<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_21_2014204</id>
	<title>Supreme Court Rolls Back Corporate Campaign Spending Limits</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1264062840000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>lorenlal writes <i>"The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCOTUS">Supreme Court of the United States</a> must have figured that restrictions on corporate support of candidates was a <a href="http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/296624.html">violation of free speech</a>, or <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-naw-campaign-finance22-2010jan22,0,4636984.story">something like that</a>."</i> From the AP story linked above:
<i>"By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>lorenlal writes " The Supreme Court of the United States must have figured that restrictions on corporate support of candidates was a violation of free speech , or something like that .
" From the AP story linked above : " By a 5-4 vote , the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for campaign ads .
The decision , which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns , threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lorenlal writes "The Supreme Court of the United States must have figured that restrictions on corporate support of candidates was a violation of free speech, or something like that.
" From the AP story linked above:
"By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for campaign ads.
The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30854128</id>
	<title>Coining it now...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264078020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Corporatacracy.</p><p>My word. I have copyright.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Corporatacracy.My word .
I have copyright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Corporatacracy.My word.
I have copyright.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853452</id>
	<title>Re:Both good and bad ways aspects</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1264075260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It should be apparent from the election of Obama that if a lot of people actually care about a candidate they can give in both time and money a lot more than even many large corporations</p></div><p>Right.  Poor large corporations are so powerless when dealing with individuals.  After all, the common man has so many more resources at his fingertips.
</p><p>Who said corporations are supposed to be involved in the political process anyway?  They're not people.  They don't get a vote.  Let's stop talking about this abstractly for a second: when a "corporation" donates money to a candidate, that means that a person or a set of people running a company decided who do donate money to and they directed those funds to that candidate.  AFAIK, for me to donate more than a couple thousand dollars is illegal.  Meanwhile, some guy running a corporation can donate as much as he wants to whoever he wants?  Why, because he's wearing a special magic "corporation" hat?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It should be apparent from the election of Obama that if a lot of people actually care about a candidate they can give in both time and money a lot more than even many large corporationsRight .
Poor large corporations are so powerless when dealing with individuals .
After all , the common man has so many more resources at his fingertips .
Who said corporations are supposed to be involved in the political process anyway ?
They 're not people .
They do n't get a vote .
Let 's stop talking about this abstractly for a second : when a " corporation " donates money to a candidate , that means that a person or a set of people running a company decided who do donate money to and they directed those funds to that candidate .
AFAIK , for me to donate more than a couple thousand dollars is illegal .
Meanwhile , some guy running a corporation can donate as much as he wants to whoever he wants ?
Why , because he 's wearing a special magic " corporation " hat ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It should be apparent from the election of Obama that if a lot of people actually care about a candidate they can give in both time and money a lot more than even many large corporationsRight.
Poor large corporations are so powerless when dealing with individuals.
After all, the common man has so many more resources at his fingertips.
Who said corporations are supposed to be involved in the political process anyway?
They're not people.
They don't get a vote.
Let's stop talking about this abstractly for a second: when a "corporation" donates money to a candidate, that means that a person or a set of people running a company decided who do donate money to and they directed those funds to that candidate.
AFAIK, for me to donate more than a couple thousand dollars is illegal.
Meanwhile, some guy running a corporation can donate as much as he wants to whoever he wants?
Why, because he's wearing a special magic "corporation" hat?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852258</id>
	<title>Re:Bad, bad news</title>
	<author>SETIGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1264071180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think, at that time, there had ever been a company powerful enough to fully control a government.  I also don't think that the founding fathers considered money to be synonymous with free speech.  I don't think any of them would have considered guaranteeing free speech as an equivalent to guaranteeing the right to bribery.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think , at that time , there had ever been a company powerful enough to fully control a government .
I also do n't think that the founding fathers considered money to be synonymous with free speech .
I do n't think any of them would have considered guaranteeing free speech as an equivalent to guaranteeing the right to bribery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think, at that time, there had ever been a company powerful enough to fully control a government.
I also don't think that the founding fathers considered money to be synonymous with free speech.
I don't think any of them would have considered guaranteeing free speech as an equivalent to guaranteeing the right to bribery.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30854276</id>
	<title>But officer</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1264078800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wasn't paying her for sex, I was just exercising my free speech rights to protest prostitution laws.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was n't paying her for sex , I was just exercising my free speech rights to protest prostitution laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wasn't paying her for sex, I was just exercising my free speech rights to protest prostitution laws.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30856124</id>
	<title>Re:Bad, bad news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264092960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And I'm always amazed at how libertarians think natural right philosophy ended in the 18th century with no further debate. The notion of individual rights came from brilliant men working hard to separate themselves as individuals out from under a monarchy. I'll agree that certain rights are fundamental for a just society, but that those rights don't exist prior to society.</p><p>Indeed, all of your rights come from the government, whether it is through a carefully reasoned and consensual process (of which we in the U.S. are the lucky inheritors), or through an oppressive cultural revolution a la China. Google dislikes the latter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I 'm always amazed at how libertarians think natural right philosophy ended in the 18th century with no further debate .
The notion of individual rights came from brilliant men working hard to separate themselves as individuals out from under a monarchy .
I 'll agree that certain rights are fundamental for a just society , but that those rights do n't exist prior to society.Indeed , all of your rights come from the government , whether it is through a carefully reasoned and consensual process ( of which we in the U.S. are the lucky inheritors ) , or through an oppressive cultural revolution a la China .
Google dislikes the latter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I'm always amazed at how libertarians think natural right philosophy ended in the 18th century with no further debate.
The notion of individual rights came from brilliant men working hard to separate themselves as individuals out from under a monarchy.
I'll agree that certain rights are fundamental for a just society, but that those rights don't exist prior to society.Indeed, all of your rights come from the government, whether it is through a carefully reasoned and consensual process (of which we in the U.S. are the lucky inheritors), or through an oppressive cultural revolution a la China.
Google dislikes the latter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851784</id>
	<title>Groups aren't people</title>
	<author>Dog-Cow</author>
	<datestamp>1264069740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No organization of any kind should be permitted to make campaign contributions.  If a number of like-minded individuals wish to support a campaign, they can all make individual contributions.</p><p>I don't care if Bill Ford donates a few million in order to elect someone who will retard updates to CAFE standards.  I have a huge issue with Ford Motor doing the same thing.</p><p>The Constitution should defend and protect people and their interests.  Corporations and groups of any kind may exist, but they should not have a financial voice in Government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No organization of any kind should be permitted to make campaign contributions .
If a number of like-minded individuals wish to support a campaign , they can all make individual contributions.I do n't care if Bill Ford donates a few million in order to elect someone who will retard updates to CAFE standards .
I have a huge issue with Ford Motor doing the same thing.The Constitution should defend and protect people and their interests .
Corporations and groups of any kind may exist , but they should not have a financial voice in Government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No organization of any kind should be permitted to make campaign contributions.
If a number of like-minded individuals wish to support a campaign, they can all make individual contributions.I don't care if Bill Ford donates a few million in order to elect someone who will retard updates to CAFE standards.
I have a huge issue with Ford Motor doing the same thing.The Constitution should defend and protect people and their interests.
Corporations and groups of any kind may exist, but they should not have a financial voice in Government.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30860652</id>
	<title>Re:A great victory for free speech!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264181760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i><br>Corporations are voluntary contracts between individuals, and those individuals have rights, period. If some of you Slashdot commies fail to comprehend that, that is your problem and yours alone.<br></i> </p><p>"Under today's decision, multinational corporations controlled by foreign governments" would have the same rights as Americans to spend money to tilt U.S. elections."</p><p>-Justice Stevens, dissenting.</p></div><p>Nope.</p><p>It's illegal for individuals to knowingly provide assistance to foreign nationals in the making of contributions, donations, and expenditures in both non-federal and federal elections. I'd guess that the same rules now apply to American corporations.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Corporations are voluntary contracts between individuals , and those individuals have rights , period .
If some of you Slashdot commies fail to comprehend that , that is your problem and yours alone .
" Under today 's decision , multinational corporations controlled by foreign governments " would have the same rights as Americans to spend money to tilt U.S .
elections. " -Justice Stevens , dissenting.Nope.It 's illegal for individuals to knowingly provide assistance to foreign nationals in the making of contributions , donations , and expenditures in both non-federal and federal elections .
I 'd guess that the same rules now apply to American corporations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Corporations are voluntary contracts between individuals, and those individuals have rights, period.
If some of you Slashdot commies fail to comprehend that, that is your problem and yours alone.
"Under today's decision, multinational corporations controlled by foreign governments" would have the same rights as Americans to spend money to tilt U.S.
elections."-Justice Stevens, dissenting.Nope.It's illegal for individuals to knowingly provide assistance to foreign nationals in the making of contributions, donations, and expenditures in both non-federal and federal elections.
I'd guess that the same rules now apply to American corporations.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30854998</id>
	<title>Funding advocacy against your interests</title>
	<author>kindbud</author>
	<datestamp>1264083120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the time-honored traditions of the US of A, greatest nation on earth, corporations will simply pass onto us the costs of their campaign advertisements.  We will get to fund advocacy whether or not we think it is in our interest.</p><p>If you don't like it, you can always just stop buying things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the time-honored traditions of the US of A , greatest nation on earth , corporations will simply pass onto us the costs of their campaign advertisements .
We will get to fund advocacy whether or not we think it is in our interest.If you do n't like it , you can always just stop buying things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the time-honored traditions of the US of A, greatest nation on earth, corporations will simply pass onto us the costs of their campaign advertisements.
