinging to the other people .
I think it could work the same way in the US .
If everyone just voted for candidates they liked , rather than " the one I like best out of the ones who might win , " then the candidates would see what policies people actually want , and would be more likely to steal those policies to steal those votes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like everyone has said, doesn't matter whether your candidate has a chance of winning, the important part is to vote for someone who actually represents your interests.
You know why?Canadian politics shows the answer quite nicely.
The NDP continually come up with new policies that Canadians show interest in, and start to swing votes their way.
The parties that actually stand a chance of winning notice this, steal the policies that are winning votes, and pull the votes back to them.
But if people didn't vote NDP in the first place, those policies would never be adopted.
They do it because they're scared that if they don't, the numbers will *keep* swinging to the other people.
I think it could work the same way in the US.
If everyone just voted for candidates they liked, rather than "the one I like best out of the ones who might win," then the candidates would see what policies people actually want, and would be more likely to steal those policies to steal those votes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30841662</id>
	<title>Re:Hope and Change, baby!</title>
	<author>smpoole7</author>
	<datestamp>1264003320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about an even simpler idea: if a CongressCritter receives more than a certain amount from a donor, he/she must excuse him or herself from any vote that would obviously benefit that donor.</p><p>In other words, call it what it is: "conflict of interest" and actually do something about it.</p><p>Not that it will actually happen, of course, but if you're going to dream, why not do it right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about an even simpler idea : if a CongressCritter receives more than a certain amount from a donor , he/she must excuse him or herself from any vote that would obviously benefit that donor.In other words , call it what it is : " conflict of interest " and actually do something about it.Not that it will actually happen , of course , but if you 're going to dream , why not do it right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about an even simpler idea: if a CongressCritter receives more than a certain amount from a donor, he/she must excuse him or herself from any vote that would obviously benefit that donor.In other words, call it what it is: "conflict of interest" and actually do something about it.Not that it will actually happen, of course, but if you're going to dream, why not do it right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30840120</id>
	<title>Re:Pay &amp; Nominate NewYorkCountyLawyer?</title>
	<author>paulsnx2</author>
	<datestamp>1263992220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am with you in a heart beat!  Mod this suggestion up!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am with you in a heart beat !
Mod this suggestion up !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am with you in a heart beat!
Mod this suggestion up!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839098</id>
	<title>Re:Obama was a Constitutional Law Prof.</title>
	<author>Mipsalawishus</author>
	<datestamp>1263987660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Obama also promised MANY times during his campaign that he would not issue signing statements (a violation of the Constitution). Yet, he has already issued signing statements before the end of last year. He is also head of security for the UN - another violation of the Constitution.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama also promised MANY times during his campaign that he would not issue signing statements ( a violation of the Constitution ) .
Yet , he has already issued signing statements before the end of last year .
He is also head of security for the UN - another violation of the Constitution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama also promised MANY times during his campaign that he would not issue signing statements (a violation of the Constitution).
Yet, he has already issued signing statements before the end of last year.
He is also head of security for the UN - another violation of the Constitution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838982</id>
	<title>Re:just returning the favor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263987060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd reconsider that voting mechanism. My thoughts are:<br>
They (MPAA/RIAA/BWAA (My guess on the Book/Writer Ass of America)) are not fools. They will give money to the campaigns of the bigger parties. When any of those win, they get their favors back. <br> <br>
Vote for a small party. I don't know if there is a way in the American constitution, but in my country, if people vote "blank" and it wins, the elections are repeated and none of the candidates in the ballot can be candidates this time. It hasn't happened, but at least it's a mechanism to show you don't agree with the candidates.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd reconsider that voting mechanism .
My thoughts are : They ( MPAA/RIAA/BWAA ( My guess on the Book/Writer Ass of America ) ) are not fools .
They will give money to the campaigns of the bigger parties .
When any of those win , they get their favors back .
Vote for a small party .
I do n't know if there is a way in the American constitution , but in my country , if people vote " blank " and it wins , the elections are repeated and none of the candidates in the ballot can be candidates this time .
It has n't happened , but at least it 's a mechanism to show you do n't agree with the candidates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd reconsider that voting mechanism.
My thoughts are:
They (MPAA/RIAA/BWAA (My guess on the Book/Writer Ass of America)) are not fools.
They will give money to the campaigns of the bigger parties.
When any of those win, they get their favors back.
Vote for a small party.
I don't know if there is a way in the American constitution, but in my country, if people vote "blank" and it wins, the elections are repeated and none of the candidates in the ballot can be candidates this time.
It hasn't happened, but at least it's a mechanism to show you don't agree with the candidates.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839176</id>
	<title>Pay &amp; Nominate NewYorkCountyLawyer?</title>
	<author>kwandar</author>
	<datestamp>1263987960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If legally permitted (I'm Canadian) I'll donate $100 to the Democratic Party if they appoint NewYorkCountyLawyer to head up the Department of Justice.  These stupid US laws/cases end up biting us here eventually; better to stop them at the source.  Now if a thousand people on Slashdot do the same (and it wouldn't at all surprise me if far more would) that is $100,000.
</p><p>How much did the RIAA and its minions donate?  Looks like under $100K to manage to get their appointees in place.  Our money should be as good or better than the RIAAs?
 </p><p>I want an appointee who actually works for the public, I'll put my hard money on the line to that end, and in return want NewYorkCountyLawyer as Attorney General of the United States.  That is how the system works, right?  Make donations, get the appointees and agendas you want?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If legally permitted ( I 'm Canadian ) I 'll donate $ 100 to the Democratic Party if they appoint NewYorkCountyLawyer to head up the Department of Justice .
These stupid US laws/cases end up biting us here eventually ; better to stop them at the source .
Now if a thousand people on Slashdot do the same ( and it would n't at all surprise me if far more would ) that is $ 100,000 .
How much did the RIAA and its minions donate ?
Looks like under $ 100K to manage to get their appointees in place .
Our money should be as good or better than the RIAAs ?
I want an appointee who actually works for the public , I 'll put my hard money on the line to that end , and in return want NewYorkCountyLawyer as Attorney General of the United States .
That is how the system works , right ?
Make donations , get the appointees and agendas you want ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If legally permitted (I'm Canadian) I'll donate $100 to the Democratic Party if they appoint NewYorkCountyLawyer to head up the Department of Justice.
These stupid US laws/cases end up biting us here eventually; better to stop them at the source.
Now if a thousand people on Slashdot do the same (and it wouldn't at all surprise me if far more would) that is $100,000.
How much did the RIAA and its minions donate?
Looks like under $100K to manage to get their appointees in place.
Our money should be as good or better than the RIAAs?
I want an appointee who actually works for the public, I'll put my hard money on the line to that end, and in return want NewYorkCountyLawyer as Attorney General of the United States.
That is how the system works, right?
Make donations, get the appointees and agendas you want?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837698</id>
	<title>Newsflash: DOJ's Job in Litigation Against US  Law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263982620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People, the DOJ's job is to defend the laws as standing as passed.  They would not be doing their jobs if they said, "nah, you're right, this law should be overturned."
</p><p>Lrn2USLegalSystem and US Government, please.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People , the DOJ 's job is to defend the laws as standing as passed .
They would not be doing their jobs if they said , " nah , you 're right , this law should be overturned .
" Lrn2USLegalSystem and US Government , please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People, the DOJ's job is to defend the laws as standing as passed.
They would not be doing their jobs if they said, "nah, you're right, this law should be overturned.
"
Lrn2USLegalSystem and US Government, please.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839478</id>
	<title>Re:Hope and Change, baby!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263989340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Campaign Finance Reform Idea:  No one organization may donate to more than one political candidate at any given time.</p><p>Pick your racehorse, kind of a thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Campaign Finance Reform Idea : No one organization may donate to more than one political candidate at any given time.Pick your racehorse , kind of a thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Campaign Finance Reform Idea:  No one organization may donate to more than one political candidate at any given time.Pick your racehorse, kind of a thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837610</id>
	<title>Crap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263982320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't get it. Who were we supposed to vote for?</p><p>Only Obama and McCain had any real chance of winning (sorry guys, the Green Party and Libertarians have been, and always will be, fringe groups run by potheads with a pro-drug agenda) and it was beyond obvious that McCain was willing to run this country into the ground for the sake of the almighty dollar. So I picked Obama, mainly because I love America and want the best for this country. But has he delivered?</p><p>Patent reform? No.<br>Environmental protection? No.<br>Taxing the middle class when he said the rich would finally be made to pay their taxes? Hell no.<br>Stopping the war? No.<br>Stopping the MPAA/RIAA from walking all over American citizens? Nope.</p><p>It's frustrating because I want Obama to be great and he is ending up being another Jimmy Carter. A nice guy, and a hell of a diplomat, but completely inept and useless at running the country. I cannot possibly explain how sad this makes me.</p><p>Clearly the RIAA is at fault here, and Obama's DOJ is doing as the RIAA instructed them to do. Shameful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't get it .
Who were we supposed to vote for ? Only Obama and McCain had any real chance of winning ( sorry guys , the Green Party and Libertarians have been , and always will be , fringe groups run by potheads with a pro-drug agenda ) and it was beyond obvious that McCain was willing to run this country into the ground for the sake of the almighty dollar .
So I picked Obama , mainly because I love America and want the best for this country .
But has he delivered ? Patent reform ?
No.Environmental protection ?
No.Taxing the middle class when he said the rich would finally be made to pay their taxes ?
Hell no.Stopping the war ?
No.Stopping the MPAA/RIAA from walking all over American citizens ?
Nope.It 's frustrating because I want Obama to be great and he is ending up being another Jimmy Carter .
A nice guy , and a hell of a diplomat , but completely inept and useless at running the country .
I can not possibly explain how sad this makes me.Clearly the RIAA is at fault here , and Obama 's DOJ is doing as the RIAA instructed them to do .
Shameful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't get it.
Who were we supposed to vote for?Only Obama and McCain had any real chance of winning (sorry guys, the Green Party and Libertarians have been, and always will be, fringe groups run by potheads with a pro-drug agenda) and it was beyond obvious that McCain was willing to run this country into the ground for the sake of the almighty dollar.
So I picked Obama, mainly because I love America and want the best for this country.
But has he delivered?Patent reform?
No.Environmental protection?
No.Taxing the middle class when he said the rich would finally be made to pay their taxes?
Hell no.Stopping the war?
No.Stopping the MPAA/RIAA from walking all over American citizens?
Nope.It's frustrating because I want Obama to be great and he is ending up being another Jimmy Carter.
A nice guy, and a hell of a diplomat, but completely inept and useless at running the country.
I cannot possibly explain how sad this makes me.Clearly the RIAA is at fault here, and Obama's DOJ is doing as the RIAA instructed them to do.
Shameful.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839280</id>
	<title>Boycots work</title>
	<author>uassholes</author>
	<datestamp>1263988500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't buy from Sony</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't buy from Sony</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't buy from Sony</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837868</id>
	<title>"Obama DOJ"? Come on...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263983220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is it the "Obama DOJ" when last year it wasn't the "Bush DOJ"?</p><p>Like other folks have already noted, the RIAA has massive, continuous lobbying working both parties all the time. This is a (poor) decisions by "the idiots at the DOJ", not something that should be politicized like this unless your argument is that the President (of whatever party) should review all DOJ decisions and essentially dictate what law they should make rather than letting them do their jobs based on established law and precedent.</p><p>Now, I do think there's clearly something rotten there if this is the decision they came to, and the President (if he even gets wind of it) should instruct his appointees in-charge to review the situation, but this is in no way directly related to Obama.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it the " Obama DOJ " when last year it was n't the " Bush DOJ " ? Like other folks have already noted , the RIAA has massive , continuous lobbying working both parties all the time .
This is a ( poor ) decisions by " the idiots at the DOJ " , not something that should be politicized like this unless your argument is that the President ( of whatever party ) should review all DOJ decisions and essentially dictate what law they should make rather than letting them do their jobs based on established law and precedent.Now , I do think there 's clearly something rotten there if this is the decision they came to , and the President ( if he even gets wind of it ) should instruct his appointees in-charge to review the situation , but this is in no way directly related to Obama .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it the "Obama DOJ" when last year it wasn't the "Bush DOJ"?Like other folks have already noted, the RIAA has massive, continuous lobbying working both parties all the time.
This is a (poor) decisions by "the idiots at the DOJ", not something that should be politicized like this unless your argument is that the President (of whatever party) should review all DOJ decisions and essentially dictate what law they should make rather than letting them do their jobs based on established law and precedent.Now, I do think there's clearly something rotten there if this is the decision they came to, and the President (if he even gets wind of it) should instruct his appointees in-charge to review the situation, but this is in no way directly related to Obama.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837946</id>
	<title>Re:Newsflash: DOJ's Job in Litigation Against US L</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263983460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny. I thought the D.O.J. was merely an extension of the Military Industrial Complex, a lapdog for Corporate entitlement, and hell-hound for Big Oil. Now I can add Copyright bitch to my list government pet names.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny .
I thought the D.O.J .
was merely an extension of the Military Industrial Complex , a lapdog for Corporate entitlement , and hell-hound for Big Oil .
Now I can add Copyright bitch to my list government pet names .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny.
I thought the D.O.J.
was merely an extension of the Military Industrial Complex, a lapdog for Corporate entitlement, and hell-hound for Big Oil.
Now I can add Copyright bitch to my list government pet names.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837854</id>
	<title>What did you expect?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263983220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lawyers run the DOJ.  Lawyers run Congress.  Of course they want to be able to sue for large amounts.</p><p>Off topic perhaps, but this is why we won't see meaningful tort reform in the near future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lawyers run the DOJ .
Lawyers run Congress .
Of course they want to be able to sue for large amounts.Off topic perhaps , but this is why we wo n't see meaningful tort reform in the near future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lawyers run the DOJ.
Lawyers run Congress.
Of course they want to be able to sue for large amounts.Off topic perhaps, but this is why we won't see meaningful tort reform in the near future.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838842</id>
	<title>Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263986580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>During the election, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin.  See the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">exit-polling data</a> [cnn.com] by CNN.
<p>
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc.  These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and other non-Black folks).  Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian.  So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and, hence, serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern.  Only about 65\% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama.  In other words, a maximum of 65\% support by any ethnic or racial group for <b>either</b> McCain <b>or</b> Obama is not racist and, hence, is acceptable.  (A maximum of 65\% for McCain is okay.  So, European-American support at 55\% for McCain is well below this threshold and, hence, is not racist.)
</p><p>
If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65\% of them would have supported Obama.  At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.
</p><p>
At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals.  That claim is an outright lie.  Look at the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#NCDEM" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">exit-polling data</a> [cnn.com] for the Democratic primaries.  Consider the case of North Carolina.  Again, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton.  Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical.  Yet, 95\% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton.  Why?  African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
</p><p>
Here is the bottom line.  Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America.  He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.
</p><p>
African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100\% acceptable.  Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior.  Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color.  Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American.  You need not defend your actions in any way.  Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today's moral standard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>During the election , about 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin .
See the exit-polling data [ cnn.com ] by CNN .
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics , Asian-Americans , etc .
These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites ( and other non-Black folks ) .
Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian .
So , Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and , hence , serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern .
Only about 65 \ % of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama .
In other words , a maximum of 65 \ % support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and , hence , is acceptable .
( A maximum of 65 \ % for McCain is okay .
So , European-American support at 55 \ % for McCain is well below this threshold and , hence , is not racist .
) If African-Americans were not racist , then at most 65 \ % of them would have supported Obama .
At that level of support , McCain would have won the presidential race .
At this point , African-American supremacists ( and apologists ) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he ( 1 ) is a member of the Democratic party and ( 2 ) supports its ideals .
That claim is an outright lie .
Look at the exit-polling data [ cnn.com ] for the Democratic primaries .
Consider the case of North Carolina .
Again , about 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton .
Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats , and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical .
Yet , 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton .
Why ? African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin .
Here is the bottom line .
Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America .
He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans .
African-Americans have established that expressing " racial pride " by voting on the basis of skin color is 100 \ % acceptable .
Neither the " Wall Street Journal " nor the " New York Times " complained about this racist behavior .
Therefore , in future elections , please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color .
Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American .
You need not defend your actions in any way .
Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today 's moral standard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>During the election, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
See the exit-polling data [cnn.com] by CNN.
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc.
These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and other non-Black folks).
Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian.
So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and, hence, serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern.
Only about 65\% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama.
In other words, a maximum of 65\% support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and, hence, is acceptable.
(A maximum of 65\% for McCain is okay.