We will get to fund advocacy whether or not we think it is in our interest.If you don't like it, you can always just stop buying things.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30867662</id>
	<title>Re:Welcome to Fascism</title>
	<author>seekertom</author>
	<datestamp>1264277760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"The law is what makes it possible for people to remain ethical. " I think what you said is pretty much truth, but I'll add that what you theorize as a possible future result of possible negative actions, has in fact, already happened to us. Corporations are well ''round the bend', lacking ethics simply because they have the resources to believe that the cost of breaking the law is just another cost of doing business. You and I remain ethical because we fear jail, but a corporation can't be jailed, only fined. We remain ethical because we fear a large fine, but corporations never pay a fine, they just extract a bit more from us. Therefore, they are above the law, and it is the law that protects human welfare. As for "life is still good for most of us", I wonder at your definition of good.... (remember the frog in a pot at room temp+3degrees. He's happy now, but the flames just went up a notch!)  thanks fer lis'nin'   seekertom</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The law is what makes it possible for people to remain ethical .
" I think what you said is pretty much truth , but I 'll add that what you theorize as a possible future result of possible negative actions , has in fact , already happened to us .
Corporations are well ''round the bend ' , lacking ethics simply because they have the resources to believe that the cost of breaking the law is just another cost of doing business .
You and I remain ethical because we fear jail , but a corporation ca n't be jailed , only fined .
We remain ethical because we fear a large fine , but corporations never pay a fine , they just extract a bit more from us .
Therefore , they are above the law , and it is the law that protects human welfare .
As for " life is still good for most of us " , I wonder at your definition of good.... ( remember the frog in a pot at room temp + 3degrees .
He 's happy now , but the flames just went up a notch !
) thanks fer lis'nin ' seekertom</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The law is what makes it possible for people to remain ethical.
" I think what you said is pretty much truth, but I'll add that what you theorize as a possible future result of possible negative actions, has in fact, already happened to us.
Corporations are well ''round the bend', lacking ethics simply because they have the resources to believe that the cost of breaking the law is just another cost of doing business.
You and I remain ethical because we fear jail, but a corporation can't be jailed, only fined.
We remain ethical because we fear a large fine, but corporations never pay a fine, they just extract a bit more from us.
Therefore, they are above the law, and it is the law that protects human welfare.
As for "life is still good for most of us", I wonder at your definition of good.... (remember the frog in a pot at room temp+3degrees.
He's happy now, but the flames just went up a notch!
)  thanks fer lis'nin'   seekertom</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30855242</id>
	<title>Re:Free sppech?</title>
	<author>Philip\_the\_physicist</author>
	<datestamp>1264085040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know the US tax laws, but where I am, corporation tax is 30 of net, whereas for an individual pays a progressive tax on gross income, and the effective rate is over 30\% for those earning over ~US$106k (3 times the median income), increasing asymptotically to 45\%.<br>With a  bit of handwaving, it is obvious that most corporations would have more than 3 employees, and so even apart from the greatly increased tax bill involved in the switch from net to gross income,  they would almost all be paying a higher rate.</p><p>Of course, if both individuals and corporations were taxed on the same system, the system would need to be massively redesigned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know the US tax laws , but where I am , corporation tax is 30 of net , whereas for an individual pays a progressive tax on gross income , and the effective rate is over 30 \ % for those earning over ~ US $ 106k ( 3 times the median income ) , increasing asymptotically to 45 \ % .With a bit of handwaving , it is obvious that most corporations would have more than 3 employees , and so even apart from the greatly increased tax bill involved in the switch from net to gross income , they would almost all be paying a higher rate.Of course , if both individuals and corporations were taxed on the same system , the system would need to be massively redesigned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know the US tax laws, but where I am, corporation tax is 30 of net, whereas for an individual pays a progressive tax on gross income, and the effective rate is over 30\% for those earning over ~US$106k (3 times the median income), increasing asymptotically to 45\%.With a  bit of handwaving, it is obvious that most corporations would have more than 3 employees, and so even apart from the greatly increased tax bill involved in the switch from net to gross income,  they would almost all be paying a higher rate.Of course, if both individuals and corporations were taxed on the same system, the system would need to be massively redesigned.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851288</id>
	<title>Re:I for one, welcome our Chinese Overlords</title>
	<author>DigiShaman</author>
	<datestamp>1264068240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quote from from the fec.gov. <a href="http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/foreign.shtml#PAC\_Contributions" title="fec.gov">http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/foreign.shtml#PAC\_Contributions</a> [fec.gov] </p><blockquote><div><p> <b>PAC Contributions for Federal Activity</b></p><p>A domestic subsidiary of a foreign corporation may not establish a federal political action committee (PAC) to make federal contributions if:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 1. The foreign parent corporation finances the PAC's establishment, administration, or solicitation costs; or<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 2. Individual foreign nationals:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Participate in the operation of the PAC;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Serve as officers of the PAC;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Participated in the selection of persons who operate the PAC; or<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Make decisions regarding PAC contributions or expenditure.  11 CFR 110.20(i).<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (See also AOs 2000-17, 1995-15, 1990-8, 1989-29, and 1989-20.)</p></div></blockquote><p>and</p><blockquote><div><p> <b>Soliciting, Accepting, or Receiving Contributions and Donations from Foreign Nationals</b></p><p>As noted earlier, the Act prohibits knowingly soliciting, accepting or receiving contributions or donations from foreign nationals.  In this context, "knowingly" means that a person:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Has actual knowledge that the funds solicited, accepted, or received are from a foreign national;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Is aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the funds solicited, accepted, or received are likely to be from a foreign national;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Is aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to inquire whether the source of the funds solicited, accepted or received is a foreign national.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 11 CFR 110.20(a)(4)(i), (ii) and (iii).</p><p>Pertinent facts that may lead to inquiry by the recipient include, but are not limited to the following: A donor or contributor uses a foreign passport, provides a foreign address,</p><p>makes a contribution from a foreign bank, or resides abroad.  Obtaining a copy of a current and valid U.S. passport would satisfy the duty to inquire whether the funds solicited, accepted, or received are from a foreign national.  11 CFR 110.20(a)(7).</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quote from from the fec.gov .
http : //www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/foreign.shtml # PAC \ _Contributions [ fec.gov ] PAC Contributions for Federal ActivityA domestic subsidiary of a foreign corporation may not establish a federal political action committee ( PAC ) to make federal contributions if :       1 .
The foreign parent corporation finances the PAC 's establishment , administration , or solicitation costs ; or       2 .
Individual foreign nationals :                     * Participate in the operation of the PAC ;                     * Serve as officers of the PAC ;                     * Participated in the selection of persons who operate the PAC ; or                     * Make decisions regarding PAC contributions or expenditure .
11 CFR 110.20 ( i ) .
                        ( See also AOs 2000-17 , 1995-15 , 1990-8 , 1989-29 , and 1989-20 .
) and Soliciting , Accepting , or Receiving Contributions and Donations from Foreign NationalsAs noted earlier , the Act prohibits knowingly soliciting , accepting or receiving contributions or donations from foreign nationals .
In this context , " knowingly " means that a person :         * Has actual knowledge that the funds solicited , accepted , or received are from a foreign national ;         * Is aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the funds solicited , accepted , or received are likely to be from a foreign national ;         * Is aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to inquire whether the source of the funds solicited , accepted or received is a foreign national .
            11 CFR 110.20 ( a ) ( 4 ) ( i ) , ( ii ) and ( iii ) .Pertinent facts that may lead to inquiry by the recipient include , but are not limited to the following : A donor or contributor uses a foreign passport , provides a foreign address,makes a contribution from a foreign bank , or resides abroad .
Obtaining a copy of a current and valid U.S. passport would satisfy the duty to inquire whether the funds solicited , accepted , or received are from a foreign national .
11 CFR 110.20 ( a ) ( 7 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quote from from the fec.gov.
http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/foreign.shtml#PAC\_Contributions [fec.gov]  PAC Contributions for Federal ActivityA domestic subsidiary of a foreign corporation may not establish a federal political action committee (PAC) to make federal contributions if:
      1.
The foreign parent corporation finances the PAC's establishment, administration, or solicitation costs; or
      2.
Individual foreign nationals:
                    * Participate in the operation of the PAC;
                    * Serve as officers of the PAC;
                    * Participated in the selection of persons who operate the PAC; or
                    * Make decisions regarding PAC contributions or expenditure.
11 CFR 110.20(i).
                        (See also AOs 2000-17, 1995-15, 1990-8, 1989-29, and 1989-20.
)and Soliciting, Accepting, or Receiving Contributions and Donations from Foreign NationalsAs noted earlier, the Act prohibits knowingly soliciting, accepting or receiving contributions or donations from foreign nationals.
In this context, "knowingly" means that a person:
        * Has actual knowledge that the funds solicited, accepted, or received are from a foreign national;
        * Is aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the funds solicited, accepted, or received are likely to be from a foreign national;
        * Is aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to inquire whether the source of the funds solicited, accepted or received is a foreign national.
            11 CFR 110.20(a)(4)(i), (ii) and (iii).Pertinent facts that may lead to inquiry by the recipient include, but are not limited to the following: A donor or contributor uses a foreign passport, provides a foreign address,makes a contribution from a foreign bank, or resides abroad.
Obtaining a copy of a current and valid U.S. passport would satisfy the duty to inquire whether the funds solicited, accepted, or received are from a foreign national.
11 CFR 110.20(a)(7).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851886</id>
	<title>Re:Free sppech?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264070040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're either being facetious or you're mentally retarded.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're either being facetious or you 're mentally retarded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're either being facetious or you're mentally retarded.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850802</id>
	<title>Welcome to Fascism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264066800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The U(F)SA is now a de facto fascist state.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The U ( F ) SA is now a de facto fascist state .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The U(F)SA is now a de facto fascist state.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852438</id>
	<title>Re:Bad, bad news</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1264071720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The constitution doesn't give you, or a business formed by you and a friend, any rights. The constitution is there to limit the government's ability to take those rights away.</i></p><p>On the level of persons (not fake persons, real ones -- that arrived via a birth canal), you are correct.</p><p>On the level of businesses, you are incorrect.</p><p>Business charters (and union charters, and lobby articles of organization, etc) are all legal documents. They are constructs of, by, and for the people. They exist to serve us. They are not people. Their right to engage in trade is granted by us, through the government. The money they use for trade is a fiat of our government, authorized by us. Their right to engage in barter is severely restricted, because the dollars enable us to monitor them. Their trade is regulated. And most of all: They are not people.</p><p>Here's a simple test for their person-hood: When you dissolve a union (or corporation, or lobby), have you committed murder?</p><p>No? Then they are not poeple.</p><p>I love corporations (and I have a grudging acceptance for unions, and I despise lobbies). I think they are tremendously valuable constructs of a somewhat flawed attempt at free market economics which I believe still holds the hope of being the envy of the world (though I think we are on the wrong course at the moment). Corporations are great. But they are not people.</p><p>We The People come first. We the people, arrived on this Earth via birth canal, have rights. We choose to give up a small portion of our liberty to institute governments, which are our servants, not our masters. The government charters corporations, creates fiat money, and regulates trade. Freedom from government belongs to We The People. Corporations do not have rights. They don't have the right to life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. If a corporate raider attacks a corporation, slaughters it, and sells the meat for profit, he has done nothing wrong. Corporations are not people, and they have no rights.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The constitution does n't give you , or a business formed by you and a friend , any rights .
The constitution is there to limit the government 's ability to take those rights away.On the level of persons ( not fake persons , real ones -- that arrived via a birth canal ) , you are correct.On the level of businesses , you are incorrect.Business charters ( and union charters , and lobby articles of organization , etc ) are all legal documents .
They are constructs of , by , and for the people .
They exist to serve us .
They are not people .
Their right to engage in trade is granted by us , through the government .
The money they use for trade is a fiat of our government , authorized by us .
Their right to engage in barter is severely restricted , because the dollars enable us to monitor them .
Their trade is regulated .
And most of all : They are not people.Here 's a simple test for their person-hood : When you dissolve a union ( or corporation , or lobby ) , have you committed murder ? No ?
Then they are not poeple.I love corporations ( and I have a grudging acceptance for unions , and I despise lobbies ) .
I think they are tremendously valuable constructs of a somewhat flawed attempt at free market economics which I believe still holds the hope of being the envy of the world ( though I think we are on the wrong course at the moment ) .
Corporations are great .
But they are not people.We The People come first .
We the people , arrived on this Earth via birth canal , have rights .
We choose to give up a small portion of our liberty to institute governments , which are our servants , not our masters .
The government charters corporations , creates fiat money , and regulates trade .
Freedom from government belongs to We The People .
Corporations do not have rights .
They do n't have the right to life , liberty , or pursuit of happiness .
If a corporate raider attacks a corporation , slaughters it , and sells the meat for profit , he has done nothing wrong .
Corporations are not people , and they have no rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The constitution doesn't give you, or a business formed by you and a friend, any rights.
The constitution is there to limit the government's ability to take those rights away.On the level of persons (not fake persons, real ones -- that arrived via a birth canal), you are correct.On the level of businesses, you are incorrect.Business charters (and union charters, and lobby articles of organization, etc) are all legal documents.
They are constructs of, by, and for the people.
They exist to serve us.
They are not people.
Their right to engage in trade is granted by us, through the government.
The money they use for trade is a fiat of our government, authorized by us.
Their right to engage in barter is severely restricted, because the dollars enable us to monitor them.
Their trade is regulated.
And most of all: They are not people.Here's a simple test for their person-hood: When you dissolve a union (or corporation, or lobby), have you committed murder?No?
Then they are not poeple.I love corporations (and I have a grudging acceptance for unions, and I despise lobbies).
I think they are tremendously valuable constructs of a somewhat flawed attempt at free market economics which I believe still holds the hope of being the envy of the world (though I think we are on the wrong course at the moment).
Corporations are great.
But they are not people.We The People come first.
We the people, arrived on this Earth via birth canal, have rights.
We choose to give up a small portion of our liberty to institute governments, which are our servants, not our masters.
The government charters corporations, creates fiat money, and regulates trade.
Freedom from government belongs to We The People.
Corporations do not have rights.
They don't have the right to life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.
If a corporate raider attacks a corporation, slaughters it, and sells the meat for profit, he has done nothing wrong.
Corporations are not people, and they have no rights.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852766</id>
	<title>Re:Free sppech?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264072740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dont any of you people understand?  Every single dime that a corporation gets taxed is another dime that they raise the price of their widgets/services.  No corporation in the history of mankind has paid a dime of taxes.  the billions exxon mobil payed last year?  You paid the billions, not exxon, since all of the money they pay in taxes comes from their customers.  How is it possible that 99\% of the us population doesnt understand this?  It is amazingly simple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dont any of you people understand ?
Every single dime that a corporation gets taxed is another dime that they raise the price of their widgets/services .
No corporation in the history of mankind has paid a dime of taxes .
the billions exxon mobil payed last year ?
You paid the billions , not exxon , since all of the money they pay in taxes comes from their customers .
How is it possible that 99 \ % of the us population doesnt understand this ?
It is amazingly simple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dont any of you people understand?
Every single dime that a corporation gets taxed is another dime that they raise the price of their widgets/services.
No corporation in the history of mankind has paid a dime of taxes.
the billions exxon mobil payed last year?
You paid the billions, not exxon, since all of the money they pay in taxes comes from their customers.
How is it possible that 99\% of the us population doesnt understand this?
It is amazingly simple.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853192</id>
	<title>Re:I for one, welcome our Chinese Overlords</title>
	<author>SETIGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1264074300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A foreign corporation will no longer need to donate to a PAC in order to make political contributions.  Following this ruling it can buy advertising directly.
</p><p>
Therefore the rules applying to contributions to a PAC don't apply to the discussion at hand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A foreign corporation will no longer need to donate to a PAC in order to make political contributions .
Following this ruling it can buy advertising directly .
Therefore the rules applying to contributions to a PAC do n't apply to the discussion at hand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A foreign corporation will no longer need to donate to a PAC in order to make political contributions.
Following this ruling it can buy advertising directly.
Therefore the rules applying to contributions to a PAC don't apply to the discussion at hand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850812</id>
	<title>A great victory for free speech!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264066860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Corporations are voluntary contracts between individuals, and those individuals have rights, period.  If some of you Slashdot commies fail to comprehend that, that is your problem and yours alone.</p><p><a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=mccain-feingold+site\%3Alewrockwell.com" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">(More here.)</a> [google.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Corporations are voluntary contracts between individuals , and those individuals have rights , period .
If some of you Slashdot commies fail to comprehend that , that is your problem and yours alone .
( More here .
) [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Corporations are voluntary contracts between individuals, and those individuals have rights, period.
If some of you Slashdot commies fail to comprehend that, that is your problem and yours alone.
(More here.
) [google.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851020</id>
	<title>Free sppech?</title>
	<author>mweather</author>
	<datestamp>1264067580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>If corporations want to be individuals, it's time we start taxing them like individuals.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If corporations want to be individuals , it 's time we start taxing them like individuals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If corporations want to be individuals, it's time we start taxing them like individuals.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850892</id>
	<title>what could possibly go wrong?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264067160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it's downright dangerous NOT to allow individuals the right to buy elections, whether they are actually a person, or just a multinational entity controlling billions of dollars in currency, entire countries, standing armies, and with the singular mission to exploit every possible resource for profit, and answerable only to an isolated board of uber-rich trustees whose only motive is profit. I s</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's downright dangerous NOT to allow individuals the right to buy elections , whether they are actually a person , or just a multinational entity controlling billions of dollars in currency , entire countries , standing armies , and with the singular mission to exploit every possible resource for profit , and answerable only to an isolated board of uber-rich trustees whose only motive is profit .
I s</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's downright dangerous NOT to allow individuals the right to buy elections, whether they are actually a person, or just a multinational entity controlling billions of dollars in currency, entire countries, standing armies, and with the singular mission to exploit every possible resource for profit, and answerable only to an isolated board of uber-rich trustees whose only motive is profit.