So, European-American support at 55\% for McCain is well below this threshold and, hence, is not racist.
)

If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65\% of them would have supported Obama.
At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.
At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals.
That claim is an outright lie.
Look at the exit-polling data [cnn.com] for the Democratic primaries.
Consider the case of North Carolina.
Again, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton.
Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical.
Yet, 95\% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton.
Why?  African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
Here is the bottom line.
Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America.
He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.
African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100\% acceptable.
Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior.
Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color.
Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American.
You need not defend your actions in any way.
Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today's moral standard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838518</id>
	<title>Re:Hope and Change, baby!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263985380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suspect that distinction is largely irrelevant, too. Yes, Hollywood finances Democrats noticeably better. I'm sure you can find an industry treating Republicans similarly better.</p><p>But here's the kicker: all those industries have some overlap when it comes to capital holders, board members or CEOs. It's just that they tunnel lobbying founds in a way that has a chance to appear more, in each case, to those who are tricked into existence of real two party system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect that distinction is largely irrelevant , too .
Yes , Hollywood finances Democrats noticeably better .
I 'm sure you can find an industry treating Republicans similarly better.But here 's the kicker : all those industries have some overlap when it comes to capital holders , board members or CEOs .
It 's just that they tunnel lobbying founds in a way that has a chance to appear more , in each case , to those who are tricked into existence of real two party system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect that distinction is largely irrelevant, too.
Yes, Hollywood finances Democrats noticeably better.
I'm sure you can find an industry treating Republicans similarly better.But here's the kicker: all those industries have some overlap when it comes to capital holders, board members or CEOs.
It's just that they tunnel lobbying founds in a way that has a chance to appear more, in each case, to those who are tricked into existence of real two party system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838176</id>
	<title>Why is this "Obama's" department of justice?</title>
	<author>uslurper</author>
	<datestamp>1263984240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was never "Bush's" doj or "Clinton's" doj before.<br>It used to just be the Department of Justice.<br>Why is it that suddenly everything one disagrees with is Obama's fault?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was never " Bush 's " doj or " Clinton 's " doj before.It used to just be the Department of Justice.Why is it that suddenly everything one disagrees with is Obama 's fault ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was never "Bush's" doj or "Clinton's" doj before.It used to just be the Department of Justice.Why is it that suddenly everything one disagrees with is Obama's fault?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837542</id>
	<title>Enjoy your choice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263981960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And two party system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And two party system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And two party system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837878</id>
	<title>Hello?...</title>
	<author>Genda</author>
	<datestamp>1263983280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Folks, what part of "The RIAA is in your pocket, and in your life" are you not getting? For the love of Pete, the Vice President is a media hit-man... what do they have to do before it's clear, carve their initials in your forehead? There is no law, no juris-prudence, no honest, decent, or rational bit of thinking that the RIAA won't pave over, pay to have overturned, ignored, or publicly gutted, to protect their charges' strangle hold on media. Once they are finished with this little piece of business, they can move to the next piece. Make all use public or private payable, maybe they can even get a tax passed on the presumed number of people at anytime who my be humming a tune to themselves. That and make all new music created from that day forward, which is not owned by an affiliate of the RIAA illegal to listen to. They want a monopoly on sound, and they want to own your ears, and they want to utterly destroy anybody who get's in the way of what they want. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Folks , what part of " The RIAA is in your pocket , and in your life " are you not getting ?
For the love of Pete , the Vice President is a media hit-man... what do they have to do before it 's clear , carve their initials in your forehead ?
There is no law , no juris-prudence , no honest , decent , or rational bit of thinking that the RIAA wo n't pave over , pay to have overturned , ignored , or publicly gutted , to protect their charges ' strangle hold on media .
Once they are finished with this little piece of business , they can move to the next piece .
Make all use public or private payable , maybe they can even get a tax passed on the presumed number of people at anytime who my be humming a tune to themselves .
That and make all new music created from that day forward , which is not owned by an affiliate of the RIAA illegal to listen to .
They want a monopoly on sound , and they want to own your ears , and they want to utterly destroy anybody who get 's in the way of what they want .
CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Folks, what part of "The RIAA is in your pocket, and in your life" are you not getting?
For the love of Pete, the Vice President is a media hit-man... what do they have to do before it's clear, carve their initials in your forehead?
There is no law, no juris-prudence, no honest, decent, or rational bit of thinking that the RIAA won't pave over, pay to have overturned, ignored, or publicly gutted, to protect their charges' strangle hold on media.
Once they are finished with this little piece of business, they can move to the next piece.
Make all use public or private payable, maybe they can even get a tax passed on the presumed number of people at anytime who my be humming a tune to themselves.
That and make all new music created from that day forward, which is not owned by an affiliate of the RIAA illegal to listen to.
They want a monopoly on sound, and they want to own your ears, and they want to utterly destroy anybody who get's in the way of what they want.
CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837874</id>
	<title>Re:Obama was a Constitutional Law Prof.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263983220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Obama taught, was editor of the Harvard Law Review, and <strong>graduated top of his class.</strong><nobr> <wbr></nobr>.</p></div><p>Upon what do you base the assertion that he graduated "top of his class"? I was unaware of any of his college transcripts being released to date.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama taught , was editor of the Harvard Law Review , and graduated top of his class .
.Upon what do you base the assertion that he graduated " top of his class " ?
I was unaware of any of his college transcripts being released to date .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama taught, was editor of the Harvard Law Review, and graduated top of his class.
.Upon what do you base the assertion that he graduated "top of his class"?
I was unaware of any of his college transcripts being released to date.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839010</id>
	<title>Approach Obama About It!</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1263987240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>           I doubt that Obama would keep these people in governmental employment if he knew they were in the pocket of the recording industry. If someone has good access it can be pointed out that this issue stains his administration and appears to be corruption.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I doubt that Obama would keep these people in governmental employment if he knew they were in the pocket of the recording industry .
If someone has good access it can be pointed out that this issue stains his administration and appears to be corruption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>           I doubt that Obama would keep these people in governmental employment if he knew they were in the pocket of the recording industry.
If someone has good access it can be pointed out that this issue stains his administration and appears to be corruption.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838762</id>
	<title>Re:Hope and Change, baby!</title>
	<author>sbeckstead</author>
	<datestamp>1263986220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm all for the free state project thingy, but could you please choose a state with better weather?  I mean the cold cold north east really!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm all for the free state project thingy , but could you please choose a state with better weather ?
I mean the cold cold north east really !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm all for the free state project thingy, but could you please choose a state with better weather?
I mean the cold cold north east really!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838346</id>
	<title>Re:Newsflash: DOJ's Job in Litigation Against US L</title>
	<author>introspekt.i</author>
	<datestamp>1263984840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who's "doing their job" is open to interpretation.  It's balance of power.  There are laws all over the place in this country that aren't enforced by the executive branch on multiple levels of government (especially local and state levels).  The DOJ's job is to defend the laws as they (and Congress) see fit.  If the executive branch chooses to pick and choose laws to enforce, they can do it at the ire of the legislative branch, which can choose to cut funding to the executive branch OR pursue impeachment.  It's really the beauty of the American system's overlapping powers, and a testament to how they keep each other in line IMO.  You can rant and rave about what's right and wrong about morality and job-doing and all that, but political expediency will always trump everything in this country.  That's how it works, that's how it's ALWAYS worked.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who 's " doing their job " is open to interpretation .
It 's balance of power .
There are laws all over the place in this country that are n't enforced by the executive branch on multiple levels of government ( especially local and state levels ) .
The DOJ 's job is to defend the laws as they ( and Congress ) see fit .
If the executive branch chooses to pick and choose laws to enforce , they can do it at the ire of the legislative branch , which can choose to cut funding to the executive branch OR pursue impeachment .
It 's really the beauty of the American system 's overlapping powers , and a testament to how they keep each other in line IMO .
You can rant and rave about what 's right and wrong about morality and job-doing and all that , but political expediency will always trump everything in this country .
That 's how it works , that 's how it 's ALWAYS worked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who's "doing their job" is open to interpretation.
It's balance of power.
There are laws all over the place in this country that aren't enforced by the executive branch on multiple levels of government (especially local and state levels).
The DOJ's job is to defend the laws as they (and Congress) see fit.
If the executive branch chooses to pick and choose laws to enforce, they can do it at the ire of the legislative branch, which can choose to cut funding to the executive branch OR pursue impeachment.
It's really the beauty of the American system's overlapping powers, and a testament to how they keep each other in line IMO.
You can rant and rave about what's right and wrong about morality and job-doing and all that, but political expediency will always trump everything in this country.
That's how it works, that's how it's ALWAYS worked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30842236</id>
	<title>Re:Hope and Change, baby!</title>
	<author>Hotawa Hawk-eye</author>
	<datestamp>1264009020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've got a different suggestion, two rules:</p><p>1) If you are not eligible to vote for a candidate, you are not allowed to donate money to them.<br>2) There is a maximum amount you are allowed to donate to a candidate for their campaign for a position with a given title.  That means if Senator Bob is running for his second term as Senator from Anystate, the contribution a person gave him for his first term reduce the amount of money they can give him this time.  But if Senator Bob runs for President, even a person who gave their maximum contribution to his Senate campaigns can donate that much again to his Presidential campaign.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've got a different suggestion , two rules : 1 ) If you are not eligible to vote for a candidate , you are not allowed to donate money to them.2 ) There is a maximum amount you are allowed to donate to a candidate for their campaign for a position with a given title .
That means if Senator Bob is running for his second term as Senator from Anystate , the contribution a person gave him for his first term reduce the amount of money they can give him this time .
But if Senator Bob runs for President , even a person who gave their maximum contribution to his Senate campaigns can donate that much again to his Presidential campaign .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've got a different suggestion, two rules:1) If you are not eligible to vote for a candidate, you are not allowed to donate money to them.2) There is a maximum amount you are allowed to donate to a candidate for their campaign for a position with a given title.
That means if Senator Bob is running for his second term as Senator from Anystate, the contribution a person gave him for his first term reduce the amount of money they can give him this time.
But if Senator Bob runs for President, even a person who gave their maximum contribution to his Senate campaigns can donate that much again to his Presidential campaign.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839732</id>
	<title>Re:Newsflash: DOJ's Job in Litigation Against US L</title>
	<author>Xelios</author>
	<datestamp>1263990600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That much I understand, what I don't understand is how people formerly employed by some of the biggest corporations in America can be given the power to represent the government in cases involving those same corporations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That much I understand , what I do n't understand is how people formerly employed by some of the biggest corporations in America can be given the power to represent the government in cases involving those same corporations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That much I understand, what I don't understand is how people formerly employed by some of the biggest corporations in America can be given the power to represent the government in cases involving those same corporations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839904</id>
	<title>Re:Hope and Change, baby!</title>
	<author>zblack\_eagle</author>
	<datestamp>1263991320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Republicans and Democrats are <b>two cheeks of the same ass</b> alright. But there are some <b>emerging alternatives</b>.</p></div><p>Am I the only person who is subjected to imagery of shit emerging from between ass cheeks there?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Republicans and Democrats are two cheeks of the same ass alright .
But there are some emerging alternatives.Am I the only person who is subjected to imagery of shit emerging from between ass cheeks there ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Republicans and Democrats are two cheeks of the same ass alright.
But there are some emerging alternatives.Am I the only person who is subjected to imagery of shit emerging from between ass cheeks there?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30843014</id>
	<title>Cost per Song is 15cents as per Wharton Research</title>
	<author>ami.one</author>
	<datestamp>1264016220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just some unrelated info:

<a href="http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2417" title="upenn.edu" rel="nofollow">Wharton Reserach </a> [upenn.edu]
says that even from a business perspective of maximizing profits the labels should reduce prices as the average cost per song is only 15 cents to them</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just some unrelated info : Wharton Reserach [ upenn.edu ] says that even from a business perspective of maximizing profits the labels should reduce prices as the average cost per song is only 15 cents to them</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just some unrelated info:

Wharton Reserach  [upenn.edu]
says that even from a business perspective of maximizing profits the labels should reduce prices as the average cost per song is only 15 cents to them</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838772</id>
	<title>Re:Hope and Change, baby!</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1263986280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Republicans ALWAYS support big business over the consumer. They may not get as much big $ from Hollywood, but there are loads of other big industries with IP and patent interests who certainly *do* pay them. So I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for them to come out batting for the little guy. Good luck finding someone from either party who won't side with the RIAA/MPAA thugs at every opportunity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Republicans ALWAYS support big business over the consumer .
They may not get as much big $ from Hollywood , but there are loads of other big industries with IP and patent interests who certainly * do * pay them .
So I would n't hold my breath waiting for them to come out batting for the little guy .
Good luck finding someone from either party who wo n't side with the RIAA/MPAA thugs at every opportunity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Republicans ALWAYS support big business over the consumer.
They may not get as much big $ from Hollywood, but there are loads of other big industries with IP and patent interests who certainly *do* pay them.
So I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for them to come out batting for the little guy.
Good luck finding someone from either party who won't side with the RIAA/MPAA thugs at every opportunity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30841008</id>
	<title>Re:Hope my @ss.</title>
	<author>rajafarian</author>
	<datestamp>1263997800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you hear about his being for immunity against the telcos before or after you voted for him?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you hear about his being for immunity against the telcos before or after you voted for him ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you hear about his being for immunity against the telcos before or after you voted for him?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837656</id>
	<title>Hope they remember that in Canada...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263982500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hopefully they remember $750 to $150,000 per song when they go to court in Canada over the 300,000 songs they did not pay the artists for.</p><p>That'll be $225,000,000 to $45,000,000,000. ($225 million to $45 billion)</p><p>And since they were selling the songs, I'd suspect it should be the high end of that scale.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hopefully they remember $ 750 to $ 150,000 per song when they go to court in Canada over the 300,000 songs they did not pay the artists for.That 'll be $ 225,000,000 to $ 45,000,000,000 .
( $ 225 million to $ 45 billion ) And since they were selling the songs , I 'd suspect it should be the high end of that scale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hopefully they remember $750 to $150,000 per song when they go to court in Canada over the 300,000 songs they did not pay the artists for.That'll be $225,000,000 to $45,000,000,000.
($225 million to $45 billion)And since they were selling the songs, I'd suspect it should be the high end of that scale.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30843828</id>
	<title>Improving the political climate in the US</title>
	<author>jandersen</author>
	<datestamp>1264070400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is Obama good or bad? I don't know, and I don't really care - I think, on balance, that he probably is, but that is not the real issue behind all these endless, and rather childish debates.</p><p>I wonder why it is that political debate in America is always so extreme and hateful? To me it seems exaggerated, like a cheap drama with bad actors; no wonder that people end up loathing politics. But then when I look at the discussions in places like slashdot, I can see people going on in the same, tired style. How can anyone hope to achieve real, positive progress in such a poisonous atmosphere?</p><p>I mean, take the discussions about this RIAA thing; of course most people agree that the RIAA are unreasonable, verging on criminal - but when everybody starts making howling noises, it actually precludes any meaningful discussion of the subject, which then plays into the hands of RIAA, because they then stand out as the only ones with something that sounds a little coherent.</p><p>Or that all-time favourite, the healthcare reform. Everybody, or at least most people know that the current situation is grossly unfair and that something has to be done. The current proposals may end up costing everybody a little bit more tax, but the ones that really fear this plan are the insurance companies. Again, because all you can hear from anywhere is desperate screaming and the sound of fighting, no change, positive or negative, can be achieved, which is exactly what the insurance companies want.</p><p>So, when are the American people going to take charge of their country, and take themselves serious? It seems to me that you guys missed out on the whole youth revolution thing, and only went through the motions back in the sixties. You know what - the hippies may look stupid to people now-a-days, but even as superficial and inefficient as they were, they actually took the power away, that politicians, big business and the religious industry felt were their birthright, and shook up the establishment. Just imagine how much more could be done in an age where people can communicate globally and easily, and where people have a much more realistic view of the world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is Obama good or bad ?
I do n't know , and I do n't really care - I think , on balance , that he probably is , but that is not the real issue behind all these endless , and rather childish debates.I wonder why it is that political debate in America is always so extreme and hateful ?
To me it seems exaggerated , like a cheap drama with bad actors ; no wonder that people end up loathing politics .
But then when I look at the discussions in places like slashdot , I can see people going on in the same , tired style .
How can anyone hope to achieve real , positive progress in such a poisonous atmosphere ? I mean , take the discussions about this RIAA thing ; of course most people agree that the RIAA are unreasonable , verging on criminal - but when everybody starts making howling noises , it actually precludes any meaningful discussion of the subject , which then plays into the hands of RIAA , because they then stand out as the only ones with something that sounds a little coherent.Or that all-time favourite , the healthcare reform .