I s</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852340</id>
	<title>Re:Corporations are Individuals</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1264071420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your lament is basically that "rich people have more power."  This is true, and it is true regardless of whether the law recognizes corporate tax structure or not.  The fact is, people control the money, 'corporation' is just a legal arrangement to make it easier for them.  In fact, there are two main reasons to have a corporation:<br> <br>
1) Tax laws are different.<br>
2) If your corporation goes bankrupt, you don't have to lose your personal money.<br> <br>
So a corporation is just a legal tax structure.  Even if corporations didn't have the 'personhood' fiction, you would still have groups of people who would want to pool their money together to do things, but the legal structure would probably be based on contracts instead of corporations.  Functionally it would be exactly the same.  And some of them would want to spend money on political campaigns.  So getting rid of corporations doesn't really solve this problem at all.  The problem is that people with more money have more power.<br> <br>
We actually can solve the issue by killing all the rich and redistributing the wealth, but in practice that has caused more problems in practice than it has solved.  A better solution is education the populace, and this is happening.  As one example, Twenty years ago when newspapers reported on politics, they would say things like this "President Reagan today said X."  Now they are catching onto the spin, and saying things like this: "President Obama tried to appeal to X demographic by saying Y."   So education is happening.  That is why I am optimistic for the future, even though for the past decade our government has been quite braindead.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your lament is basically that " rich people have more power .
" This is true , and it is true regardless of whether the law recognizes corporate tax structure or not .
The fact is , people control the money , 'corporation ' is just a legal arrangement to make it easier for them .
In fact , there are two main reasons to have a corporation : 1 ) Tax laws are different .
2 ) If your corporation goes bankrupt , you do n't have to lose your personal money .
So a corporation is just a legal tax structure .
Even if corporations did n't have the 'personhood ' fiction , you would still have groups of people who would want to pool their money together to do things , but the legal structure would probably be based on contracts instead of corporations .
Functionally it would be exactly the same .
And some of them would want to spend money on political campaigns .
So getting rid of corporations does n't really solve this problem at all .
The problem is that people with more money have more power .
We actually can solve the issue by killing all the rich and redistributing the wealth , but in practice that has caused more problems in practice than it has solved .
A better solution is education the populace , and this is happening .
As one example , Twenty years ago when newspapers reported on politics , they would say things like this " President Reagan today said X .
" Now they are catching onto the spin , and saying things like this : " President Obama tried to appeal to X demographic by saying Y .
" So education is happening .
That is why I am optimistic for the future , even though for the past decade our government has been quite braindead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your lament is basically that "rich people have more power.
"  This is true, and it is true regardless of whether the law recognizes corporate tax structure or not.
The fact is, people control the money, 'corporation' is just a legal arrangement to make it easier for them.
In fact, there are two main reasons to have a corporation: 
1) Tax laws are different.
2) If your corporation goes bankrupt, you don't have to lose your personal money.
So a corporation is just a legal tax structure.
Even if corporations didn't have the 'personhood' fiction, you would still have groups of people who would want to pool their money together to do things, but the legal structure would probably be based on contracts instead of corporations.
Functionally it would be exactly the same.
And some of them would want to spend money on political campaigns.
So getting rid of corporations doesn't really solve this problem at all.
The problem is that people with more money have more power.
We actually can solve the issue by killing all the rich and redistributing the wealth, but in practice that has caused more problems in practice than it has solved.
A better solution is education the populace, and this is happening.
As one example, Twenty years ago when newspapers reported on politics, they would say things like this "President Reagan today said X.
"  Now they are catching onto the spin, and saying things like this: "President Obama tried to appeal to X demographic by saying Y.
"   So education is happening.
That is why I am optimistic for the future, even though for the past decade our government has been quite braindead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30860782</id>
	<title>Re:Welcome to Fascism</title>
	<author>dcroxton</author>
	<datestamp>1264182540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt;You are close to the mark, but this is potentially worse than fascism as we have known it. It opens the possibility of an entirely new form of tyranny that the human race has not yet experienced.
<br>
<br>

I love Slashdot for statements like this.  Because McCain-Feingold has been overturned, the U.S. is about to become worse that Stalinist Russia, Cambodia under Pol Pot, Uganda under Idi Amin...It is refreshing to see the imaginative leaps the human imagination can undertake.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; You are close to the mark , but this is potentially worse than fascism as we have known it .
It opens the possibility of an entirely new form of tyranny that the human race has not yet experienced .
I love Slashdot for statements like this .
Because McCain-Feingold has been overturned , the U.S. is about to become worse that Stalinist Russia , Cambodia under Pol Pot , Uganda under Idi Amin...It is refreshing to see the imaginative leaps the human imagination can undertake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;You are close to the mark, but this is potentially worse than fascism as we have known it.
It opens the possibility of an entirely new form of tyranny that the human race has not yet experienced.
I love Slashdot for statements like this.
Because McCain-Feingold has been overturned, the U.S. is about to become worse that Stalinist Russia, Cambodia under Pol Pot, Uganda under Idi Amin...It is refreshing to see the imaginative leaps the human imagination can undertake.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30899834</id>
	<title>Corporate freedom of speech a fallacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264436820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The corporation is not some emergent consciousness evoked from its human participants.  A corporation is make up of people.  They already already have freedom of speech as a right, so a corporate right is redundant.  The bigger problem are the resources to present ('get out') a viewpoint.  A company can put perhaps substantial resources being a single viewpoint, yet only a subset of the participants in the company whose work products pay for those resources may agree with it.  It's a slippery slope to allow corporations a 'say' in legislation that is by and for the People, since it can silence some viewpoints and over-emphasize others within the debate of an issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The corporation is not some emergent consciousness evoked from its human participants .
A corporation is make up of people .
They already already have freedom of speech as a right , so a corporate right is redundant .
The bigger problem are the resources to present ( 'get out ' ) a viewpoint .
A company can put perhaps substantial resources being a single viewpoint , yet only a subset of the participants in the company whose work products pay for those resources may agree with it .
It 's a slippery slope to allow corporations a 'say ' in legislation that is by and for the People , since it can silence some viewpoints and over-emphasize others within the debate of an issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The corporation is not some emergent consciousness evoked from its human participants.
A corporation is make up of people.
They already already have freedom of speech as a right, so a corporate right is redundant.
The bigger problem are the resources to present ('get out') a viewpoint.
A company can put perhaps substantial resources being a single viewpoint, yet only a subset of the participants in the company whose work products pay for those resources may agree with it.
It's a slippery slope to allow corporations a 'say' in legislation that is by and for the People, since it can silence some viewpoints and over-emphasize others within the debate of an issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853650</id>
	<title>Re:Both good and bad ways aspects</title>
	<author>evilWurst</author>
	<datestamp>1264075920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; I haven't read the decision and the dissent yet, but I'm fascinated by how immediately negative the comments prior to this one are, especially the comments that try to argue that corporations should have fewer free speech rights than people. Part of the nature of free speech is that there's always some category that one would often not want to apply it to</p><p>There is no corporation not made up of human beings, so giving a corporation MORE rights than a human (or even ANY rights at all, at some level), translates directly to giving that corp's leaders more rights than actual voting citizens.</p><p>The second matter - counting money as "speech" - just makes this worse, because corporations get different, much more favorable laws and standards about their money than we flesh and blood human beings get about our own money. Some citizens are, under the guise of nonvoting entities, getting vastly disproportionately more influence in this democracy than the rest of the citizens are. And it should be blitheringly obvious that extending that to non-resident non-citizens is even worse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I have n't read the decision and the dissent yet , but I 'm fascinated by how immediately negative the comments prior to this one are , especially the comments that try to argue that corporations should have fewer free speech rights than people .
Part of the nature of free speech is that there 's always some category that one would often not want to apply it toThere is no corporation not made up of human beings , so giving a corporation MORE rights than a human ( or even ANY rights at all , at some level ) , translates directly to giving that corp 's leaders more rights than actual voting citizens.The second matter - counting money as " speech " - just makes this worse , because corporations get different , much more favorable laws and standards about their money than we flesh and blood human beings get about our own money .
Some citizens are , under the guise of nonvoting entities , getting vastly disproportionately more influence in this democracy than the rest of the citizens are .
And it should be blitheringly obvious that extending that to non-resident non-citizens is even worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; I haven't read the decision and the dissent yet, but I'm fascinated by how immediately negative the comments prior to this one are, especially the comments that try to argue that corporations should have fewer free speech rights than people.
Part of the nature of free speech is that there's always some category that one would often not want to apply it toThere is no corporation not made up of human beings, so giving a corporation MORE rights than a human (or even ANY rights at all, at some level), translates directly to giving that corp's leaders more rights than actual voting citizens.The second matter - counting money as "speech" - just makes this worse, because corporations get different, much more favorable laws and standards about their money than we flesh and blood human beings get about our own money.
Some citizens are, under the guise of nonvoting entities, getting vastly disproportionately more influence in this democracy than the rest of the citizens are.
And it should be blitheringly obvious that extending that to non-resident non-citizens is even worse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30854338</id>
	<title>Easy fix for this tax cheat</title>
	<author>Chess Piece Face</author>
	<datestamp>1264079100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Make the owners of the corporations take the money on as taxable income before spending it on political influence, <b>just like the rest of us do</b>.  That way speech is still free, everybody is taxed properly, and the voters as well as employees can see exactly who is spending the money instead of simply "the company."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Make the owners of the corporations take the money on as taxable income before spending it on political influence , just like the rest of us do .
That way speech is still free , everybody is taxed properly , and the voters as well as employees can see exactly who is spending the money instead of simply " the company .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Make the owners of the corporations take the money on as taxable income before spending it on political influence, just like the rest of us do.
That way speech is still free, everybody is taxed properly, and the voters as well as employees can see exactly who is spending the money instead of simply "the company.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30854248</id>
	<title>Re:Free sppech?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264078620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or it's time to start taxing individuals like corporations.  Why, when there is inequality of taxes, must way always say Group X should be taxed more to reach equality?  Why not instead say Group Y should be taxed *less* to reach equality?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or it 's time to start taxing individuals like corporations .
Why , when there is inequality of taxes , must way always say Group X should be taxed more to reach equality ?
Why not instead say Group Y should be taxed * less * to reach equality ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or it's time to start taxing individuals like corporations.
Why, when there is inequality of taxes, must way always say Group X should be taxed more to reach equality?
Why not instead say Group Y should be taxed *less* to reach equality?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851742</id>
	<title>Cue the stupid comments...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1264069620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Guys, this does not change <em>anything</em>!<br>Any limit can, and was circumvented, by simply spreading the bribes (that&rsquo;s the actual proper name) over a couple of sub-companies.<br>The supreme court realized this, and rolled it back, because then, you can at least track the money back more easily.<br>Makes sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Guys , this does not change anything ! Any limit can , and was circumvented , by simply spreading the bribes ( that    s the actual proper name ) over a couple of sub-companies.The supreme court realized this , and rolled it back , because then , you can at least track the money back more easily.Makes sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guys, this does not change anything!Any limit can, and was circumvented, by simply spreading the bribes (that’s the actual proper name) over a couple of sub-companies.The supreme court realized this, and rolled it back, because then, you can at least track the money back more easily.Makes sense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850820</id>
	<title>TFOpinion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264066860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf" title="supremecourtus.gov" rel="nofollow">http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf</a> [supremecourtus.gov]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf [ supremecourtus.gov ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf [supremecourtus.gov]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853326</id>
	<title>Wierd...</title>
	<author>gedrin</author>
	<datestamp>1264074780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, an orginization formed for the purpose of advancing an agenda (say, Sell More Oil PAC) should be allowed to contribute.<br>However, Exxon shouldn't.<br> <br>I get that right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , an orginization formed for the purpose of advancing an agenda ( say , Sell More Oil PAC ) should be allowed to contribute.However , Exxon should n't .
I get that right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, an orginization formed for the purpose of advancing an agenda (say, Sell More Oil PAC) should be allowed to contribute.However, Exxon shouldn't.
I get that right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852110</id>
	<title>Re:Both good and bad ways aspects</title>
	<author>madpansy</author>
	<datestamp>1264070700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And if FoxNews or MSNBC didn't receive contributions from other high-paying corporations, they themselves would still have incredible influence on elections due to their position in the media. Unless you believe the media is unbiased...

The solution is to educate the masses. As long as we continue to consume media and political rhetoric without critical thinking, no amount of restrictions on corporate spending will change the status quo; money will find a way.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And if FoxNews or MSNBC did n't receive contributions from other high-paying corporations , they themselves would still have incredible influence on elections due to their position in the media .
Unless you believe the media is unbiased.. . The solution is to educate the masses .
As long as we continue to consume media and political rhetoric without critical thinking , no amount of restrictions on corporate spending will change the status quo ; money will find a way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And if FoxNews or MSNBC didn't receive contributions from other high-paying corporations, they themselves would still have incredible influence on elections due to their position in the media.
Unless you believe the media is unbiased...

The solution is to educate the masses.
As long as we continue to consume media and political rhetoric without critical thinking, no amount of restrictions on corporate spending will change the status quo; money will find a way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30900676</id>
	<title>Re:Welcome to Fascism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264444680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But the ethics of the individual are always under pressure in a corporation. We've all seen that. There's always the question of whether we can push the limit just a bit, and if we try it and get away with it, we suddenly have a new conception of what "normal behavior" is. We know that "everybody does it" doesn't excuse something, but we don't act that way.</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>Once corporations are above the law, any corporation that fails to take the profit maximizing step regardless of the other consequences won't survive.</p></div><p>Really, that is another mess altogether.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But the ethics of the individual are always under pressure in a corporation .
We 've all seen that .
There 's always the question of whether we can push the limit just a bit , and if we try it and get away with it , we suddenly have a new conception of what " normal behavior " is .
We know that " everybody does it " does n't excuse something , but we do n't act that way.Once corporations are above the law , any corporation that fails to take the profit maximizing step regardless of the other consequences wo n't survive.Really , that is another mess altogether .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the ethics of the individual are always under pressure in a corporation.
We've all seen that.
There's always the question of whether we can push the limit just a bit, and if we try it and get away with it, we suddenly have a new conception of what "normal behavior" is.
We know that "everybody does it" doesn't excuse something, but we don't act that way.Once corporations are above the law, any corporation that fails to take the profit maximizing step regardless of the other consequences won't survive.Really, that is another mess altogether.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30855452</id>
	<title>The party is over folks, the experiment has failed</title>
	<author>mswhippingboy</author>
	<datestamp>1264086960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It was a grand experiment and it lasted surprisingly long. But the idealism of the founding fathers had long ago given way to inherent greed of the captains of industry. Capitalism had given way to corporatism over a century ago. <br>
It was only a matter of time before the next shoe dropped. <br>
The business playing field has long been tilted in favor of corporations whose only raison d&rsquo;&#234;tre is to maximize profits for their shareholders, the same shareholders who sell their shares in a nanosecond if they can turn a miniscule profit or limit their losses. They operate without the baggage of conscience or even the slightest inkling of compassion for real people, neither customers nor their employees. Prior to today, the tentative prohibitions that have existed on how corporations could use their power to influence the political landscape were only a nuisance, but now even those facades have been eliminated. <br>
Just one more step on the way to Fascism. If anyone doubts that the US is heading in that direction, just read the definition <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism</a> [wikipedia.org] . If that doesn&rsquo;t sound like the right-wing agenda I don&rsquo;t know what does.<br>
Did anyone notice while the right was declaring Obama a socialist and the Democrats had a super-majority, nothing managed to get done. The minority party stood in the way and managed to block every step in every direction, eventually bogging the process down long enough for the corporate owned media to work its way with the mindless masses until eventually the polls turned against any possibility of a progressive agenda.  <br>
Now the super-majority is gone. Independents are now aligned with the right wing. The hopes for anything that might reign in the abuses of the insurance industry are all but gone. <br>
And now, this ruling; Corporations are free to buy politicians like never before. Who is going to stop them? No one. <br>
The party&rsquo;s over.  
All I can say to those of the right-wing persuasion is congratulations on your victory. But always keep in mind, be careful what you wish for because you might just get  it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was a grand experiment and it lasted surprisingly long .
But the idealism of the founding fathers had long ago given way to inherent greed of the captains of industry .
Capitalism had given way to corporatism over a century ago .
It was only a matter of time before the next shoe dropped .
The business playing field has long been tilted in favor of corporations whose only raison d      tre is to maximize profits for their shareholders , the same shareholders who sell their shares in a nanosecond if they can turn a miniscule profit or limit their losses .
They operate without the baggage of conscience or even the slightest inkling of compassion for real people , neither customers nor their employees .
Prior to today , the tentative prohibitions that have existed on how corporations could use their power to influence the political landscape were only a nuisance , but now even those facades have been eliminated .
Just one more step on the way to Fascism .
If anyone doubts that the US is heading in that direction , just read the definition http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism [ wikipedia.org ] .
If that doesn    t sound like the right-wing agenda I don    t know what does .
Did anyone notice while the right was declaring Obama a socialist and the Democrats had a super-majority , nothing managed to get done .
The minority party stood in the way and managed to block every step in every direction , eventually bogging the process down long enough for the corporate owned media to work its way with the mindless masses until eventually the polls turned against any possibility of a progressive agenda .
Now the super-majority is gone .
Independents are now aligned with the right wing .
The hopes for anything that might reign in the abuses of the insurance industry are all but gone .
And now , this ruling ; Corporations are free to buy politicians like never before .
Who is going to stop them ?
No one .
The party    s over .
All I can say to those of the right-wing persuasion is congratulations on your victory .
But always keep in mind , be careful what you wish for because you might just get it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was a grand experiment and it lasted surprisingly long.
But the idealism of the founding fathers had long ago given way to inherent greed of the captains of industry.
Capitalism had given way to corporatism over a century ago.
It was only a matter of time before the next shoe dropped.
The business playing field has long been tilted in favor of corporations whose only raison d’être is to maximize profits for their shareholders, the same shareholders who sell their shares in a nanosecond if they can turn a miniscule profit or limit their losses.
They operate without the baggage of conscience or even the slightest inkling of compassion for real people, neither customers nor their employees.
Prior to today, the tentative prohibitions that have existed on how corporations could use their power to influence the political landscape were only a nuisance, but now even those facades have been eliminated.
Just one more step on the way to Fascism.
If anyone doubts that the US is heading in that direction, just read the definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism [wikipedia.org] .
If that doesn’t sound like the right-wing agenda I don’t know what does.
Did anyone notice while the right was declaring Obama a socialist and the Democrats had a super-majority, nothing managed to get done.
The minority party stood in the way and managed to block every step in every direction, eventually bogging the process down long enough for the corporate owned media to work its way with the mindless masses until eventually the polls turned against any possibility of a progressive agenda.
Now the super-majority is gone.
Independents are now aligned with the right wing.
The hopes for anything that might reign in the abuses of the insurance industry are all but gone.
And now, this ruling; Corporations are free to buy politicians like never before.
Who is going to stop them?
No one.
The party’s over.
All I can say to those of the right-wing persuasion is congratulations on your victory.
But always keep in mind, be careful what you wish for because you might just get  it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853336</id>
	<title>Re:Corporations are Individuals</title>
	<author>mathfeel</author>
	<datestamp>1264074780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even if they are by some twisted logic, isn't individual contribution capped anyway? Why isn't a corporation, as a person, also capped at the same limit?  A corporation is \_not\_ a political representative of all those who are employed by it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if they are by some twisted logic , is n't individual contribution capped anyway ?