Everybody , or at least most people know that the current situation is grossly unfair and that something has to be done .
The current proposals may end up costing everybody a little bit more tax , but the ones that really fear this plan are the insurance companies .
Again , because all you can hear from anywhere is desperate screaming and the sound of fighting , no change , positive or negative , can be achieved , which is exactly what the insurance companies want.So , when are the American people going to take charge of their country , and take themselves serious ?
It seems to me that you guys missed out on the whole youth revolution thing , and only went through the motions back in the sixties .
You know what - the hippies may look stupid to people now-a-days , but even as superficial and inefficient as they were , they actually took the power away , that politicians , big business and the religious industry felt were their birthright , and shook up the establishment .
Just imagine how much more could be done in an age where people can communicate globally and easily , and where people have a much more realistic view of the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is Obama good or bad?
I don't know, and I don't really care - I think, on balance, that he probably is, but that is not the real issue behind all these endless, and rather childish debates.I wonder why it is that political debate in America is always so extreme and hateful?
To me it seems exaggerated, like a cheap drama with bad actors; no wonder that people end up loathing politics.
But then when I look at the discussions in places like slashdot, I can see people going on in the same, tired style.
How can anyone hope to achieve real, positive progress in such a poisonous atmosphere?I mean, take the discussions about this RIAA thing; of course most people agree that the RIAA are unreasonable, verging on criminal - but when everybody starts making howling noises, it actually precludes any meaningful discussion of the subject, which then plays into the hands of RIAA, because they then stand out as the only ones with something that sounds a little coherent.Or that all-time favourite, the healthcare reform.
Everybody, or at least most people know that the current situation is grossly unfair and that something has to be done.
The current proposals may end up costing everybody a little bit more tax, but the ones that really fear this plan are the insurance companies.
Again, because all you can hear from anywhere is desperate screaming and the sound of fighting, no change, positive or negative, can be achieved, which is exactly what the insurance companies want.So, when are the American people going to take charge of their country, and take themselves serious?
It seems to me that you guys missed out on the whole youth revolution thing, and only went through the motions back in the sixties.
You know what - the hippies may look stupid to people now-a-days, but even as superficial and inefficient as they were, they actually took the power away, that politicians, big business and the religious industry felt were their birthright, and shook up the establishment.
Just imagine how much more could be done in an age where people can communicate globally and easily, and where people have a much more realistic view of the world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838090</id>
	<title>Gee</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263983940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And Obama is still wondering why his approval rating is crap. Another DLC fail. Change doesn't mean Republican-lite instead of honest Republican.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And Obama is still wondering why his approval rating is crap .
Another DLC fail .
Change does n't mean Republican-lite instead of honest Republican .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And Obama is still wondering why his approval rating is crap.
Another DLC fail.
Change doesn't mean Republican-lite instead of honest Republican.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30840986</id>
	<title>Re:Hello?...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263997560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm amazed at the rhetorical excesses over what is in essence simply an age old dispute between buyers and sellers. Sellers of music and other media have an understandable desire to maximize their revenue.  Of course the RIAA doesn't say this directly instead they warn of dire consequences if somehow their income were to decrease. The other side, consumers of media naturally desire to reduce their expenses perhaps all the way down to zero. So apparently not wanting to demonstrate naked greed they wave the Constitutional flag or mutter darkly about big business and government conspiracies. The real problem is that in true American fashion both sides worship a false idol: the dollar. Spending more that you want or earning less than you think you deserve is neither a Constitutional or Moral issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm amazed at the rhetorical excesses over what is in essence simply an age old dispute between buyers and sellers .
Sellers of music and other media have an understandable desire to maximize their revenue .
Of course the RIAA does n't say this directly instead they warn of dire consequences if somehow their income were to decrease .
The other side , consumers of media naturally desire to reduce their expenses perhaps all the way down to zero .
So apparently not wanting to demonstrate naked greed they wave the Constitutional flag or mutter darkly about big business and government conspiracies .
The real problem is that in true American fashion both sides worship a false idol : the dollar .
Spending more that you want or earning less than you think you deserve is neither a Constitutional or Moral issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm amazed at the rhetorical excesses over what is in essence simply an age old dispute between buyers and sellers.
Sellers of music and other media have an understandable desire to maximize their revenue.
Of course the RIAA doesn't say this directly instead they warn of dire consequences if somehow their income were to decrease.
The other side, consumers of media naturally desire to reduce their expenses perhaps all the way down to zero.
So apparently not wanting to demonstrate naked greed they wave the Constitutional flag or mutter darkly about big business and government conspiracies.
The real problem is that in true American fashion both sides worship a false idol: the dollar.
Spending more that you want or earning less than you think you deserve is neither a Constitutional or Moral issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30841074</id>
	<title>Re:Why is this "Obama's" department of justice?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263998400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It was never "Bush's" doj or "Clinton's" doj before.</p></div><p>It certainly was Bush's DOJ. I don't remember far enough back to be sure whether people were calling it Clinton's, or the other Bush's, or Reagan's DOJ; but I imagine they probably were. See, it's pretty common practice for people with a bone to pick to point the finger at the top dog. In this case, the top dog promised us the world (to an even greater extent than most office-seekers do), which makes all the rest of us a little more bitter when we find out that it's pretty much the same world that it was before.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was never " Bush 's " doj or " Clinton 's " doj before.It certainly was Bush 's DOJ .
I do n't remember far enough back to be sure whether people were calling it Clinton 's , or the other Bush 's , or Reagan 's DOJ ; but I imagine they probably were .
See , it 's pretty common practice for people with a bone to pick to point the finger at the top dog .
In this case , the top dog promised us the world ( to an even greater extent than most office-seekers do ) , which makes all the rest of us a little more bitter when we find out that it 's pretty much the same world that it was before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was never "Bush's" doj or "Clinton's" doj before.It certainly was Bush's DOJ.
I don't remember far enough back to be sure whether people were calling it Clinton's, or the other Bush's, or Reagan's DOJ; but I imagine they probably were.
See, it's pretty common practice for people with a bone to pick to point the finger at the top dog.
In this case, the top dog promised us the world (to an even greater extent than most office-seekers do), which makes all the rest of us a little more bitter when we find out that it's pretty much the same world that it was before.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30840902</id>
	<title>Re:Why is this "Obama's" department of justice?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263996900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bush is still being blamed for nearly every bad thing that happens in the country "doj" or otherwise. Where have you been hiding? It was Bush's DOJ misusing the patriot act if you remember. Speaking of the Patriot act wasn't that supposed to be largely repealed by the Obama Administration? Oh wait now it is just another tool to be used by the "good guys" carry on then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bush is still being blamed for nearly every bad thing that happens in the country " doj " or otherwise .
Where have you been hiding ?
It was Bush 's DOJ misusing the patriot act if you remember .
Speaking of the Patriot act was n't that supposed to be largely repealed by the Obama Administration ?
Oh wait now it is just another tool to be used by the " good guys " carry on then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bush is still being blamed for nearly every bad thing that happens in the country "doj" or otherwise.
Where have you been hiding?
It was Bush's DOJ misusing the patriot act if you remember.
Speaking of the Patriot act wasn't that supposed to be largely repealed by the Obama Administration?
Oh wait now it is just another tool to be used by the "good guys" carry on then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838020</id>
	<title>Tyrants</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263983700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who defines this? The people suffering under tyranny? Or the tyrant lords themselves?</p><p>The Constitution I know and love dictates that I strike these tyrants down in cold blood, that is my right, nay, my <em>obligation</em> as a citizen of the US.</p><p>The founding fathers of this <em>once</em> great nation did this. Then they talked about it for years afterward. Then they wrote scores of literature on the subject, such that no one should ever forget the costs of the freedoms we once enjoyed; freedoms and liberties that are currently being stripped away by our current Tyrant Lords.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who defines this ?
The people suffering under tyranny ?
Or the tyrant lords themselves ? The Constitution I know and love dictates that I strike these tyrants down in cold blood , that is my right , nay , my obligation as a citizen of the US.The founding fathers of this once great nation did this .
Then they talked about it for years afterward .
Then they wrote scores of literature on the subject , such that no one should ever forget the costs of the freedoms we once enjoyed ; freedoms and liberties that are currently being stripped away by our current Tyrant Lords .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who defines this?
The people suffering under tyranny?
Or the tyrant lords themselves?The Constitution I know and love dictates that I strike these tyrants down in cold blood, that is my right, nay, my obligation as a citizen of the US.The founding fathers of this once great nation did this.
Then they talked about it for years afterward.
Then they wrote scores of literature on the subject, such that no one should ever forget the costs of the freedoms we once enjoyed; freedoms and liberties that are currently being stripped away by our current Tyrant Lords.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838780</id>
	<title>Re:Hope my @ss.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263986340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I knew we were in for it when he kept Gitmo going.</p></div><p>Within a week of taking office Obama issued an <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the\_press\_office/ClosureOfGuantanamoDetentionFacilities/" title="whitehouse.gov" rel="nofollow">executive order</a> [whitehouse.gov] that all of the prisoners cases be reviewed and the detention center be closed within a year. Last month he he issued a presidential memorandum requiring that that all the prisoners be transferred out of Guantanamo immediately.  I'm not really sure that sort of behavior qualifies as "keeping Gitmo going".</p><p>I'm all for ripping on politicians, but we should also give credit when it's due.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I knew we were in for it when he kept Gitmo going.Within a week of taking office Obama issued an executive order [ whitehouse.gov ] that all of the prisoners cases be reviewed and the detention center be closed within a year .
Last month he he issued a presidential memorandum requiring that that all the prisoners be transferred out of Guantanamo immediately .
I 'm not really sure that sort of behavior qualifies as " keeping Gitmo going " .I 'm all for ripping on politicians , but we should also give credit when it 's due .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I knew we were in for it when he kept Gitmo going.Within a week of taking office Obama issued an executive order [whitehouse.gov] that all of the prisoners cases be reviewed and the detention center be closed within a year.
Last month he he issued a presidential memorandum requiring that that all the prisoners be transferred out of Guantanamo immediately.
I'm not really sure that sort of behavior qualifies as "keeping Gitmo going".I'm all for ripping on politicians, but we should also give credit when it's due.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837584</id>
	<title>Obama was a Constitutional Law Prof.</title>
	<author>GPLDAN</author>
	<datestamp>1263982200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Obama taught, was editor of the Harvard Law Review, and graduated top of his class. <br> <br> <br>
How he can abide this DOJ finding is really unknowable, outside of politics. It is behavior and outcomes like this that cost his party Mass. last night, and may well cost him his re-election bid in 2012. Pollingplace.com showed that last night in Mass., 37\% of voters that voted for this independent that won, did so in protest of Democrats favoring Wall Street in the bailout. <br> <br>
The lesson is simple: Either the DOJ and the Obama administration stop taking sides against Main Street and for the big corporate interest, or they will keep losing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama taught , was editor of the Harvard Law Review , and graduated top of his class .
How he can abide this DOJ finding is really unknowable , outside of politics .
It is behavior and outcomes like this that cost his party Mass .
last night , and may well cost him his re-election bid in 2012 .
Pollingplace.com showed that last night in Mass. , 37 \ % of voters that voted for this independent that won , did so in protest of Democrats favoring Wall Street in the bailout .
The lesson is simple : Either the DOJ and the Obama administration stop taking sides against Main Street and for the big corporate interest , or they will keep losing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama taught, was editor of the Harvard Law Review, and graduated top of his class.
How he can abide this DOJ finding is really unknowable, outside of politics.
It is behavior and outcomes like this that cost his party Mass.
last night, and may well cost him his re-election bid in 2012.
Pollingplace.com showed that last night in Mass., 37\% of voters that voted for this independent that won, did so in protest of Democrats favoring Wall Street in the bailout.
The lesson is simple: Either the DOJ and the Obama administration stop taking sides against Main Street and for the big corporate interest, or they will keep losing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30843630</id>
	<title>Re:just returning the favor</title>
	<author>FrostedWheat</author>
	<datestamp>1264067880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why automatically "the other guy"? There are always more than two candidates.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why automatically " the other guy " ?
There are always more than two candidates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why automatically "the other guy"?
There are always more than two candidates.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30840454</id>
	<title>If you vote Republican or Democrat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263994080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This will probably get modded troll, but it's true.</p><p>If you vote Republican or Democrat, you are part of the problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This will probably get modded troll , but it 's true.If you vote Republican or Democrat , you are part of the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will probably get modded troll, but it's true.If you vote Republican or Democrat, you are part of the problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838120</id>
	<title>Re:Crap</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1263984060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's better to vote your conscience and lose than to vote for "the lesser evil" and be stuck with evil.  Whenever someone says that they won't vote for a third party because they have "no chance of winning," remember that Mccain didn't either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's better to vote your conscience and lose than to vote for " the lesser evil " and be stuck with evil .
Whenever someone says that they wo n't vote for a third party because they have " no chance of winning , " remember that Mccain did n't either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's better to vote your conscience and lose than to vote for "the lesser evil" and be stuck with evil.
Whenever someone says that they won't vote for a third party because they have "no chance of winning," remember that Mccain didn't either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838986</id>
	<title>Re:Obama was a Constitutional Law Prof.</title>
	<author>bdenton42</author>
	<datestamp>1263987120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>His bio says he graduated 'magna cum laude'.   That may not be literally "top of the class", but it's close enough.

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack\_obama" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack\_obama</a> [wikipedia.org] <p><div class="quote"><p>In late 1988, Obama entered Harvard Law School. He was selected as an editor of the Harvard Law Review at the end of his first year,[35] and president of the journal in his second year.[36] During his summers, he returned to Chicago, where he worked as a summer associate at the law firms of Sidley Austin in 1989 and Hopkins &amp; Sutter in 1990.[37] After graduating with a Juris Doctor (J.D.) magna cum laude[38] from Harvard in 1991, he returned to Chicago.[35]</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>His bio says he graduated 'magna cum laude' .
That may not be literally " top of the class " , but it 's close enough .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack \ _obama [ wikipedia.org ] In late 1988 , Obama entered Harvard Law School .
He was selected as an editor of the Harvard Law Review at the end of his first year , [ 35 ] and president of the journal in his second year .
[ 36 ] During his summers , he returned to Chicago , where he worked as a summer associate at the law firms of Sidley Austin in 1989 and Hopkins &amp; Sutter in 1990 .
[ 37 ] After graduating with a Juris Doctor ( J.D .
) magna cum laude [ 38 ] from Harvard in 1991 , he returned to Chicago .
[ 35 ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>His bio says he graduated 'magna cum laude'.
That may not be literally "top of the class", but it's close enough.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack\_obama [wikipedia.org] In late 1988, Obama entered Harvard Law School.
He was selected as an editor of the Harvard Law Review at the end of his first year,[35] and president of the journal in his second year.
[36] During his summers, he returned to Chicago, where he worked as a summer associate at the law firms of Sidley Austin in 1989 and Hopkins &amp; Sutter in 1990.
[37] After graduating with a Juris Doctor (J.D.
) magna cum laude[38] from Harvard in 1991, he returned to Chicago.
[35]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30847704</id>
	<title>Re:Obama was a Constitutional Law Prof.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264097100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really wish "re-election" and "the polls" were the last things on everyone's minds. Why can't we focus on fixing / improving our country now instead of ensuring future agendas?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really wish " re-election " and " the polls " were the last things on everyone 's minds .
Why ca n't we focus on fixing / improving our country now instead of ensuring future agendas ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really wish "re-election" and "the polls" were the last things on everyone's minds.
Why can't we focus on fixing / improving our country now instead of ensuring future agendas?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837924</id>
	<title>It's Better This Way</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263983400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Although I certainly don't agree with current copyright laws, I'm glad our administration upholds them. If we allowed the DOJ to selectively enforce laws there would be no point in creating laws in the first place. So, until the laws are actually changed, I would prefer they be enforced the way they were intended.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Although I certainly do n't agree with current copyright laws , I 'm glad our administration upholds them .
If we allowed the DOJ to selectively enforce laws there would be no point in creating laws in the first place .
So , until the laws are actually changed , I would prefer they be enforced the way they were intended .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although I certainly don't agree with current copyright laws, I'm glad our administration upholds them.
If we allowed the DOJ to selectively enforce laws there would be no point in creating laws in the first place.