Why is n't a corporation , as a person , also capped at the same limit ?
A corporation is \ _not \ _ a political representative of all those who are employed by it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if they are by some twisted logic, isn't individual contribution capped anyway?
Why isn't a corporation, as a person, also capped at the same limit?
A corporation is \_not\_ a political representative of all those who are employed by it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30855462</id>
	<title>Re:This decision is horrible - the Mussolini Remix</title>
	<author>jrifkin</author>
	<datestamp>1264087020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>As our friend Benito Mussolini so aptly put,<blockquote><div><p>Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.</p></div>
</blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As our friend Benito Mussolini so aptly put,Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As our friend Benito Mussolini so aptly put,Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853702</id>
	<title>Re:Fair enough...</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1264076160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Corporations and unions have been given the right to buy who ever they want without any back alley deals...as long as the money doesn't go directly to or is coordinated by candidate.</p></div><p>They've already been doing that.  Now they have the right to advertise about it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Corporations and unions have been given the right to buy who ever they want without any back alley deals...as long as the money does n't go directly to or is coordinated by candidate.They 've already been doing that .
Now they have the right to advertise about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Corporations and unions have been given the right to buy who ever they want without any back alley deals...as long as the money doesn't go directly to or is coordinated by candidate.They've already been doing that.
Now they have the right to advertise about it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851992</id>
	<title>Re:Both good and bad ways aspects</title>
	<author>JoshuaZ</author>
	<datestamp>1264070340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or you know, they are both very long and take time and by the time anyone in this thread gets through them this discussion will likely be over. And the comment didn't even talk about the decisions in any detail but rather the reaction of Slashdot editors. Saying one hasn't yet read a legal opinion is similar to saying IANAL in a more general legal discussion. Frankly, I find  your response to be fascinating. Someone says something that potentially disagrees with your apparent opinion and you respond by deciding they must fall into some category that you dislike The truly funny thing is that I agree with you that that specific category has a serious problem with making ignorance a virtue. But "evangelical Christian Republicans" aren't the only such group. Extremist Muslims are good at it. As are Orthodox Jews. And you should read some New Age and alt medicine websites some time (where most of the people will generally be pretty left-wing. But since you seem to confuse a careful disclaimer with a proud proclamation of ignorance I doubt that point is going to penetrate your brain.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or you know , they are both very long and take time and by the time anyone in this thread gets through them this discussion will likely be over .
And the comment did n't even talk about the decisions in any detail but rather the reaction of Slashdot editors .
Saying one has n't yet read a legal opinion is similar to saying IANAL in a more general legal discussion .
Frankly , I find your response to be fascinating .
Someone says something that potentially disagrees with your apparent opinion and you respond by deciding they must fall into some category that you dislike The truly funny thing is that I agree with you that that specific category has a serious problem with making ignorance a virtue .
But " evangelical Christian Republicans " are n't the only such group .
Extremist Muslims are good at it .
As are Orthodox Jews .
And you should read some New Age and alt medicine websites some time ( where most of the people will generally be pretty left-wing .
But since you seem to confuse a careful disclaimer with a proud proclamation of ignorance I doubt that point is going to penetrate your brain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or you know, they are both very long and take time and by the time anyone in this thread gets through them this discussion will likely be over.
And the comment didn't even talk about the decisions in any detail but rather the reaction of Slashdot editors.
Saying one hasn't yet read a legal opinion is similar to saying IANAL in a more general legal discussion.
Frankly, I find  your response to be fascinating.
Someone says something that potentially disagrees with your apparent opinion and you respond by deciding they must fall into some category that you dislike The truly funny thing is that I agree with you that that specific category has a serious problem with making ignorance a virtue.
But "evangelical Christian Republicans" aren't the only such group.
Extremist Muslims are good at it.
As are Orthodox Jews.
And you should read some New Age and alt medicine websites some time (where most of the people will generally be pretty left-wing.
But since you seem to confuse a careful disclaimer with a proud proclamation of ignorance I doubt that point is going to penetrate your brain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850854</id>
	<title>Re:Bad, bad news</title>
	<author>ScentCone</author>
	<datestamp>1264066980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>We need to replace the "conservatives" on the supreme court who don't understand that corporations should not have the constitutional rights of citizens.</i>
<br> <br>
The constitution doesn't give you, or a business formed by you and a friend, <i>any</i> rights. The constitution is there to limit the government's ability to take those rights away. Being able to buy a newspaper advertisement or broadcast an advertisement isn't something that the goverment should be able to prevent you (or the company you've formed) from doing. Likewise for labor unions, advocacy groups, churches, scouting troops, bowling leagues, open source code projects, or anyone else.
<br> <br>
I'm always amazed at how many misguided people think their rights come <i>from</i> the government. That explains a lot about why statists like Pelosi and Reid think they have so much more traction than they really do. Don't give it to them, now matter how much you want the government to be your Nanny.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We need to replace the " conservatives " on the supreme court who do n't understand that corporations should not have the constitutional rights of citizens .
The constitution does n't give you , or a business formed by you and a friend , any rights .
The constitution is there to limit the government 's ability to take those rights away .
Being able to buy a newspaper advertisement or broadcast an advertisement is n't something that the goverment should be able to prevent you ( or the company you 've formed ) from doing .
Likewise for labor unions , advocacy groups , churches , scouting troops , bowling leagues , open source code projects , or anyone else .
I 'm always amazed at how many misguided people think their rights come from the government .
That explains a lot about why statists like Pelosi and Reid think they have so much more traction than they really do .
Do n't give it to them , now matter how much you want the government to be your Nanny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need to replace the "conservatives" on the supreme court who don't understand that corporations should not have the constitutional rights of citizens.
The constitution doesn't give you, or a business formed by you and a friend, any rights.
The constitution is there to limit the government's ability to take those rights away.
Being able to buy a newspaper advertisement or broadcast an advertisement isn't something that the goverment should be able to prevent you (or the company you've formed) from doing.
Likewise for labor unions, advocacy groups, churches, scouting troops, bowling leagues, open source code projects, or anyone else.
I'm always amazed at how many misguided people think their rights come from the government.
That explains a lot about why statists like Pelosi and Reid think they have so much more traction than they really do.
Don't give it to them, now matter how much you want the government to be your Nanny.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850904</id>
	<title>America's downfall was person == corp</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264067220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>A corp has no real responsibility, no sense of morals, and rarely ever is punished for many of its crimes. ANd yet, we equate it to man.  That single warped logic is killing us.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A corp has no real responsibility , no sense of morals , and rarely ever is punished for many of its crimes .
ANd yet , we equate it to man .
That single warped logic is killing us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A corp has no real responsibility, no sense of morals, and rarely ever is punished for many of its crimes.
ANd yet, we equate it to man.
That single warped logic is killing us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852382</id>
	<title>Re:Corporations are Individuals</title>
	<author>rev\_sanchez</author>
	<datestamp>1264071540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While the direct campaign contributions seem more slimy and I'm not comfortable with the $$$ = speech theory with the cash-and-carry government it implies, I think the very bothersome grey area comes in form of message ads like the 527 organizations ran.<br>
<br>
It allows big money donors to hide behind a front group and throw support behind their candidate while saying pretty outrageous things which are far enough away from their candidate to give them deniability (i.e. swift boating).  In my opinion this falls more clearly under speech than campaign contributions so I'm inclined to say it should be better protected but the way it's done is pretty disgusting.<br>
<br>
I guess that's how some people view porno but that doesn't seem to have as detrimental effect on our government.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While the direct campaign contributions seem more slimy and I 'm not comfortable with the $ $ $ = speech theory with the cash-and-carry government it implies , I think the very bothersome grey area comes in form of message ads like the 527 organizations ran .
It allows big money donors to hide behind a front group and throw support behind their candidate while saying pretty outrageous things which are far enough away from their candidate to give them deniability ( i.e .
swift boating ) .
In my opinion this falls more clearly under speech than campaign contributions so I 'm inclined to say it should be better protected but the way it 's done is pretty disgusting .
I guess that 's how some people view porno but that does n't seem to have as detrimental effect on our government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While the direct campaign contributions seem more slimy and I'm not comfortable with the $$$ = speech theory with the cash-and-carry government it implies, I think the very bothersome grey area comes in form of message ads like the 527 organizations ran.
It allows big money donors to hide behind a front group and throw support behind their candidate while saying pretty outrageous things which are far enough away from their candidate to give them deniability (i.e.
swift boating).
In my opinion this falls more clearly under speech than campaign contributions so I'm inclined to say it should be better protected but the way it's done is pretty disgusting.
I guess that's how some people view porno but that doesn't seem to have as detrimental effect on our government.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853468</id>
	<title>Re:Bad, bad news</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1264075380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're barking up the wrong tree. This isn't about whether the constitution gives rights or removes rights. It is about what it means to the democratic process when someone in control of a corporation can marshal all the resources at their disposal to support or oppose a specific candidate. Their influence will be far greater than that of any individual, or even groups of individuals that organized on a political basis.</p><p>Imagine, for a second, the CEO of GE decides to screw his shareholders and board of directors, and to throw a billion dollars at the next campaign cycle. Yes, George Soros, Bill Gates and a few others can already do that. The difference is these people are individuals. The CEO of GE is a fungible position. Anybody (well, anybody with the right connections - see Carly Fiorina) can be CEO.</p><p>I would argue that one of the pre-eminent responsibilities of the government is to ensure that the process by which said government is established isn't subverted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're barking up the wrong tree .
This is n't about whether the constitution gives rights or removes rights .
It is about what it means to the democratic process when someone in control of a corporation can marshal all the resources at their disposal to support or oppose a specific candidate .
Their influence will be far greater than that of any individual , or even groups of individuals that organized on a political basis.Imagine , for a second , the CEO of GE decides to screw his shareholders and board of directors , and to throw a billion dollars at the next campaign cycle .
Yes , George Soros , Bill Gates and a few others can already do that .
The difference is these people are individuals .
The CEO of GE is a fungible position .
Anybody ( well , anybody with the right connections - see Carly Fiorina ) can be CEO.I would argue that one of the pre-eminent responsibilities of the government is to ensure that the process by which said government is established is n't subverted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're barking up the wrong tree.
This isn't about whether the constitution gives rights or removes rights.
It is about what it means to the democratic process when someone in control of a corporation can marshal all the resources at their disposal to support or oppose a specific candidate.
Their influence will be far greater than that of any individual, or even groups of individuals that organized on a political basis.Imagine, for a second, the CEO of GE decides to screw his shareholders and board of directors, and to throw a billion dollars at the next campaign cycle.
Yes, George Soros, Bill Gates and a few others can already do that.
The difference is these people are individuals.
The CEO of GE is a fungible position.
Anybody (well, anybody with the right connections - see Carly Fiorina) can be CEO.I would argue that one of the pre-eminent responsibilities of the government is to ensure that the process by which said government is established isn't subverted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852780</id>
	<title>Re:Free sppech?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264072800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about just taxing us like corporations.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about just taxing us like corporations .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about just taxing us like corporations.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30857284</id>
	<title>Just call it the Tim Brown amendment</title>
	<author>Pro923</author>
	<datestamp>1264150860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they had passed this months ago, the health care industry would have poured so much money into Martha Coakley's campaign that it would have changed the result of the Massachusetts Senate vote, and allowed the Democrats - fully aligned with their new partners - the health care industry - to shove whatever system they wanted right up your ass.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they had passed this months ago , the health care industry would have poured so much money into Martha Coakley 's campaign that it would have changed the result of the Massachusetts Senate vote , and allowed the Democrats - fully aligned with their new partners - the health care industry - to shove whatever system they wanted right up your ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they had passed this months ago, the health care industry would have poured so much money into Martha Coakley's campaign that it would have changed the result of the Massachusetts Senate vote, and allowed the Democrats - fully aligned with their new partners - the health care industry - to shove whatever system they wanted right up your ass.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30854014</id>
	<title>Re:Welcome to Fascism</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1264077420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Because remember, kids, "fascist" means "something I personally don't approve of."</p></div><p>That's world-wide definition. The American English one is a bit more nuanced: "something I personally don't approve of, which cannot, even with a big stretch, be called 'socialist' or 'communist'".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because remember , kids , " fascist " means " something I personally do n't approve of .
" That 's world-wide definition .
The American English one is a bit more nuanced : " something I personally do n't approve of , which can not , even with a big stretch , be called 'socialist ' or 'communist ' " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because remember, kids, "fascist" means "something I personally don't approve of.
"That's world-wide definition.
The American English one is a bit more nuanced: "something I personally don't approve of, which cannot, even with a big stretch, be called 'socialist' or 'communist'".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851604</id>
	<title>Re:Bad, bad news</title>
	<author>warp1</author>
	<datestamp>1264069200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>ScentCone, I believe it
goes much
deeper than that. Most of these people don't even know what form of
government we practice here in these United States of America.<p>
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXTiMLSYXF0" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow"> The American Form of Government</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ScentCone , I believe it goes much deeper than that .
Most of these people do n't even know what form of government we practice here in these United States of America .
The American Form of Government [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ScentCone, I believe it
goes much
deeper than that.
Most of these people don't even know what form of
government we practice here in these United States of America.
The American Form of Government [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30854094</id>
	<title>Re:Free sppech?</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1264077900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You cannot tax a corporation. Increased tax burdens just trickle down to reduced wages for low level employees and increased prices.</p></div><p>So it would make non-incorporated businesses more competitive, then? Awesome!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can not tax a corporation .
Increased tax burdens just trickle down to reduced wages for low level employees and increased prices.So it would make non-incorporated businesses more competitive , then ?
Awesome !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You cannot tax a corporation.
Increased tax burdens just trickle down to reduced wages for low level employees and increased prices.So it would make non-incorporated businesses more competitive, then?
Awesome!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853106</id>
	<title>How many of us here own small corps?</title>
	<author>maidix</author>
	<datestamp>1264073940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are a lot of solo-gigs in the tech industry. I own my own LLC. According to the Supreme Court of the United States, I am the single owning member of a person. I also happen to work from home.

Why can't I claim my LLC as a dependent? Seriously... if corporations are people, then I should be able to. I guarantee you that if I tried, a world of trouble would come crashing down on me. This suggests to me that there are different rule books.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a lot of solo-gigs in the tech industry .
I own my own LLC .
According to the Supreme Court of the United States , I am the single owning member of a person .
I also happen to work from home .
Why ca n't I claim my LLC as a dependent ?
Seriously... if corporations are people , then I should be able to .
I guarantee you that if I tried , a world of trouble would come crashing down on me .
This suggests to me that there are different rule books .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are a lot of solo-gigs in the tech industry.
I own my own LLC.
According to the Supreme Court of the United States, I am the single owning member of a person.
I also happen to work from home.
Why can't I claim my LLC as a dependent?
Seriously... if corporations are people, then I should be able to.
I guarantee you that if I tried, a world of trouble would come crashing down on me.
This suggests to me that there are different rule books.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30856662</id>
	<title>Re:Free sppech?</title>
	<author>John Newman</author>
	<datestamp>1264099080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You cannot tax a corporation. Increased tax burdens just trickle down to reduced wages for low level employees and increased prices. I'm not sure why that is so hard for people to get.</p></div></blockquote><p>You cannot tax me. Increased tax burdens just trickle down to less disposable income to spend on cars and cable tv and smaller tips for low level employees like delivery boys and waitstaff. I'm not sure why that is so hard for corporations to get.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can not tax a corporation .
Increased tax burdens just trickle down to reduced wages for low level employees and increased prices .
I 'm not sure why that is so hard for people to get.You can not tax me .
Increased tax burdens just trickle down to less disposable income to spend on cars and cable tv and smaller tips for low level employees like delivery boys and waitstaff .
I 'm not sure why that is so hard for corporations to get .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You cannot tax a corporation.
Increased tax burdens just trickle down to reduced wages for low level employees and increased prices.
I'm not sure why that is so hard for people to get.You cannot tax me.
Increased tax burdens just trickle down to less disposable income to spend on cars and cable tv and smaller tips for low level employees like delivery boys and waitstaff.
I'm not sure why that is so hard for corporations to get.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852402</id>
	<title>Re:Free sppech?</title>
	<author>ArcherB</author>
	<datestamp>1264071600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If corporations want to be individuals, it's time we start taxing them like individuals.</p></div><p>We would lose a lot of tax dollars that way and the corporations would love it!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If corporations want to be individuals , it 's time we start taxing them like individuals.We would lose a lot of tax dollars that way and the corporations would love it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If corporations want to be individuals, it's time we start taxing them like individuals.We would lose a lot of tax dollars that way and the corporations would love it!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853408</id>
	<title>Corporate personhood is the standing precedent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264075080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It sucks but the courts have ruled that as legal persons, corporations have all Bill of Rights protections and there can be no laws that discriminate them.  They have also held that they speak through  their money, which is even more bizarre.  We can have no meaningful campaign finance reform until we get very different thinking on the supreme court or amend the Constitution to clarify that corporations are literally people, don't get Bill of Rights protections, and we can make laws that discriminate against them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It sucks but the courts have ruled that as legal persons , corporations have all Bill of Rights protections and there can be no laws that discriminate them .
They have also held that they speak through their money , which is even more bizarre .
We can have no meaningful campaign finance reform until we get very different thinking on the supreme court or amend the Constitution to clarify that corporations are literally people , do n't get Bill of Rights protections , and we can make laws that discriminate against them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sucks but the courts have ruled that as legal persons, corporations have all Bill of Rights protections and there can be no laws that discriminate them.
They have also held that they speak through  their money, which is even more bizarre.
We can have no meaningful campaign finance reform until we get very different thinking on the supreme court or amend the Constitution to clarify that corporations are literally people, don't get Bill of Rights protections, and we can make laws that discriminate against them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850692</id>
	<title>Constitution?</title>
	<author>DoofusOfDeath</author>
	<datestamp>1264066500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the U.S. Constitution ensures the free speech rights of corporations, as the SCOTUS has judged, then clearly the Constitution is defective.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the U.S. Constitution ensures the free speech rights of corporations , as the SCOTUS has judged , then clearly the Constitution is defective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the U.S. Constitution ensures the free speech rights of corporations, as the SCOTUS has judged, then clearly the Constitution is defective.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851532</id>
	<title>Re:Both good and bad ways aspects</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264069020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you believe a corporation is a living creature? Do you feel that a corporation is included in 'we the people', making it a person? Clearly a corporation is NOT a living creature and should not be treated as one. A corporation exists only for itself because it's purpose is to make money (especially for its shareholders).</p><p>Why should an entity that could potentially *live* forever have the same rights as a human being? A sufficiently wealthy corporation could potentially run the entire country. That is not democracy. That is not a republic. That is hell and we are on the precipice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you believe a corporation is a living creature ?