So, until the laws are actually changed, I would prefer they be enforced the way they were intended.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30850266</id>
	<title>Re:Hope and Change, baby!</title>
	<author>cffrost</author>
	<datestamp>1264064940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously, have you got a better way to weed out pussies and Hollywood infiltrators?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , have you got a better way to weed out pussies and Hollywood infiltrators ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, have you got a better way to weed out pussies and Hollywood infiltrators?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838076</id>
	<title>No they aren't</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263983880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the DOJ were doing their jobs, they would NOT be doing any of the following:<br><i><br>(a) ignoring the case law which holds that the Supreme Court's due process jurisprudence is applicable to statutory damages,<br>(b) ignoring the law review articles to like effect,<br>(c) ignoring the actual holding of the 1919 case they rely upon,<br>(d) ignoring the fact that the RIAA failed to prove 'distribution' as defined by the Copyright Act,<br>(e) ignoring the actual wording and reasoning of the Supreme Court in its leading Gore and Campbell decisions.<br></i><br>It is <i>their job</i> to pay attention to these precedents, and if they had done so then their decision would be much different <i>by logical necessity.</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the DOJ were doing their jobs , they would NOT be doing any of the following : ( a ) ignoring the case law which holds that the Supreme Court 's due process jurisprudence is applicable to statutory damages , ( b ) ignoring the law review articles to like effect , ( c ) ignoring the actual holding of the 1919 case they rely upon , ( d ) ignoring the fact that the RIAA failed to prove 'distribution ' as defined by the Copyright Act , ( e ) ignoring the actual wording and reasoning of the Supreme Court in its leading Gore and Campbell decisions.It is their job to pay attention to these precedents , and if they had done so then their decision would be much different by logical necessity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the DOJ were doing their jobs, they would NOT be doing any of the following:(a) ignoring the case law which holds that the Supreme Court's due process jurisprudence is applicable to statutory damages,(b) ignoring the law review articles to like effect,(c) ignoring the actual holding of the 1919 case they rely upon,(d) ignoring the fact that the RIAA failed to prove 'distribution' as defined by the Copyright Act,(e) ignoring the actual wording and reasoning of the Supreme Court in its leading Gore and Campbell decisions.It is their job to pay attention to these precedents, and if they had done so then their decision would be much different by logical necessity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838486</id>
	<title>Re:Deep breaths here people</title>
	<author>Red Flayer</author>
	<datestamp>1263985320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's a pretty confident attitude, considering that you have your facts wrong.<blockquote><div><p>No they aren't. Their job is to uphold the constitution and by extension, the will of the people; not blindly uphold every decision regardless.</p></div> </blockquote><p>

False.  The role of the Department of Justice (as an outgrowth of the office of Attorney General via the Act to Establish the Department of Justice of 1870) is to represent the US in any matter of government interest in the courts, and to answer legal questions posed to it by the Executive branch (and for Constitutional matters, the Attorney General may not delegate).  Upholding the Constitution is not a DoJ responsibility -- providing legal <i>opinions</i> on Constitutionality is.

</p><p>Damages in excess of 10,000 times the value of actual loss is clearly unconstitutional. Period.</p><p>Please quote the Constitutional section that so clearly makes those damages unconstitutional.  Also please provide where it was determined that actual loss is limited to profit on an item (or even retail value, which would e higher) that was made available for sharing.  Turns out that there is a <b>ton</b> of debate on limits to punitive damages, and the matter is far from settled.  It's only in the past 15 years that SCOTUS (and by extension, the entire federal system) has placed any restraints on punitive damages, which had been handled at the State level previously.<br> <br>I agree that the RIAA needs to FOAD.  But if you're going to argue the matter, please get your facts straight... you're obviously misinformed on civics issues, and it would help you make your points if you didn't use bullshit to support them.<br> <br>It's not the DoJ that lies at blame here (though with how it's been stocked with RIAA advocates lately, I'm sure they do share <i>some</i> responsibility.  Please lay blame where blame is due... at the feet of the RIAA member companies and at the feet of the House and Senate members who support draconian copyright laws.  Surely you don't believe that the DoJ should just ignore the law of the land?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a pretty confident attitude , considering that you have your facts wrong.No they are n't .
Their job is to uphold the constitution and by extension , the will of the people ; not blindly uphold every decision regardless .
False. The role of the Department of Justice ( as an outgrowth of the office of Attorney General via the Act to Establish the Department of Justice of 1870 ) is to represent the US in any matter of government interest in the courts , and to answer legal questions posed to it by the Executive branch ( and for Constitutional matters , the Attorney General may not delegate ) .
Upholding the Constitution is not a DoJ responsibility -- providing legal opinions on Constitutionality is .
Damages in excess of 10,000 times the value of actual loss is clearly unconstitutional .
Period.Please quote the Constitutional section that so clearly makes those damages unconstitutional .
Also please provide where it was determined that actual loss is limited to profit on an item ( or even retail value , which would e higher ) that was made available for sharing .
Turns out that there is a ton of debate on limits to punitive damages , and the matter is far from settled .
It 's only in the past 15 years that SCOTUS ( and by extension , the entire federal system ) has placed any restraints on punitive damages , which had been handled at the State level previously .
I agree that the RIAA needs to FOAD .
But if you 're going to argue the matter , please get your facts straight... you 're obviously misinformed on civics issues , and it would help you make your points if you did n't use bullshit to support them .
It 's not the DoJ that lies at blame here ( though with how it 's been stocked with RIAA advocates lately , I 'm sure they do share some responsibility .
Please lay blame where blame is due... at the feet of the RIAA member companies and at the feet of the House and Senate members who support draconian copyright laws .
Surely you do n't believe that the DoJ should just ignore the law of the land ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a pretty confident attitude, considering that you have your facts wrong.No they aren't.
Their job is to uphold the constitution and by extension, the will of the people; not blindly uphold every decision regardless.
False.  The role of the Department of Justice (as an outgrowth of the office of Attorney General via the Act to Establish the Department of Justice of 1870) is to represent the US in any matter of government interest in the courts, and to answer legal questions posed to it by the Executive branch (and for Constitutional matters, the Attorney General may not delegate).
Upholding the Constitution is not a DoJ responsibility -- providing legal opinions on Constitutionality is.
Damages in excess of 10,000 times the value of actual loss is clearly unconstitutional.
Period.Please quote the Constitutional section that so clearly makes those damages unconstitutional.
Also please provide where it was determined that actual loss is limited to profit on an item (or even retail value, which would e higher) that was made available for sharing.
Turns out that there is a ton of debate on limits to punitive damages, and the matter is far from settled.
It's only in the past 15 years that SCOTUS (and by extension, the entire federal system) has placed any restraints on punitive damages, which had been handled at the State level previously.
I agree that the RIAA needs to FOAD.
But if you're going to argue the matter, please get your facts straight... you're obviously misinformed on civics issues, and it would help you make your points if you didn't use bullshit to support them.
It's not the DoJ that lies at blame here (though with how it's been stocked with RIAA advocates lately, I'm sure they do share some responsibility.
Please lay blame where blame is due... at the feet of the RIAA member companies and at the feet of the House and Senate members who support draconian copyright laws.
Surely you don't believe that the DoJ should just ignore the law of the land?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838676</id>
	<title>Re:Enjoy your choice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263985920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And two party system.</p></div><p>Right, because three or more parties is WAY too many parties for the MAFIAA to bribe.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And two party system.Right , because three or more parties is WAY too many parties for the MAFIAA to bribe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And two party system.Right, because three or more parties is WAY too many parties for the MAFIAA to bribe.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837786</id>
	<title>Re:Deep breaths here people</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1263982980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is the President's job folks: to defend the laws passed by Congress</p></div><p>The requirement to defend the Constitution comes first.  Unreasonable fines or punishment or something?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the President 's job folks : to defend the laws passed by CongressThe requirement to defend the Constitution comes first .
Unreasonable fines or punishment or something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the President's job folks: to defend the laws passed by CongressThe requirement to defend the Constitution comes first.
Unreasonable fines or punishment or something?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30843522</id>
	<title>Re:Crap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264066380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As an outsider it was always clear to me that the (world-wide) hype that was generated around Obama could only backfire badly. He's not a dictator who can change all things immediately.</p><p>This is such a fantastic case of overhyped expectations and the bad, bad hangover people have realising now that he is only human after all. Obviously this also affected people outside the US as we saw with the really unhelpful awarding of the nobel peace prize. Way to shoot him in the back by putting more pressure on him to be the Messiah bringing heaven to earth. How can anybody not fail against that?</p><p>It was never possible for Obama to win the first year due to the hype, but he also wouldn't be president if he had stopped the hype. I'll be bold and predict now that Obama will have a much better standing after another one or two years. He will quite likely be reelected. The expectations of people are so low now that he has a chance to actually do better than widely expected. And he is probably very well aware of this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As an outsider it was always clear to me that the ( world-wide ) hype that was generated around Obama could only backfire badly .
He 's not a dictator who can change all things immediately.This is such a fantastic case of overhyped expectations and the bad , bad hangover people have realising now that he is only human after all .
Obviously this also affected people outside the US as we saw with the really unhelpful awarding of the nobel peace prize .
Way to shoot him in the back by putting more pressure on him to be the Messiah bringing heaven to earth .
How can anybody not fail against that ? It was never possible for Obama to win the first year due to the hype , but he also would n't be president if he had stopped the hype .
I 'll be bold and predict now that Obama will have a much better standing after another one or two years .
He will quite likely be reelected .
The expectations of people are so low now that he has a chance to actually do better than widely expected .
And he is probably very well aware of this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As an outsider it was always clear to me that the (world-wide) hype that was generated around Obama could only backfire badly.
He's not a dictator who can change all things immediately.This is such a fantastic case of overhyped expectations and the bad, bad hangover people have realising now that he is only human after all.
Obviously this also affected people outside the US as we saw with the really unhelpful awarding of the nobel peace prize.
Way to shoot him in the back by putting more pressure on him to be the Messiah bringing heaven to earth.
How can anybody not fail against that?It was never possible for Obama to win the first year due to the hype, but he also wouldn't be president if he had stopped the hype.
I'll be bold and predict now that Obama will have a much better standing after another one or two years.
He will quite likely be reelected.
The expectations of people are so low now that he has a chance to actually do better than widely expected.
And he is probably very well aware of this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30842408</id>
	<title>Re:Hope and Change, baby!</title>
	<author>Lorien\_the\_first\_one</author>
	<datestamp>1264010400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I like it.  But enforcement would be almost impossible.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like it .
But enforcement would be almost impossible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like it.
But enforcement would be almost impossible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30842290</id>
	<title>Re:Hope and Change, baby!</title>
	<author>RobertM1968</author>
	<datestamp>1264009560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whatever problems the Dems have, this is a problem that existed during Republican Rule as well. To pretend it's just the "Obama Administration" is ludicrous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whatever problems the Dems have , this is a problem that existed during Republican Rule as well .
To pretend it 's just the " Obama Administration " is ludicrous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whatever problems the Dems have, this is a problem that existed during Republican Rule as well.
To pretend it's just the "Obama Administration" is ludicrous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838776</id>
	<title>Re:Hope and Change, baby!</title>
	<author>Third Position</author>
	<datestamp>1263986280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Republicans and Democrats are two cheeks of the same ass alright. But there are some <a href="http://american3p.org/" title="american3p.org" rel="nofollow">emerging alternatives.</a> [american3p.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Republicans and Democrats are two cheeks of the same ass alright .
But there are some emerging alternatives .
[ american3p.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Republicans and Democrats are two cheeks of the same ass alright.
But there are some emerging alternatives.
[american3p.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30845938</id>
	<title>Troll post</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1264089720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once again NYCL gets yet another copyright troll post on Slashdot.</p><p>Here is a news flash NYCDS: Just because you don't like a certain law and you are a lawyer, it does not follow that said law is wrong or invalid and your preaching to the choir about how wrong it is doesn't make you right about it either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once again NYCL gets yet another copyright troll post on Slashdot.Here is a news flash NYCDS : Just because you do n't like a certain law and you are a lawyer , it does not follow that said law is wrong or invalid and your preaching to the choir about how wrong it is does n't make you right about it either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once again NYCL gets yet another copyright troll post on Slashdot.Here is a news flash NYCDS: Just because you don't like a certain law and you are a lawyer, it does not follow that said law is wrong or invalid and your preaching to the choir about how wrong it is doesn't make you right about it either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839220</id>
	<title>Re:Deep breaths here people</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263988260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like they were upholding the law when they threw out the convictions against the Black Panthers who were intimidating voters?  And this transparent government of ours won't tell anyone why.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like they were upholding the law when they threw out the convictions against the Black Panthers who were intimidating voters ?
And this transparent government of ours wo n't tell anyone why .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like they were upholding the law when they threw out the convictions against the Black Panthers who were intimidating voters?
And this transparent government of ours won't tell anyone why.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838026</id>
	<title>Re:just returning the favor</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1263983760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's the dumbest voting strategy I've ever heard.  My great-grandma used to vote for candidates based on how handsome they were.  At least she got something out of it: she got to look at someone kind of nice.  You don't get anything out of it, you don't even get a choice: someone else is making your choice. That's why your strategy is dumber than hers.  I hope you don't vote until you learn a better way to figure out what is good and what is not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the dumbest voting strategy I 've ever heard .
My great-grandma used to vote for candidates based on how handsome they were .
At least she got something out of it : she got to look at someone kind of nice .
You do n't get anything out of it , you do n't even get a choice : someone else is making your choice .
That 's why your strategy is dumber than hers .
I hope you do n't vote until you learn a better way to figure out what is good and what is not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the dumbest voting strategy I've ever heard.
My great-grandma used to vote for candidates based on how handsome they were.
At least she got something out of it: she got to look at someone kind of nice.
You don't get anything out of it, you don't even get a choice: someone else is making your choice.
That's why your strategy is dumber than hers.
I hope you don't vote until you learn a better way to figure out what is good and what is not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838172</id>
	<title>Re:Newsflash: DOJ's Job in Litigation Against US L</title>
	<author>NewYorkCountryLawyer</author>
	<datestamp>1263984180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>People, the DOJ's job is to defend the laws as standing as passed.</p> </div><p>Yes. PS The Constitution of the United States happens to be one of our laws. In fact, it's our highest law. Any "law" which conflicts with it is invalid.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>They would not be doing their jobs if they said, "nah, you're right, this law should be overturned."</p> </div><p>Yes they would be doing their jobs. By ignoring the Constitution, they are failing to do their jobs. The United States Supreme Court has spoken loudly and clearly that punitive awards of this nature violate the Constitution.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People , the DOJ 's job is to defend the laws as standing as passed .
Yes. PS The Constitution of the United States happens to be one of our laws .
In fact , it 's our highest law .
Any " law " which conflicts with it is invalid.They would not be doing their jobs if they said , " nah , you 're right , this law should be overturned .
" Yes they would be doing their jobs .
By ignoring the Constitution , they are failing to do their jobs .
The United States Supreme Court has spoken loudly and clearly that punitive awards of this nature violate the Constitution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People, the DOJ's job is to defend the laws as standing as passed.
Yes. PS The Constitution of the United States happens to be one of our laws.
In fact, it's our highest law.
Any "law" which conflicts with it is invalid.They would not be doing their jobs if they said, "nah, you're right, this law should be overturned.
" Yes they would be doing their jobs.
By ignoring the Constitution, they are failing to do their jobs.
The United States Supreme Court has spoken loudly and clearly that punitive awards of this nature violate the Constitution.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837966</id>
	<title>Re:Deep breaths here people</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1263983520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>They're just doing their jobs.</p></div></blockquote><p> No they aren't.  Their job is to uphold the constitution and by extension, the will of the people; not blindly uphold every decision regardless.  Damages in excess of 10,000 times the value of actual loss is clearly unconstitutional.  Period.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're just doing their jobs .
No they are n't .
Their job is to uphold the constitution and by extension , the will of the people ; not blindly uphold every decision regardless .
Damages in excess of 10,000 times the value of actual loss is clearly unconstitutional .
Period .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're just doing their jobs.
No they aren't.
Their job is to uphold the constitution and by extension, the will of the people; not blindly uphold every decision regardless.
Damages in excess of 10,000 times the value of actual loss is clearly unconstitutional.
Period.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839982</id>
	<title>Civil forfeitures and fines</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1263991680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Jon Newton of p2pnet.net attributes the Justice Department's 'oversights' to<br>&gt; the 'eye-popping number of people [in its employ] who worked for, and/or are<br>&gt; directly connected with, Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony<br>&gt; Music's RIAA...</p><p>Perhaps, but they are probably more concerned about the impact of an unfavorable precedent on their own ability to seize property and impose draconian fines via civil rather than criminal prosecution.  They like being able to punish people without having to prove criminal cases.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Jon Newton of p2pnet.net attributes the Justice Department 's 'oversights ' to &gt; the 'eye-popping number of people [ in its employ ] who worked for , and/or are &gt; directly connected with , Vivendi Universal , EMI , Warner Music and Sony &gt; Music 's RIAA...Perhaps , but they are probably more concerned about the impact of an unfavorable precedent on their own ability to seize property and impose draconian fines via civil rather than criminal prosecution .
They like being able to punish people without having to prove criminal cases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Jon Newton of p2pnet.net attributes the Justice Department's 'oversights' to&gt; the 'eye-popping number of people [in its employ] who worked for, and/or are&gt; directly connected with, Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony&gt; Music's RIAA...Perhaps, but they are probably more concerned about the impact of an unfavorable precedent on their own ability to seize property and impose draconian fines via civil rather than criminal prosecution.
They like being able to punish people without having to prove criminal cases.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30840036</id>
	<title>Re:Obama was a Constitutional Law Prof.</title>
	<author>Loadmaster</author>
	<datestamp>1263991860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He was president of the Harvard Law Review his second year. Getting on a law review isn't cake and becoming president, especially at Harvard, is a huge fucking accomplishment. Besides, he graduated magna cum laude. No transcript necessary to know that he means he was really good at a really good law school.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He was president of the Harvard Law Review his second year .
Getting on a law review is n't cake and becoming president , especially at Harvard , is a huge fucking accomplishment .
Besides , he graduated magna cum laude .
No transcript necessary to know that he means he was really good at a really good law school .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He was president of the Harvard Law Review his second year.
Getting on a law review isn't cake and becoming president, especially at Harvard, is a huge fucking accomplishment.
Besides, he graduated magna cum laude.
No transcript necessary to know that he means he was really good at a really good law school.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837588</id>
	<title>Travesty</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263982200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>A travesty of justice.

Libraries routinely lend out copies of books, music and videos for free. I guess librarians will be the next victim of the RIAA.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A travesty of justice .
Libraries routinely lend out copies of books , music and videos for free .
I guess librarians will be the next victim of the RIAA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A travesty of justice.
Libraries routinely lend out copies of books, music and videos for free.
I guess librarians will be the next victim of the RIAA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30853078</id>
	<title>Re:The reason for the large fines</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264073880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The damage don is how many copies of that song are then downloaded from that copy which could be in the 1000's easily.</p></div><p>You don't fileshare, much, I suppose. &lt;smirk/&gt; Because of the way it works, it's rare to manage to get your ratio over the single digits.</p><p>This "in the 1000's" number is more like the total number of people who share a work, so if you want to continue to attempt to justify the fine as commensurate with the actual damages, you'd have to compare it with the damages all those <i>other</i> people have done. Unfortunately, in the US of A people aren't supposed to be punished for other's wrongdoing (as TheDugong pointed out).</p><p>Epic fail.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The damage don is how many copies of that song are then downloaded from that copy which could be in the 1000 's easily.You do n't fileshare , much , I suppose .
Because of the way it works , it 's rare to manage to get your ratio over the single digits.This " in the 1000 's " number is more like the total number of people who share a work , so if you want to continue to attempt to justify the fine as commensurate with the actual damages , you 'd have to compare it with the damages all those other people have done .
Unfortunately , in the US of A people are n't supposed to be punished for other 's wrongdoing ( as TheDugong pointed out ) .Epic fail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The damage don is how many copies of that song are then downloaded from that copy which could be in the 1000's easily.You don't fileshare, much, I suppose.
Because of the way it works, it's rare to manage to get your ratio over the single digits.This "in the 1000's" number is more like the total number of people who share a work, so if you want to continue to attempt to justify the fine as commensurate with the actual damages, you'd have to compare it with the damages all those other people have done.
Unfortunately, in the US of A people aren't supposed to be punished for other's wrongdoing (as TheDugong pointed out).Epic fail.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30841088</id>
	<title>Re:Newsflash: DOJ's Job in Litigation Against US L</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263998520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>People, the DOJ's job is to defend the laws as standing as passed.  They would not be doing their jobs if they said, "nah, you're right, this law should be overturned."</p><p>Lrn2USLegalSystem and US Government, please.</p></div><p>Bullshit, the DOJ is a beurocracy like any other.  All the executive branch has to do to "adjust" the law-of-the-land is prioritize differently.</p><p>"From now on, all RIAA sancitoned suits, FOIA requests and any other administrative overhead that is solely to put our constituents in the poor house are priority 99999, anything else goes first."  And since government beurocracies are understaffed, and/or full of bloat it'll never get done.</p><p>Problem solved.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People , the DOJ 's job is to defend the laws as standing as passed .
They would not be doing their jobs if they said , " nah , you 're right , this law should be overturned .
" Lrn2USLegalSystem and US Government , please.Bullshit , the DOJ is a beurocracy like any other .
All the executive branch has to do to " adjust " the law-of-the-land is prioritize differently .
" From now on , all RIAA sancitoned suits , FOIA requests and any other administrative overhead that is solely to put our constituents in the poor house are priority 99999 , anything else goes first .
" And since government beurocracies are understaffed , and/or full of bloat it 'll never get done.Problem solved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People, the DOJ's job is to defend the laws as standing as passed.
They would not be doing their jobs if they said, "nah, you're right, this law should be overturned.
"Lrn2USLegalSystem and US Government, please.Bullshit, the DOJ is a beurocracy like any other.
All the executive branch has to do to "adjust" the law-of-the-land is prioritize differently.
"From now on, all RIAA sancitoned suits, FOIA requests and any other administrative overhead that is solely to put our constituents in the poor house are priority 99999, anything else goes first.
"  And since government beurocracies are understaffed, and/or full of bloat it'll never get done.Problem solved.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838034</id>
	<title>Re:Newsflash: DOJ's Job in Litigation Against US L</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263983760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone please tell Jerry Brown that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone please tell Jerry Brown that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone please tell Jerry Brown that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838860</id>
	<title>Summary full of errors</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263986700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The damages are based on uploading, not downloading.</p><p>The damages theory isn't the RIAA's. It's what is built into the copyright statute.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The damages are based on uploading , not downloading.The damages theory is n't the RIAA 's .
It 's what is built into the copyright statute .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The damages are based on uploading, not downloading.The damages theory isn't the RIAA's.
It's what is built into the copyright statute.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838728</id>
	<title>Re:Deep breaths here people</title>
	<author>Trailer Trash</author>
	<datestamp>1263986160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And I bet you said this about Bush, too....</p><p>(eye roll)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I bet you said this about Bush , too.... ( eye roll )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I bet you said this about Bush, too....(eye roll)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838216</id>
	<title>Re:Deep breaths here people</title>
	<author>NewYorkCountryLawyer</author>
	<datestamp>1263984360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>This is the President's job folks: to defend the laws passed by Congress</p></div><p>The requirement to defend the Constitution comes first.</p> </div><p>Exactly, Culture20. The Constitution is our highest law, and the Supreme Court has made it clear that the 5th Amendment does not tolerate excessive 'punitive awards'.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the President 's job folks : to defend the laws passed by CongressThe requirement to defend the Constitution comes first .
Exactly , Culture20 .
The Constitution is our highest law , and the Supreme Court has made it clear that the 5th Amendment does not tolerate excessive 'punitive awards' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the President's job folks: to defend the laws passed by CongressThe requirement to defend the Constitution comes first.
Exactly, Culture20.
The Constitution is our highest law, and the Supreme Court has made it clear that the 5th Amendment does not tolerate excessive 'punitive awards'.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837732</id>
	<title>A quote comes to mind...</title>
	<author>PSandusky</author>
	<datestamp>1263982740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Jon Newton of p2pnet.net attributes the Justice Department's 'oversights' to the 'eye-popping number of people [in its employ] who worked for, and/or are directly connected with, Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music's RIAA.'</i></p><p>"I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen every day. But I don't <i>trust</i> coincidences."<br>--Garak, <b>Star Trek: Deep Space Nine</b> "Cardassians"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jon Newton of p2pnet.net attributes the Justice Department 's 'oversights ' to the 'eye-popping number of people [ in its employ ] who worked for , and/or are directly connected with , Vivendi Universal , EMI , Warner Music and Sony Music 's RIAA .
' " I believe in coincidences .
Coincidences happen every day .
But I do n't trust coincidences .
" --Garak , Star Trek : Deep Space Nine " Cardassians "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jon Newton of p2pnet.net attributes the Justice Department's 'oversights' to the 'eye-popping number of people [in its employ] who worked for, and/or are directly connected with, Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music's RIAA.
'"I believe in coincidences.
Coincidences happen every day.
But I don't trust coincidences.
"--Garak, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine "Cardassians"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839076</id>
	<title>On behalf of we who warned you about Obama,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263987540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><strong>I told you so.</strong></p><p>Not that McCain would have been any better.</p><p>Stop voting for the state-approved candidates.<br>Stop relying on a party to do your homework for you.<br>Stop believing that either of the main ones has your interests in mind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I told you so.Not that McCain would have been any better.Stop voting for the state-approved candidates.Stop relying on a party to do your homework for you.Stop believing that either of the main ones has your interests in mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I told you so.Not that McCain would have been any better.Stop voting for the state-approved candidates.Stop relying on a party to do your homework for you.Stop believing that either of the main ones has your interests in mind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837640</id>
	<title>Deep breaths here people</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263982440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is the President's <i>job</i> folks: to defend the laws passed by Congress and signed into law by a sitting President. It's implied by the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath\_of\_office\_of\_the\_President\_of\_the\_United\_States" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Oath of Office</a> [wikipedia.org]. Presidents ignoring laws they don't like by refusing to defend them in court--which is what the DOJ is doing here--would be a pretty flagrant violation of the obligations of the executive.<br> <br>

This is not the first time and will not be the last that a President, through his officers, defends a law he isn't thrilled about. Just because DOJ lawyers show up with a brief in support of a law does not mean that the President--or even the DOJ lawyers, for crying out loud--believe either 1) that the law is worth defending, or 2) the validity of their own arguments. They're just doing their jobs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the President 's job folks : to defend the laws passed by Congress and signed into law by a sitting President .
It 's implied by the Oath of Office [ wikipedia.org ] .
Presidents ignoring laws they do n't like by refusing to defend them in court--which is what the DOJ is doing here--would be a pretty flagrant violation of the obligations of the executive .
This is not the first time and will not be the last that a President , through his officers , defends a law he is n't thrilled about .
Just because DOJ lawyers show up with a brief in support of a law does not mean that the President--or even the DOJ lawyers , for crying out loud--believe either 1 ) that the law is worth defending , or 2 ) the validity of their own arguments .
They 're just doing their jobs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the President's job folks: to defend the laws passed by Congress and signed into law by a sitting President.
It's implied by the Oath of Office [wikipedia.org].
Presidents ignoring laws they don't like by refusing to defend them in court--which is what the DOJ is doing here--would be a pretty flagrant violation of the obligations of the executive.
This is not the first time and will not be the last that a President, through his officers, defends a law he isn't thrilled about.
Just because DOJ lawyers show up with a brief in support of a law does not mean that the President--or even the DOJ lawyers, for crying out loud--believe either 1) that the law is worth defending, or 2) the validity of their own arguments.
They're just doing their jobs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837746</id>
	<title>Re:Hope and Change, baby!</title>
	<author>mangu</author>
	<datestamp>1263982860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The only thing that can change this is public opinion.</p></div></blockquote><p>And public opinion is molded by Big Content. We are fucked.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only thing that can change this is public opinion.And public opinion is molded by Big Content .
We are fucked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only thing that can change this is public opinion.And public opinion is molded by Big Content.
We are fucked.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839262</id>
	<title>Re:"Obama DOJ"? Come on...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263988440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's just be honest here.  You used the term Obama DOJ because it is incendiary.  You chose it just to be sensationalist.  It's what lawyers do.  Your profession sensationalizes a subject to sway people.  You are in fact part of the problem.</p><p>He has enacted change, but obviously not fast enough for you.  How much did you think was going to change in a little under a year?  Unless you change first how can you expect the corrupt system you work in to change.  Honestly, are you any better for throwing a hot and fairly disingenuous title in the article?  There is great information in the summary and I appreciate you sharing it, but I have little more respect for you and your position than the DOJ.  When one person pees in the pool everyone swimming in the pool is covered in it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's just be honest here .
You used the term Obama DOJ because it is incendiary .
You chose it just to be sensationalist .
It 's what lawyers do .
Your profession sensationalizes a subject to sway people .
You are in fact part of the problem.He has enacted change , but obviously not fast enough for you .
How much did you think was going to change in a little under a year ?
Unless you change first how can you expect the corrupt system you work in to change .
Honestly , are you any better for throwing a hot and fairly disingenuous title in the article ?
There is great information in the summary and I appreciate you sharing it , but I have little more respect for you and your position than the DOJ .
When one person pees in the pool everyone swimming in the pool is covered in it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's just be honest here.
You used the term Obama DOJ because it is incendiary.
You chose it just to be sensationalist.
It's what lawyers do.
Your profession sensationalizes a subject to sway people.
You are in fact part of the problem.He has enacted change, but obviously not fast enough for you.
How much did you think was going to change in a little under a year?
Unless you change first how can you expect the corrupt system you work in to change.
Honestly, are you any better for throwing a hot and fairly disingenuous title in the article?
There is great information in the summary and I appreciate you sharing it, but I have little more respect for you and your position than the DOJ.
When one person pees in the pool everyone swimming in the pool is covered in it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837742</id>
	<title>Re:Hope and Change, baby!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263982800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah Depublicans! Beat the Remocrats!<br>It's all so different when the communists control the USA instead of the fascists.</p><p>I'm not pessimist. I'm an optimist. I am right in the middle of a <b>real</b> change -- a return to small, Constitution-sized government. It's exciting and fascinating to watch it unfold. If you'd like to see it too, click the link in my sig.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah Depublicans !
Beat the Remocrats ! It 's all so different when the communists control the USA instead of the fascists.I 'm not pessimist .
I 'm an optimist .
I am right in the middle of a real change -- a return to small , Constitution-sized government .
It 's exciting and fascinating to watch it unfold .
If you 'd like to see it too , click the link in my sig .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah Depublicans!
Beat the Remocrats!It's all so different when the communists control the USA instead of the fascists.I'm not pessimist.
I'm an optimist.
I am right in the middle of a real change -- a return to small, Constitution-sized government.
It's exciting and fascinating to watch it unfold.
If you'd like to see it too, click the link in my sig.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30840316</id>
	<title>Re:Why is this "Obama's" department of justice?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263993360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are joking, right? It's not like anything negative that happened during the last administration was ever said to be Bush's fault...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are joking , right ?
It 's not like anything negative that happened during the last administration was ever said to be Bush 's fault.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are joking, right?
It's not like anything negative that happened during the last administration was ever said to be Bush's fault...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837616</id>
	<title>Re:Obama was a Constitutional Law Prof.</title>
	<author>Maxo-Texas</author>
	<datestamp>1263982320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is, whoever you vote for is really in with the big boys.</p><p>If they are not, we see constant news coverage of what goofballs they are because thew news media are all owned by large corporations these days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is , whoever you vote for is really in with the big boys.If they are not , we see constant news coverage of what goofballs they are because thew news media are all owned by large corporations these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is, whoever you vote for is really in with the big boys.If they are not, we see constant news coverage of what goofballs they are because thew news media are all owned by large corporations these days.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839286</id>
	<title>Re:Why is this "Obama's" department of justice?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263988500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Umm...</p><p><a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=bush+doj" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/search?q=bush+doj</a> [google.com]<br><a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=clinton+doj" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/search?q=clinton+doj</a> [google.com]</p><p>Everyone hates the other guy and makes sure we know it. Maybe we should stop worrying about things like that and focus on fixing our corrupt system of government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Umm...http : //www.google.com/search ? q = bush + doj [ google.com ] http : //www.google.com/search ? q = clinton + doj [ google.com ] Everyone hates the other guy and makes sure we know it .
Maybe we should stop worrying about things like that and focus on fixing our corrupt system of government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Umm...http://www.google.com/search?q=bush+doj [google.com]http://www.google.com/search?q=clinton+doj [google.com]Everyone hates the other guy and makes sure we know it.
Maybe we should stop worrying about things like that and focus on fixing our corrupt system of government.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839160</id>
	<title>Re:Newsflash: DOJ's Job in Litigation Against US L</title>
	<author>Moridin42</author>
	<datestamp>1263987840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So.. you're asserting that the DOJ is filing briefs for the defense in every case to ever land in federal court? Somehow, I doubt that is in fact occuring.</p><p>This is not the DOJ's case, and the federal government is not a party to the case. The filing is contrary to the supreme law of the land. You know.. the constitution. And the DOJ can either be aware of the Constitution, its previously noted interpretations by the court, and the legal code (in which case it is acting unethcially) or the DOJ can be unaware of some/all of that and thus be acting ineptly. Neither bodes well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So.. you 're asserting that the DOJ is filing briefs for the defense in every case to ever land in federal court ?
Somehow , I doubt that is in fact occuring.This is not the DOJ 's case , and the federal government is not a party to the case .
The filing is contrary to the supreme law of the land .
You know.. the constitution .
And the DOJ can either be aware of the Constitution , its previously noted interpretations by the court , and the legal code ( in which case it is acting unethcially ) or the DOJ can be unaware of some/all of that and thus be acting ineptly .
Neither bodes well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So.. you're asserting that the DOJ is filing briefs for the defense in every case to ever land in federal court?
Somehow, I doubt that is in fact occuring.This is not the DOJ's case, and the federal government is not a party to the case.
The filing is contrary to the supreme law of the land.
You know.. the constitution.
And the DOJ can either be aware of the Constitution, its previously noted interpretations by the court, and the legal code (in which case it is acting unethcially) or the DOJ can be unaware of some/all of that and thus be acting ineptly.
Neither bodes well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30845198</id>
	<title>Re:Obama was a Constitutional Law Prof.</title>
	<author>oh\_my\_080980980</author>
	<datestamp>1264086000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except that the polling in the Massachusetts's election found the voters DID NOT vote against O'bama.  Polls found that voters supported the President.
<br> <br>
Republicans support the same heavy handed approach by the RIAA and big business.  Republicans support big banks and Wall Street; their deregulation approach lead to the collapse of the economy.  In fact Republicans support big bonuses handed out to the genius employees of the failed banks and are against stopping the bonuses.
<br> <br>
So, yeah Republicans are going to keep winning...not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that the polling in the Massachusetts 's election found the voters DID NOT vote against O'bama .
Polls found that voters supported the President .
Republicans support the same heavy handed approach by the RIAA and big business .
Republicans support big banks and Wall Street ; their deregulation approach lead to the collapse of the economy .
In fact Republicans support big bonuses handed out to the genius employees of the failed banks and are against stopping the bonuses .
So , yeah Republicans are going to keep winning...not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that the polling in the Massachusetts's election found the voters DID NOT vote against O'bama.
Polls found that voters supported the President.
Republicans support the same heavy handed approach by the RIAA and big business.
Republicans support big banks and Wall Street; their deregulation approach lead to the collapse of the economy.
In fact Republicans support big bonuses handed out to the genius employees of the failed banks and are against stopping the bonuses.
So, yeah Republicans are going to keep winning...not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838914</id>
	<title>Re:Crap</title>
	<author>Le Marteau</author>
	<datestamp>1263986880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; I don't get it. Who were we supposed to vote for?  Only Obama and McCain had any real chance of winning</p><p>If I hear one more person spout this "you're throwing your vote away by voting 3rd party" bullshit, I'm gonna go postal.</p><p>Your one vote has never, and will never, make a difference.  Only a fool votes because he thinks it's going to make a difference.</p><p>Sane people vote because it's what citizens do, not because they think that THEY are going to get their man into office because of their one vote.</p><p>Sane people also vote because they can then discuss with others WHY they voted for the person they did.</p><p>Vote for the person you think SHOULD win, not for the one who does not suck as much as the other one, who can actually win.  Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I do n't get it .
Who were we supposed to vote for ?
Only Obama and McCain had any real chance of winningIf I hear one more person spout this " you 're throwing your vote away by voting 3rd party " bullshit , I 'm gon na go postal.Your one vote has never , and will never , make a difference .
Only a fool votes because he thinks it 's going to make a difference.Sane people vote because it 's what citizens do , not because they think that THEY are going to get their man into office because of their one vote.Sane people also vote because they can then discuss with others WHY they voted for the person they did.Vote for the person you think SHOULD win , not for the one who does not suck as much as the other one , who can actually win .
Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; I don't get it.
Who were we supposed to vote for?
Only Obama and McCain had any real chance of winningIf I hear one more person spout this "you're throwing your vote away by voting 3rd party" bullshit, I'm gonna go postal.Your one vote has never, and will never, make a difference.
Only a fool votes because he thinks it's going to make a difference.Sane people vote because it's what citizens do, not because they think that THEY are going to get their man into office because of their one vote.Sane people also vote because they can then discuss with others WHY they voted for the person they did.Vote for the person you think SHOULD win, not for the one who does not suck as much as the other one, who can actually win.
Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30843958</id>
	<title>Re:Problem is UPLOADING, not downloading</title>
	<author>the\_one(2)</author>
	<datestamp>1264072620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you think it's reasonable to assume a file has been uploaded 2000+ times if there is no data?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you think it 's reasonable to assume a file has been uploaded 2000 + times if there is no data ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you think it's reasonable to assume a file has been uploaded 2000+ times if there is no data?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30840814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839950</id>
	<title>Re:Obama was a Constitutional Law Prof.</title>
	<author>Theaetetus</author>
	<datestamp>1263991500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Obama taught, was editor of the Harvard Law Review, and graduated top of his class.

How he can abide this DOJ finding is really unknowable, outside of politics.</p></div><p>Only if you accept that NYCL's statements are absolutely correct, without studying the matter yourself.  <i>At a minimum</i>, there is room for a reasonable person to disagree.  This isn't like someone saying "two plus two equals six billion", rather, it's someone saying "I think this policy is reasonable" and someone else saying "I think this policy is unreasonable."  This is about steering policy of the country... it takes some debate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama taught , was editor of the Harvard Law Review , and graduated top of his class .
How he can abide this DOJ finding is really unknowable , outside of politics.Only if you accept that NYCL 's statements are absolutely correct , without studying the matter yourself .
At a minimum , there is room for a reasonable person to disagree .
This is n't like someone saying " two plus two equals six billion " , rather , it 's someone saying " I think this policy is reasonable " and someone else saying " I think this policy is unreasonable .
" This is about steering policy of the country... it takes some debate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama taught, was editor of the Harvard Law Review, and graduated top of his class.
How he can abide this DOJ finding is really unknowable, outside of politics.Only if you accept that NYCL's statements are absolutely correct, without studying the matter yourself.
At a minimum, there is room for a reasonable person to disagree.
This isn't like someone saying "two plus two equals six billion", rather, it's someone saying "I think this policy is reasonable" and someone else saying "I think this policy is unreasonable.
"  This is about steering policy of the country... it takes some debate.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837760</id>
	<title>Re:Hope and Change, baby!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263982860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>remember that Hollywood greases Republican and Democrat pockets alike.</p></div></blockquote><p>Though it should be noted that Hollywood contributes much more to the Democrats than the Republicans.
</p><p>76\% to Dems in 2010 (so far), 78\% to Dems in 2008, not less than 62\% in any election cycle in the last two decades.
</p><p>So it's insane to assume that a Democratic administration is going to rein in the entertainment industry.  It's not likely that a Republican administration will either, but they're more likely to be able to give up the relatively small amount of money they get from Hollywood than the Dems will.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>remember that Hollywood greases Republican and Democrat pockets alike.Though it should be noted that Hollywood contributes much more to the Democrats than the Republicans .
76 \ % to Dems in 2010 ( so far ) , 78 \ % to Dems in 2008 , not less than 62 \ % in any election cycle in the last two decades .
So it 's insane to assume that a Democratic administration is going to rein in the entertainment industry .
It 's not likely that a Republican administration will either , but they 're more likely to be able to give up the relatively small amount of money they get from Hollywood than the Dems will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>remember that Hollywood greases Republican and Democrat pockets alike.Though it should be noted that Hollywood contributes much more to the Democrats than the Republicans.
76\% to Dems in 2010 (so far), 78\% to Dems in 2008, not less than 62\% in any election cycle in the last two decades.
So it's insane to assume that a Democratic administration is going to rein in the entertainment industry.
It's not likely that a Republican administration will either, but they're more likely to be able to give up the relatively small amount of money they get from Hollywood than the Dems will.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30840864</id>
	<title>you can't handle the truth!!</title>
	<author>commodoresloat</author>
	<datestamp>1263996660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Find out who Tom Cruise is voting for. Vote for the other guy.</p></div><p>Jack Nicholson?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Find out who Tom Cruise is voting for .
Vote for the other guy.Jack Nicholson ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Find out who Tom Cruise is voting for.
Vote for the other guy.Jack Nicholson?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838150</id>
	<title>Obama's DOJ?</title>
	<author>mehemiah</author>
	<datestamp>1263984120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't remember all the stories about the government during the bush administration reading Bush's X it was the Bush administration's X. Just because Most people actually like him instead of hate him doesn't mean bash him harder, or that every thing's his fault.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't remember all the stories about the government during the bush administration reading Bush 's X it was the Bush administration 's X. Just because Most people actually like him instead of hate him does n't mean bash him harder , or that every thing 's his fault .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't remember all the stories about the government during the bush administration reading Bush's X it was the Bush administration's X. Just because Most people actually like him instead of hate him doesn't mean bash him harder, or that every thing's his fault.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30967302</id>
	<title>Re:Crap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264862040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually if you were more informed on all the third party candidates you would find quite a few responsible positions there. Regardless of your view on drug prosecution, it's easy to see that a ton of tax payer money is being used ineffeciently in that regard. Politics isn't like picking which team will win next week's game. You are allowed to think for youself and not vote for someone for mostly statistical reasons (i.e. probability of them being elected).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually if you were more informed on all the third party candidates you would find quite a few responsible positions there .
Regardless of your view on drug prosecution , it 's easy to see that a ton of tax payer money is being used ineffeciently in that regard .
Politics is n't like picking which team will win next week 's game .
You are allowed to think for youself and not vote for someone for mostly statistical reasons ( i.e .
probability of them being elected ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually if you were more informed on all the third party candidates you would find quite a few responsible positions there.
Regardless of your view on drug prosecution, it's easy to see that a ton of tax payer money is being used ineffeciently in that regard.
Politics isn't like picking which team will win next week's game.
You are allowed to think for youself and not vote for someone for mostly statistical reasons (i.e.
probability of them being elected).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30851218</id>
	<title>Re:Hope and Change, baby!</title>
	<author>DaleSwanson</author>
	<datestamp>1264068060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Define "any given time".  How about no political candidate may accept money, gifts, or anything else similar from anything other than individual private citizens?  What legitimate reason does a corporation have to give money to a politician?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Define " any given time " .
How about no political candidate may accept money , gifts , or anything else similar from anything other than individual private citizens ?
What legitimate reason does a corporation have to give money to a politician ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Define "any given time".
How about no political candidate may accept money, gifts, or anything else similar from anything other than individual private citizens?
What legitimate reason does a corporation have to give money to a politician?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30840874</id>
	<title>Re:Hope and Change, baby!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263996720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It could've been worse. They almost went with Alaska.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It could 've been worse .
They almost went with Alaska .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It could've been worse.
They almost went with Alaska.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838596</id>
	<title>Re:Obama was a Constitutional Law Prof.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263985740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He was not a constitutional law prof.  He was a guest lecturer to a class on Constitutional law, there's a big difference.  He was the editor of the Harvard Law Review.  He did not graduate top of his class.  In fact, he has refused to release any of his educational records.</p><p>The fact of the matter is: he made it through law school, took a job as a lawyer for a couple of years then shmoozed into a State Senate seat.  The rest is history.  It should not surprise anyone that people in his administration acts like politicians, that's what they are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He was not a constitutional law prof. He was a guest lecturer to a class on Constitutional law , there 's a big difference .
He was the editor of the Harvard Law Review .
He did not graduate top of his class .
In fact , he has refused to release any of his educational records.The fact of the matter is : he made it through law school , took a job as a lawyer for a couple of years then shmoozed into a State Senate seat .
The rest is history .
It should not surprise anyone that people in his administration acts like politicians , that 's what they are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He was not a constitutional law prof.  He was a guest lecturer to a class on Constitutional law, there's a big difference.
He was the editor of the Harvard Law Review.
He did not graduate top of his class.
In fact, he has refused to release any of his educational records.The fact of the matter is: he made it through law school, took a job as a lawyer for a couple of years then shmoozed into a State Senate seat.
The rest is history.
It should not surprise anyone that people in his administration acts like politicians, that's what they are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30840624</id>
	<title>Re:"Obama DOJ"? Come on...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263995100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is this modded as Troll when the original story is not? *shakes head*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this modded as Troll when the original story is not ?
* shakes head *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this modded as Troll when the original story is not?
*shakes head*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30844704</id>
	<title>Re:Hope and Change, baby!</title>
	<author>ciggieposeur</author>
	<datestamp>1264081980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>most of those "necessary" things weren't even invented until the last century or so, and society managed to work just fine without them.</i></p><p>Society might have worked fine, but I would have hated living in it.  Especially if I was black, Asian, or below middle class (i.e. bottom 90\%).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>most of those " necessary " things were n't even invented until the last century or so , and society managed to work just fine without them.Society might have worked fine , but I would have hated living in it .
Especially if I was black , Asian , or below middle class ( i.e .
bottom 90 \ % ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>most of those "necessary" things weren't even invented until the last century or so, and society managed to work just fine without them.Society might have worked fine, but I would have hated living in it.
Especially if I was black, Asian, or below middle class (i.e.
bottom 90\%).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838538</id>
	<title>Re:Hope and Change, baby!</title>
	<author>Cassius Corodes</author>
	<datestamp>1263985500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think this is a grossly unrealistic idea. The problem with big government is that its easy to say its too big - but try and remove parts of it and you will suddenly realise that the great majority is a whole heap of actually necessary small things that add up. You would do a lot better in revitalising the US govt, if you made a big focus on anti-corruption and improving competence and efficiency, that's were big savings can be made.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this is a grossly unrealistic idea .
The problem with big government is that its easy to say its too big - but try and remove parts of it and you will suddenly realise that the great majority is a whole heap of actually necessary small things that add up .
You would do a lot better in revitalising the US govt , if you made a big focus on anti-corruption and improving competence and efficiency , that 's were big savings can be made .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this is a grossly unrealistic idea.
The problem with big government is that its easy to say its too big - but try and remove parts of it and you will suddenly realise that the great majority is a whole heap of actually necessary small things that add up.
You would do a lot better in revitalising the US govt, if you made a big focus on anti-corruption and improving competence and efficiency, that's were big savings can be made.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30840368</id>
	<title>Re:Enjoy your choice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263993600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's just defaitism.</p><p>"We can't stop them anyway, so let's make it as cheap as possible for them."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's just defaitism .
" We ca n't stop them anyway , so let 's make it as cheap as possible for them .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's just defaitism.
"We can't stop them anyway, so let's make it as cheap as possible for them.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837828</id>
	<title>Copyright is a scam</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263983100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most works of art are copied from or influenced by something. Imagine you're an artist and you have to worry about whether you have express permission rights or not before you pick up the brush.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most works of art are copied from or influenced by something .
Imagine you 're an artist and you have to worry about whether you have express permission rights or not before you pick up the brush .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most works of art are copied from or influenced by something.
Imagine you're an artist and you have to worry about whether you have express permission rights or not before you pick up the brush.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30840630</id>
	<title>Re:Hello?...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263995100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How much did the RIAA pay you to discredit "your" side by excreting that steaming pile of hyperbole?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How much did the RIAA pay you to discredit " your " side by excreting that steaming pile of hyperbole ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much did the RIAA pay you to discredit "your" side by excreting that steaming pile of hyperbole?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30841448</id>
	<title>Re:Hello?...</title>
	<author>KwKSilver</author>
	<datestamp>1264001460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well said... dead on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well said... dead on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well said... dead on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30841832</id>
	<title>Re:Hope and Change, baby!</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1264005120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>but they're more likely to be able to give up the relatively small amount of money they get from Hollywood than the Dems will.</p></div></blockquote><p>

On the other hand, this could simply mean the Republicans are willing to acquiesce to the MP/RIAA's demands for a much lower cost.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but they 're more likely to be able to give up the relatively small amount of money they get from Hollywood than the Dems will .
On the other hand , this could simply mean the Republicans are willing to acquiesce to the MP/RIAA 's demands for a much lower cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but they're more likely to be able to give up the relatively small amount of money they get from Hollywood than the Dems will.
On the other hand, this could simply mean the Republicans are willing to acquiesce to the MP/RIAA's demands for a much lower cost.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30844610</id>
	<title>Re:Hope and Change, baby!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264080960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In 2007 medicare/medicaid and social security were over 40\% of the federal budget.  So when both of those programs go bankrupt the size of the federal government will shrink a lot.  Probably by as much as 60\% or so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In 2007 medicare/medicaid and social security were over 40 \ % of the federal budget .
So when both of those programs go bankrupt the size of the federal government will shrink a lot .
Probably by as much as 60 \ % or so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In 2007 medicare/medicaid and social security were over 40\% of the federal budget.
So when both of those programs go bankrupt the size of the federal government will shrink a lot.
Probably by as much as 60\% or so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30846214</id>
	<title>Re:Crap</title>
	<author>MattSausage</author>
	<datestamp>1264090860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are people really so scared of losing that they vote solely for the guy they think will win?  Actually, that explains a lot. As was said elsewhere, if people stopped caring whether they voted for the winner, and just voted for the guy or gal they thought was best for the job, we'd probably have a lot more variety in the government.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are people really so scared of losing that they vote solely for the guy they think will win ?
Actually , that explains a lot .
As was said elsewhere , if people stopped caring whether they voted for the winner , and just voted for the guy or gal they thought was best for the job , we 'd probably have a lot more variety in the government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are people really so scared of losing that they vote solely for the guy they think will win?
Actually, that explains a lot.
As was said elsewhere, if people stopped caring whether they voted for the winner, and just voted for the guy or gal they thought was best for the job, we'd probably have a lot more variety in the government.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30847954</id>
	<title>Re:Hope and Change, baby!</title>
	<author>inphinity</author>
	<datestamp>1264098120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think this will actually fix anything.<br> <br>

If you've got enough money to "buy" a representative, you've got enough money to set up shell corporations to do your donations.  All this would do is make it even harder to follow the money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think this will actually fix anything .
If you 've got enough money to " buy " a representative , you 've got enough money to set up shell corporations to do your donations .
All this would do is make it even harder to follow the money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think this will actually fix anything.
If you've got enough money to "buy" a representative, you've got enough money to set up shell corporations to do your donations.
All this would do is make it even harder to follow the money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837890</id>
	<title>Hope my @ss.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263983280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I smelled this coming when he sided with the Telcos on the wiretapping.<br>I knew we were in for it when he kept Gitmo going.<br>ACTA secrecy pretty much cemented my opinion.<br>This is just icing on the cake.</p><p>And yes ladies and gentlemens, I voted for him...hoping he wouldn't be what he's showing himself to be...just another crooked pol, interested in being elected and nailing a sweet deal speaking deal once he's thrown out on his ear.</p><p>meh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I smelled this coming when he sided with the Telcos on the wiretapping.I knew we were in for it when he kept Gitmo going.ACTA secrecy pretty much cemented my opinion.This is just icing on the cake.And yes ladies and gentlemens , I voted for him...hoping he would n't be what he 's showing himself to be...just another crooked pol , interested in being elected and nailing a sweet deal speaking deal once he 's thrown out on his ear.meh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I smelled this coming when he sided with the Telcos on the wiretapping.I knew we were in for it when he kept Gitmo going.ACTA secrecy pretty much cemented my opinion.This is just icing on the cake.And yes ladies and gentlemens, I voted for him...hoping he wouldn't be what he's showing himself to be...just another crooked pol, interested in being elected and nailing a sweet deal speaking deal once he's thrown out on his ear.meh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838200</id>
	<title>"Obama's Department of Justice" ?</title>
	<author>El\_Muerte\_TDS</author>
	<datestamp>1263984300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought it's still RIAA's Department of Justice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought it 's still RIAA 's Department of Justice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought it's still RIAA's Department of Justice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839072</id>
	<title>Re:Hope and Change, baby!</title>
	<author>Arthur Grumbine</author>
	<datestamp>1263987480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's just that they tunnel lobbying founds in a way that has a chance to appear more, in each case, to those who are tricked into existence of real two party system.</p></div><p>I tried to parse this sentence for over a minute before figuring out the misspelled <b>funds</b>. Unfortunately, that discovery has contributed little-to-nothing to my comprehension of the sentence, so I'm just gonna give up and assume it was about some kind of big-business/shadow-government conspiracy theory.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's just that they tunnel lobbying founds in a way that has a chance to appear more , in each case , to those who are tricked into existence of real two party system.I tried to parse this sentence for over a minute before figuring out the misspelled funds .
Unfortunately , that discovery has contributed little-to-nothing to my comprehension of the sentence , so I 'm just gon na give up and assume it was about some kind of big-business/shadow-government conspiracy theory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's just that they tunnel lobbying founds in a way that has a chance to appear more, in each case, to those who are tricked into existence of real two party system.I tried to parse this sentence for over a minute before figuring out the misspelled funds.
Unfortunately, that discovery has contributed little-to-nothing to my comprehension of the sentence, so I'm just gonna give up and assume it was about some kind of big-business/shadow-government conspiracy theory.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839772</id>
	<title>Re:Why is this "Obama's" department of justice?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263990780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because Obama claimed that he was going to implement hope and change and fix everything?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because Obama claimed that he was going to implement hope and change and fix everything ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because Obama claimed that he was going to implement hope and change and fix everything?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30843858</id>
	<title>Re:Crap</title>
	<author>PeterBrett</author>
	<datestamp>1264070760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Only Obama and McCain had any real chance of winning (sorry guys, the Green Party and Libertarians have been, and always will be, fringe groups run by potheads with a pro-drug agenda) and it was beyond obvious that McCain was willing to run this country into the ground for the sake of the almighty dollar. So I picked Obama, mainly because I love America and want the best for this country. But has he delivered?</p></div><p>Good question. <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/" title="politifact.com">How about some data?</a> [politifact.com] </p><p>(As a Briton, I have no particular opinion on the matter).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Only Obama and McCain had any real chance of winning ( sorry guys , the Green Party and Libertarians have been , and always will be , fringe groups run by potheads with a pro-drug agenda ) and it was beyond obvious that McCain was willing to run this country into the ground for the sake of the almighty dollar .
So I picked Obama , mainly because I love America and want the best for this country .
But has he delivered ? Good question .
How about some data ?
[ politifact.com ] ( As a Briton , I have no particular opinion on the matter ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only Obama and McCain had any real chance of winning (sorry guys, the Green Party and Libertarians have been, and always will be, fringe groups run by potheads with a pro-drug agenda) and it was beyond obvious that McCain was willing to run this country into the ground for the sake of the almighty dollar.
So I picked Obama, mainly because I love America and want the best for this country.
But has he delivered?Good question.
How about some data?
[politifact.com] (As a Briton, I have no particular opinion on the matter).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30840050</id>
	<title>Re:Summary full of errors</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1263991920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The damages theory isn't the RIAA's. It's what is built into the copyright statute.</p></div><p>So, copyright law specifies minimum penalties?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The damages theory is n't the RIAA 's .
It 's what is built into the copyright statute.So , copyright law specifies minimum penalties ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The damages theory isn't the RIAA's.
It's what is built into the copyright statute.So, copyright law specifies minimum penalties?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839476</id>
	<title>Re:Hope and Change, baby!</title>
	<author>Plugh</author>
	<datestamp>1263989340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Federal US government is unfixable. Too much money and power, power and money, and too many average US citizens who think "more government" is the solution to their problems.</p><p>See my earlier <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1518208&amp;cid=30839448" title="slashdot.org">post</a> [slashdot.org], or my sig, for details on a more realistic target.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Federal US government is unfixable .
Too much money and power , power and money , and too many average US citizens who think " more government " is the solution to their problems.See my earlier post [ slashdot.org ] , or my sig , for details on a more realistic target .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Federal US government is unfixable.
Too much money and power, power and money, and too many average US citizens who think "more government" is the solution to their problems.See my earlier post [slashdot.org], or my sig, for details on a more realistic target.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839738</id>
	<title>But not blindly</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1263990600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If congress passed a law saying that every FBI agent needed to rape and murder one woman a month, the president would rightly say "No, don't do that, the law is unjust and illegal. Do not follow it." He is bound to a higher law, the Constitution. All laws must be constitutional to be valid. Obviously said rape and murder law wouldn't be.</p><p>Now I use that as an example because it is obvious, however the current case is the same, just less obvious. The Constitution requires that fines be reasonable, you may remember the part that says "nor excessive fines imposed," as well as other related things. Well, someone who is a scholar in Constitutional law should know about that, and be able to figure out that $150,000 for copying a $1 song is an unreasonable fine. As such the law is unjust and invalid and shouldn't be enforced.</p><p>Note that in the oath you link to, he says "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." This law is in violation of that Constitution, he should know that, and as such should refuse to enforce it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If congress passed a law saying that every FBI agent needed to rape and murder one woman a month , the president would rightly say " No , do n't do that , the law is unjust and illegal .
Do not follow it .
" He is bound to a higher law , the Constitution .
All laws must be constitutional to be valid .
Obviously said rape and murder law would n't be.Now I use that as an example because it is obvious , however the current case is the same , just less obvious .
The Constitution requires that fines be reasonable , you may remember the part that says " nor excessive fines imposed , " as well as other related things .
Well , someone who is a scholar in Constitutional law should know about that , and be able to figure out that $ 150,000 for copying a $ 1 song is an unreasonable fine .
As such the law is unjust and invalid and should n't be enforced.Note that in the oath you link to , he says " protect and defend the Constitution of the United States .
" This law is in violation of that Constitution , he should know that , and as such should refuse to enforce it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If congress passed a law saying that every FBI agent needed to rape and murder one woman a month, the president would rightly say "No, don't do that, the law is unjust and illegal.
Do not follow it.
" He is bound to a higher law, the Constitution.
All laws must be constitutional to be valid.
Obviously said rape and murder law wouldn't be.Now I use that as an example because it is obvious, however the current case is the same, just less obvious.
The Constitution requires that fines be reasonable, you may remember the part that says "nor excessive fines imposed," as well as other related things.
Well, someone who is a scholar in Constitutional law should know about that, and be able to figure out that $150,000 for copying a $1 song is an unreasonable fine.
As such the law is unjust and invalid and shouldn't be enforced.Note that in the oath you link to, he says "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
" This law is in violation of that Constitution, he should know that, and as such should refuse to enforce it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838084</id>
	<title>The Obama administration siding with corporations?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263983940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Huh.  Who'd'a thought.  Wonder how that Wednesday morning Massachusetts hangover feels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh .
Who 'd'a thought .
Wonder how that Wednesday morning Massachusetts hangover feels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh.
Who'd'a thought.
Wonder how that Wednesday morning Massachusetts hangover feels.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30842292</id>
	<title>Re:Hope my @ss.</title>
	<author>DNS-and-BIND</author>
	<datestamp>1264009560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hellll-LOOO, he was from the South Side of Chicago, and you're shocked he's crooked?  Hell, if "smooth-talking politician from the South Side" doesn't scare you off a candidate, what will?  The Chosen One wisely shut his mouth and let the media win his campaign for him.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hellll-LOOO , he was from the South Side of Chicago , and you 're shocked he 's crooked ?
Hell , if " smooth-talking politician from the South Side " does n't scare you off a candidate , what will ?
The Chosen One wisely shut his mouth and let the media win his campaign for him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hellll-LOOO, he was from the South Side of Chicago, and you're shocked he's crooked?
Hell, if "smooth-talking politician from the South Side" doesn't scare you off a candidate, what will?
The Chosen One wisely shut his mouth and let the media win his campaign for him.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837554</id>
	<title>Hope and Change, baby!</title>
	<author>bheer</author>
	<datestamp>1263982080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>or not. Obama or not, remember that Hollywood greases Republican and Democrat pockets alike. Many of the big guys at the MPAA and RIAA are Democrats too, which must surely help.</p><p>As long as Hollywood gives politicians glamour by attending fundraisers, and actual cold hard cash, you won't find anyone in the government willing to speak out against Big Content. The only thing that can change this is public opinion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>or not .
Obama or not , remember that Hollywood greases Republican and Democrat pockets alike .
Many of the big guys at the MPAA and RIAA are Democrats too , which must surely help.As long as Hollywood gives politicians glamour by attending fundraisers , and actual cold hard cash , you wo n't find anyone in the government willing to speak out against Big Content .
The only thing that can change this is public opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or not.
Obama or not, remember that Hollywood greases Republican and Democrat pockets alike.
Many of the big guys at the MPAA and RIAA are Democrats too, which must surely help.As long as Hollywood gives politicians glamour by attending fundraisers, and actual cold hard cash, you won't find anyone in the government willing to speak out against Big Content.
The only thing that can change this is public opinion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837968</id>
	<title>Re:Crap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263983520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't get it. Who were we supposed to vote for?</p><p>Only Obama and McCain had any real chance of winning (sorry guys, the Green Party and Libertarians have been, and always will be, fringe groups run by potheads with a pro-drug agenda) and it was beyond obvious that McCain was willing to run this country into the ground for the sake of the almighty dollar. So I picked Obama, mainly because I love America and want the best for this country. But has he delivered?</p></div><p>Then you are to blame. You voted for the guy, and are now reaping the "rewards" of it. You have many choices as there are many parties out there, the only ones who keep them from gaining strength are people like you who say it's hopeless. If you don't like the two parties then vote for a different one. Voting the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil, and still leavers you responsible. In the end dose it matter if your candidate doesn't get elected? Would you call it a wasted vote if you voted for a republican and lost? How about a democrat? If not then why would you call it a wasted vote if you voted for a third party and found they didn't win? They can win if people weren't so pessimistic about it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't get it .
Who were we supposed to vote for ? Only Obama and McCain had any real chance of winning ( sorry guys , the Green Party and Libertarians have been , and always will be , fringe groups run by potheads with a pro-drug agenda ) and it was beyond obvious that McCain was willing to run this country into the ground for the sake of the almighty dollar .
So I picked Obama , mainly because I love America and want the best for this country .
But has he delivered ? Then you are to blame .
You voted for the guy , and are now reaping the " rewards " of it .
You have many choices as there are many parties out there , the only ones who keep them from gaining strength are people like you who say it 's hopeless .
If you do n't like the two parties then vote for a different one .
Voting the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil , and still leavers you responsible .
In the end dose it matter if your candidate does n't get elected ?
Would you call it a wasted vote if you voted for a republican and lost ?
How about a democrat ?
If not then why would you call it a wasted vote if you voted for a third party and found they did n't win ?
They can win if people were n't so pessimistic about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't get it.
Who were we supposed to vote for?Only Obama and McCain had any real chance of winning (sorry guys, the Green Party and Libertarians have been, and always will be, fringe groups run by potheads with a pro-drug agenda) and it was beyond obvious that McCain was willing to run this country into the ground for the sake of the almighty dollar.
So I picked Obama, mainly because I love America and want the best for this country.
But has he delivered?Then you are to blame.
You voted for the guy, and are now reaping the "rewards" of it.
You have many choices as there are many parties out there, the only ones who keep them from gaining strength are people like you who say it's hopeless.
If you don't like the two parties then vote for a different one.
Voting the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil, and still leavers you responsible.
In the end dose it matter if your candidate doesn't get elected?
Would you call it a wasted vote if you voted for a republican and lost?
How about a democrat?
If not then why would you call it a wasted vote if you voted for a third party and found they didn't win?
They can win if people weren't so pessimistic about it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30840096</id>
	<title>My, oh, my!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263992160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So how's that "hope and change" working out for you now?<br><br>Fools.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So how 's that " hope and change " working out for you now ? Fools .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So how's that "hope and change" working out for you now?Fools.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30842572</id>
	<title>Re:Hope my @ss.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264011660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously Americans. The simple fact that the corporate media shoved Obama down you're throats should had given the game away immediately. You're all slaves and you don't even realize it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously Americans .
The simple fact that the corporate media shoved Obama down you 're throats should had given the game away immediately .
You 're all slaves and you do n't even realize it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously Americans.
The simple fact that the corporate media shoved Obama down you're throats should had given the game away immediately.
You're all slaves and you don't even realize it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838582</id>
	<title>Re:Hope my @ss.</title>
	<author>locallyunscene</author>
	<datestamp>1263985620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>3/4. Gitmo is being closed, even though everyone is yelling about the "folly" of bringing these criminals back to American soil.</htmltext>
<tokenext>3/4 .
Gitmo is being closed , even though everyone is yelling about the " folly " of bringing these criminals back to American soil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3/4.
Gitmo is being closed, even though everyone is yelling about the "folly" of bringing these criminals back to American soil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837714</id>
	<title>just returning the favor</title>
	<author>exabrial</author>
	<datestamp>1263982680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The media fell in love with Obama during his election campaign. Don't think they won't come asking for favors later, and don't be surprised at the response.

My new voting strategy: Find out who Tom Cruise is voting for. Vote for the other guy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The media fell in love with Obama during his election campaign .
Do n't think they wo n't come asking for favors later , and do n't be surprised at the response .
My new voting strategy : Find out who Tom Cruise is voting for .
Vote for the other guy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The media fell in love with Obama during his election campaign.
Don't think they won't come asking for favors later, and don't be surprised at the response.
My new voting strategy: Find out who Tom Cruise is voting for.
Vote for the other guy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839500</id>
	<title>This is what we get with the big O in charge....</title>
	<author>m509272</author>
	<datestamp>1263989400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is what we get with the big O in charge....  OPRAH had a major to do with getting him in, what group of people do you think obama is going to be beholden to?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is what we get with the big O in charge.... OPRAH had a major to do with getting him in , what group of people do you think obama is going to be beholden to ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is what we get with the big O in charge....  OPRAH had a major to do with getting him in, what group of people do you think obama is going to be beholden to?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30840354</id>
	<title>Re:Hope and Change, baby!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263993480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Remocrats</p></div></blockquote><p>Jinkies!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>RemocratsJinkies !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RemocratsJinkies!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30840814</id>
	<title>Problem is UPLOADING, not downloading</title>
	<author>ljw1004</author>
	<datestamp>1263996300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The DOJ brief only ever talks about "downloading and distribute", or (page 15) just "distributing" on its own.</p><p>The brief said that when you offer a song for distribution, it's hard to know how many people you've distributed it to. The number might be enormous. And so you're penalized between $750 and $30,000 for distributing it to this unknown number of people.</p><p>As to the penalty for downloading on its own, without distribution? -- NO ONE KNOWS. I don't think this issue has ever come to court. I can't imagine that it ever could come to court. The DOJ has not touched upon it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The DOJ brief only ever talks about " downloading and distribute " , or ( page 15 ) just " distributing " on its own.The brief said that when you offer a song for distribution , it 's hard to know how many people you 've distributed it to .
The number might be enormous .
And so you 're penalized between $ 750 and $ 30,000 for distributing it to this unknown number of people.As to the penalty for downloading on its own , without distribution ?
-- NO ONE KNOWS .
I do n't think this issue has ever come to court .
I ca n't imagine that it ever could come to court .
The DOJ has not touched upon it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The DOJ brief only ever talks about "downloading and distribute", or (page 15) just "distributing" on its own.The brief said that when you offer a song for distribution, it's hard to know how many people you've distributed it to.
The number might be enormous.
And so you're penalized between $750 and $30,000 for distributing it to this unknown number of people.As to the penalty for downloading on its own, without distribution?
-- NO ONE KNOWS.
I don't think this issue has ever come to court.
I can't imagine that it ever could come to court.
The DOJ has not touched upon it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30842400</id>
	<title>Poor assumptions.</title>
	<author>Bartab</author>
	<datestamp>1264010280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"Despite having had some time to get their act together,</i></p><p>The oddest thing I find is the assumption that the Democrats are not beholden to corporate interest groups. When in fact, they are even moreso than Republicans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Despite having had some time to get their act together,The oddest thing I find is the assumption that the Democrats are not beholden to corporate interest groups .
When in fact , they are even moreso than Republicans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Despite having had some time to get their act together,The oddest thing I find is the assumption that the Democrats are not beholden to corporate interest groups.
When in fact, they are even moreso than Republicans.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838218</id>
	<title>Re:Deep breaths here people</title>
	<author>cptdondo</author>
	<datestamp>1263984360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The DOJ can choose to allocate resources to certain things.  They have, in the past, chosen not to defend a particular law vigorously.  Conversely, they seem to be putting a lot of effort and resources behind this law.</p><p>They can choose not to file a brief and simply allow the court to rule but they've chosen to devote resources to this battle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The DOJ can choose to allocate resources to certain things .
They have , in the past , chosen not to defend a particular law vigorously .
Conversely , they seem to be putting a lot of effort and resources behind this law.They can choose not to file a brief and simply allow the court to rule but they 've chosen to devote resources to this battle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The DOJ can choose to allocate resources to certain things.
They have, in the past, chosen not to defend a particular law vigorously.
Conversely, they seem to be putting a lot of effort and resources behind this law.They can choose not to file a brief and simply allow the court to rule but they've chosen to devote resources to this battle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30852392</id>
	<title>Re:Hope and Change, baby!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264071540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No one will stand against Big Content if the Democrats aren't.</p><p>Republicans will maintain the status quo as a matter of principle; big business takes precedence over individual rights and justice, even when dollars aren't necessarily calling out to them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No one will stand against Big Content if the Democrats are n't.Republicans will maintain the status quo as a matter of principle ; big business takes precedence over individual rights and justice , even when dollars are n't necessarily calling out to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one will stand against Big Content if the Democrats aren't.Republicans will maintain the status quo as a matter of principle; big business takes precedence over individual rights and justice, even when dollars aren't necessarily calling out to them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30841250</id>
	<title>Re:Hope and Change, baby!</title>
	<author>digitrev</author>
	<datestamp>1263999720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or you could try doing it the Canadian way. It's not the best method, but it sort of works.
<br> <br>
Here are the rules of the game. (NB: all limits are adjusted for inflation annually)
<br> <br>
1. Individual limits:<br>
a) $5000/year to each registered party<br>
b) $5000/year to a leadership candidate in a registered party<br>
c) $5000/year to independents<br>
2. Corporation limits:<br>
a) $1000/year to each registered party (includes leadership candidates)<br>
b) $1000/year to independents<br>
c) In the case of two elections in a year, another $1000 to the any party originally donated to<br>
d) $1000 to a failed leadership candidate they already donated to<br>
3. Public funding<br>
a) After passing a particular threshold (2\% nationally or 5\% locally), a party will receive $1.75/vote.<br>
4. Spending limits<br>
a) $0.70 per eligible voter in your district<br>
b) 20\% of that for nomination contests
<br> <br>
This has the following effects.
<br> <br>
1. Companies/corporations hold less power. Yes they have a higher chance of donating the maximum, but a rich individual can easily "outdonate" a company.<br>
2. Everyone in a given district has the same spending limit. Going over it incurs some heavy penalties. This means that there's less incentive to try and get as much money as you can, because you can't spend it all.<br>
3. The public funding money allows parties to not worry so much about private funds, and thus reducing the sway of lobbyists.
<br> <br>
Like I said, it isn't perfect, but it seems like it's a hell of a lot better than the current American system.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or you could try doing it the Canadian way .
It 's not the best method , but it sort of works .
Here are the rules of the game .
( NB : all limits are adjusted for inflation annually ) 1 .
Individual limits : a ) $ 5000/year to each registered party b ) $ 5000/year to a leadership candidate in a registered party c ) $ 5000/year to independents 2 .
Corporation limits : a ) $ 1000/year to each registered party ( includes leadership candidates ) b ) $ 1000/year to independents c ) In the case of two elections in a year , another $ 1000 to the any party originally donated to d ) $ 1000 to a failed leadership candidate they already donated to 3 .
Public funding a ) After passing a particular threshold ( 2 \ % nationally or 5 \ % locally ) , a party will receive $ 1.75/vote .
4. Spending limits a ) $ 0.70 per eligible voter in your district b ) 20 \ % of that for nomination contests This has the following effects .
1. Companies/corporations hold less power .
Yes they have a higher chance of donating the maximum , but a rich individual can easily " outdonate " a company .
2. Everyone in a given district has the same spending limit .
Going over it incurs some heavy penalties .
This means that there 's less incentive to try and get as much money as you can , because you ca n't spend it all .
3. The public funding money allows parties to not worry so much about private funds , and thus reducing the sway of lobbyists .
Like I said , it is n't perfect , but it seems like it 's a hell of a lot better than the current American system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or you could try doing it the Canadian way.
It's not the best method, but it sort of works.
Here are the rules of the game.
(NB: all limits are adjusted for inflation annually)
 
1.
Individual limits:
a) $5000/year to each registered party
b) $5000/year to a leadership candidate in a registered party
c) $5000/year to independents
2.
Corporation limits:
a) $1000/year to each registered party (includes leadership candidates)
b) $1000/year to independents
c) In the case of two elections in a year, another $1000 to the any party originally donated to
d) $1000 to a failed leadership candidate they already donated to
3.
Public funding
a) After passing a particular threshold (2\% nationally or 5\% locally), a party will receive $1.75/vote.
4. Spending limits
a) $0.70 per eligible voter in your district
b) 20\% of that for nomination contests
 
This has the following effects.
1. Companies/corporations hold less power.
Yes they have a higher chance of donating the maximum, but a rich individual can easily "outdonate" a company.
2. Everyone in a given district has the same spending limit.
Going over it incurs some heavy penalties.
This means that there's less incentive to try and get as much money as you can, because you can't spend it all.
3. The public funding money allows parties to not worry so much about private funds, and thus reducing the sway of lobbyists.
Like I said, it isn't perfect, but it seems like it's a hell of a lot better than the current American system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839764</id>
	<title>Re:Hope and Change, baby!</title>
	<author>JesseMcDonald</author>
	<datestamp>1263990720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>... you will suddenly realise that the great majority is a whole heap of actually necessary small things that add up.</p></div><p>It may look that way at first, but most of those "necessary" things weren't even invented until the last century or so, and society managed to work just fine without them. Perhaps they aren't really so necessary after all?</p><p>Even if the government was completely honest, competent, and efficient&mdash;an economic impossibility, but we'll let that slide for the purposes of this discussion&mdash;it's still doing the <em>wrong</em> things. Put another way, the real measure of government is in how well it achieves its <em>mandate</em>, not how well the various departments achieve the goals the set for themselves. By that measure, everything it does which does not contribute toward its mandate (a.k.a. scope creep) is a guaranteed source of <em>inefficiency</em>. Finally, it's important that the mandate itself be minimal&mdash;including only those things both necessary to civilization and impossible to achieve without the use of force&mdash;because non-aggression is the key to human civilization. The only justification for employing force must be that failing to do so would be deadlier still. (I am not persuaded that any such situation exists, ergo I see no difference between minarchy and anarchy. Others obviously disagree.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... you will suddenly realise that the great majority is a whole heap of actually necessary small things that add up.It may look that way at first , but most of those " necessary " things were n't even invented until the last century or so , and society managed to work just fine without them .
Perhaps they are n't really so necessary after all ? Even if the government was completely honest , competent , and efficient    an economic impossibility , but we 'll let that slide for the purposes of this discussion    it 's still doing the wrong things .
Put another way , the real measure of government is in how well it achieves its mandate , not how well the various departments achieve the goals the set for themselves .
By that measure , everything it does which does not contribute toward its mandate ( a.k.a .
scope creep ) is a guaranteed source of inefficiency .
Finally , it 's important that the mandate itself be minimal    including only those things both necessary to civilization and impossible to achieve without the use of force    because non-aggression is the key to human civilization .
The only justification for employing force must be that failing to do so would be deadlier still .
( I am not persuaded that any such situation exists , ergo I see no difference between minarchy and anarchy .
Others obviously disagree .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... you will suddenly realise that the great majority is a whole heap of actually necessary small things that add up.It may look that way at first, but most of those "necessary" things weren't even invented until the last century or so, and society managed to work just fine without them.
Perhaps they aren't really so necessary after all?Even if the government was completely honest, competent, and efficient—an economic impossibility, but we'll let that slide for the purposes of this discussion—it's still doing the wrong things.
Put another way, the real measure of government is in how well it achieves its mandate, not how well the various departments achieve the goals the set for themselves.
By that measure, everything it does which does not contribute toward its mandate (a.k.a.
scope creep) is a guaranteed source of inefficiency.
Finally, it's important that the mandate itself be minimal—including only those things both necessary to civilization and impossible to achieve without the use of force—because non-aggression is the key to human civilization.
The only justification for employing force must be that failing to do so would be deadlier still.
(I am not persuaded that any such situation exists, ergo I see no difference between minarchy and anarchy.
Others obviously disagree.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30845880</id>
	<title>Re:Hope and Change, baby!</title>
	<author>rgviza</author>
	<datestamp>1264089540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forgot about the Republicrats. It's a 3 party system!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot about the Republicrats .
It 's a 3 party system !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot about the Republicrats.
It's a 3 party system!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837744</id>
	<title>Re:Hope and Change, baby!</title>
	<author>Foobar of Borg</author>
	<datestamp>1263982800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Obama or not, remember that Hollywood greases Republican and Democrat pockets alike.</p></div></blockquote><p>Given some of the scandals we actually know about, I would guess that they are greasing more than just the *pockets* of the Dems and Repubs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama or not , remember that Hollywood greases Republican and Democrat pockets alike.Given some of the scandals we actually know about , I would guess that they are greasing more than just the * pockets * of the Dems and Repubs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama or not, remember that Hollywood greases Republican and Democrat pockets alike.Given some of the scandals we actually know about, I would guess that they are greasing more than just the *pockets* of the Dems and Repubs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837596</id>
	<title>DOJ? or</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263982260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looking at their actions i think a new name is in order, how about Department of Corporatism? maybe fascism? thats streching a bit isnt it? for now...</p><p>ps. you may mark as flamebait, don't care its my judging of that institution as by their actions wich themselfs help prove my point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looking at their actions i think a new name is in order , how about Department of Corporatism ?
maybe fascism ?
thats streching a bit isnt it ?
for now...ps .
you may mark as flamebait , do n't care its my judging of that institution as by their actions wich themselfs help prove my point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looking at their actions i think a new name is in order, how about Department of Corporatism?
maybe fascism?
thats streching a bit isnt it?
for now...ps.
you may mark as flamebait, don't care its my judging of that institution as by their actions wich themselfs help prove my point.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30844620</id>
	<title>Re:Hope and Change, baby!</title>
	<author>thepooh81</author>
	<datestamp>1264081080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>New Hampshire!! New England's non-fail state (but apparently Mass is looking up now-a-days)</p><p>Unfortunately I didn't hear about the FSP until after I moved to NH but I'm glad we chose the same place<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>New Hampshire ! !
New England 's non-fail state ( but apparently Mass is looking up now-a-days ) Unfortunately I did n't hear about the FSP until after I moved to NH but I 'm glad we chose the same place : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>New Hampshire!!
New England's non-fail state (but apparently Mass is looking up now-a-days)Unfortunately I didn't hear about the FSP until after I moved to NH but I'm glad we chose the same place :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837742</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30840120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30842236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30840070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30852392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30840864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30840630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30844620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30841008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30840036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30842572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30840902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30840624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30844610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30840316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30840986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30843522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30842292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30850266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30841496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30853078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30847954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30840050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30967302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30845198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30843630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30845252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30851218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30842290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30845880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30841074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30840814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30843958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30841250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30840874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30841448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30849388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30841832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30841662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30841088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30846214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30844704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30840354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30840106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30843858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30847704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30840368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30841638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_211243_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30842408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_211243.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30840120
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_211243.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30853078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30841496
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_211243.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30840050
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_211243.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839256
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30842292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30841008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30842572
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_211243.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837854
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_211243.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839010
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_211243.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837588
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_211243.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30840864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30843630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838026
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30841638
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_211243.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838110
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_211243.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30841088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837930
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838626
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30845252
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_211243.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838084
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_211243.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30847704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837874
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30840036
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30845198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838596
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_211243.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30841448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30840630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30840986
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_211243.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30843828
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_211243.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838676
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30840368
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_211243.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30840106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837966
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837786
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838076
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_211243.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837742
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838842
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838538
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839764
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30844704
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30844610
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839476
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838776
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839904
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30842290
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30844620
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838762
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30850266
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30840874
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30840354
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30845880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837760
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838772
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838518
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839072
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30841832
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839478
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30841662
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30847954
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30851218
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30841250
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30842236
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30842408
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30852392
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30849388
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_211243.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839076
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_211243.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30840624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838340
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839262
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_211243.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30837968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30843858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30967302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30843522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838120
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30846214
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_211243.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30838176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30840070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30841074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30840316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30839286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30840902
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_211243.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30840814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_211243.30843958
</commentlist>
</conversation>