Do you feel that a corporation is included in 'we the people ' , making it a person ?
Clearly a corporation is NOT a living creature and should not be treated as one .
A corporation exists only for itself because it 's purpose is to make money ( especially for its shareholders ) .Why should an entity that could potentially * live * forever have the same rights as a human being ?
A sufficiently wealthy corporation could potentially run the entire country .
That is not democracy .
That is not a republic .
That is hell and we are on the precipice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you believe a corporation is a living creature?
Do you feel that a corporation is included in 'we the people', making it a person?
Clearly a corporation is NOT a living creature and should not be treated as one.
A corporation exists only for itself because it's purpose is to make money (especially for its shareholders).Why should an entity that could potentially *live* forever have the same rights as a human being?
A sufficiently wealthy corporation could potentially run the entire country.
That is not democracy.
That is not a republic.
That is hell and we are on the precipice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851102</id>
	<title>Free Speech for CEOs maybe</title>
	<author>vajrabum</author>
	<datestamp>1264067760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And how many of those individuals involved in the contract get to pariticipate in the decision of who and when to support how much? Not the stockholders. Certainly not anyone below C level that's for sure.

Now that's the right way to run a participatory democratic republic--turn it over to the CEOs. Control of the government largely by and for corporate (and union) managers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And how many of those individuals involved in the contract get to pariticipate in the decision of who and when to support how much ?
Not the stockholders .
Certainly not anyone below C level that 's for sure .
Now that 's the right way to run a participatory democratic republic--turn it over to the CEOs .
Control of the government largely by and for corporate ( and union ) managers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And how many of those individuals involved in the contract get to pariticipate in the decision of who and when to support how much?
Not the stockholders.
Certainly not anyone below C level that's for sure.
Now that's the right way to run a participatory democratic republic--turn it over to the CEOs.
Control of the government largely by and for corporate (and union) managers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850828</id>
	<title>Re:Bad, bad news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264066920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>When they ratified an amendment protecting the free <b>press</b>, next to Speech, you don't think that any corporation had ever spent any money to publish a newspaper to push a political opinion?</htmltext>
<tokenext>When they ratified an amendment protecting the free press , next to Speech , you do n't think that any corporation had ever spent any money to publish a newspaper to push a political opinion ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When they ratified an amendment protecting the free press, next to Speech, you don't think that any corporation had ever spent any money to publish a newspaper to push a political opinion?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852504</id>
	<title>Re:Bad, bad news</title>
	<author>Capt\_Morgan</author>
	<datestamp>1264071960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What is it with this site?  +5?

Ok, you are certainly correct about the rights of CITIZENS... but you are WAY wrong when it comes to legal entities like corporations.

Corporations are NOT natural entities like people and are nothing more than legal constructs... they have NO natural rights outside of those granted by the government.

Please go back to high school and review your civics</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is it with this site ?
+ 5 ? Ok , you are certainly correct about the rights of CITIZENS... but you are WAY wrong when it comes to legal entities like corporations .
Corporations are NOT natural entities like people and are nothing more than legal constructs... they have NO natural rights outside of those granted by the government .
Please go back to high school and review your civics</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is it with this site?
+5?

Ok, you are certainly correct about the rights of CITIZENS... but you are WAY wrong when it comes to legal entities like corporations.
Corporations are NOT natural entities like people and are nothing more than legal constructs... they have NO natural rights outside of those granted by the government.
Please go back to high school and review your civics</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852586</id>
	<title>So if corporations are now legal "persons"...</title>
	<author>absurdist</author>
	<datestamp>1264072140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>...when do we see the death penalty applied to them?

The Ford Pinto's exploding gas tank and Union Carbide's Bhopal clusterfuck are merely the first examples that come to mind of corporations exhibiting depraved indifference to human life.  Had an individual done these things he/she would be facing the death penalty; why should corporations be exempt?</htmltext>
<tokenext>...when do we see the death penalty applied to them ?
The Ford Pinto 's exploding gas tank and Union Carbide 's Bhopal clusterfuck are merely the first examples that come to mind of corporations exhibiting depraved indifference to human life .
Had an individual done these things he/she would be facing the death penalty ; why should corporations be exempt ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...when do we see the death penalty applied to them?
The Ford Pinto's exploding gas tank and Union Carbide's Bhopal clusterfuck are merely the first examples that come to mind of corporations exhibiting depraved indifference to human life.
Had an individual done these things he/she would be facing the death penalty; why should corporations be exempt?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30862432</id>
	<title>Re:Free sppech?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264191900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>U.S. corporations pay the 2nd highest tax rate in the world.  Japan being first I think.  But then again, corporations don't really pay taxes, they just pass it on to us, the consumer/employees in the form of higher prices for good and services, lower pay increases, less bonuses, less benefits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>U.S. corporations pay the 2nd highest tax rate in the world .
Japan being first I think .
But then again , corporations do n't really pay taxes , they just pass it on to us , the consumer/employees in the form of higher prices for good and services , lower pay increases , less bonuses , less benefits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>U.S. corporations pay the 2nd highest tax rate in the world.
Japan being first I think.
But then again, corporations don't really pay taxes, they just pass it on to us, the consumer/employees in the form of higher prices for good and services, lower pay increases, less bonuses, less benefits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851872</id>
	<title>Re:Bad, bad news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264070040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So The Conservatives get huge funding from Corporations and jesus freaks.</p><p>The <i>Democrats</i> get huge funding from Corporations and Unions.</p><p>Fixed that for you.</p></div><p>Fixed again.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So The Conservatives get huge funding from Corporations and jesus freaks.The Democrats get huge funding from Corporations and Unions.Fixed that for you.Fixed again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So The Conservatives get huge funding from Corporations and jesus freaks.The Democrats get huge funding from Corporations and Unions.Fixed that for you.Fixed again.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850884</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852082</id>
	<title>Re:Bad, bad news</title>
	<author>Actually, I do RTFA</author>
	<datestamp>1264070640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The constitution is there to limit the government's ability to take those rights away. Being able to buy a newspaper advertisement or broadcast an advertisement isn't something that the goverment should be able to prevent you (or the company you've formed) from doing.</p></div></blockquote><p>I would object, first and foremost, to your blurring between a citizen (who has rights inherently) and a corporation (which gains rights from somewhere... namely government).  I think you'd be hardpressed to explain why a government sponsored institution (all corporations) should be allowed to do what a government cannot.</p><p>To go further, a corporation is supposed to maximize profits.  Therefore the money spent on a campaign has to get a ROI.  Doesn't that make it a bribe?</p><blockquote><div><p>Don't give it to them, now[sic] matter how much you want the government to be your Nanny.</p></div></blockquote><p>I want the government to ensure that when I go buy a hamburger at a truck-stop while driving cross-country, I don't get food poisoning and sick.  (Pre-empting the reductio ad absurdum argument, obviously there is a reasonable effort for a reasonable assurance that I want.   I do not want or expect perfection.)  This resturant serves only for cross-country drivers, so their reputation doesn't suffer.  Given the high costs of a lawsuit, and my time spent on it, I doubt I would try a civil suit.  So what disincentive can we place upon this business, other than only eating at McDonalds with its deep corporate coffers and world-wide reputation.  Or can I not eat a hamburger without a corporation providing 20 references?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The constitution is there to limit the government 's ability to take those rights away .
Being able to buy a newspaper advertisement or broadcast an advertisement is n't something that the goverment should be able to prevent you ( or the company you 've formed ) from doing.I would object , first and foremost , to your blurring between a citizen ( who has rights inherently ) and a corporation ( which gains rights from somewhere... namely government ) .
I think you 'd be hardpressed to explain why a government sponsored institution ( all corporations ) should be allowed to do what a government can not.To go further , a corporation is supposed to maximize profits .
Therefore the money spent on a campaign has to get a ROI .
Does n't that make it a bribe ? Do n't give it to them , now [ sic ] matter how much you want the government to be your Nanny.I want the government to ensure that when I go buy a hamburger at a truck-stop while driving cross-country , I do n't get food poisoning and sick .
( Pre-empting the reductio ad absurdum argument , obviously there is a reasonable effort for a reasonable assurance that I want .
I do not want or expect perfection .
) This resturant serves only for cross-country drivers , so their reputation does n't suffer .
Given the high costs of a lawsuit , and my time spent on it , I doubt I would try a civil suit .
So what disincentive can we place upon this business , other than only eating at McDonalds with its deep corporate coffers and world-wide reputation .
Or can I not eat a hamburger without a corporation providing 20 references ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The constitution is there to limit the government's ability to take those rights away.
Being able to buy a newspaper advertisement or broadcast an advertisement isn't something that the goverment should be able to prevent you (or the company you've formed) from doing.I would object, first and foremost, to your blurring between a citizen (who has rights inherently) and a corporation (which gains rights from somewhere... namely government).
I think you'd be hardpressed to explain why a government sponsored institution (all corporations) should be allowed to do what a government cannot.To go further, a corporation is supposed to maximize profits.
Therefore the money spent on a campaign has to get a ROI.
Doesn't that make it a bribe?Don't give it to them, now[sic] matter how much you want the government to be your Nanny.I want the government to ensure that when I go buy a hamburger at a truck-stop while driving cross-country, I don't get food poisoning and sick.
(Pre-empting the reductio ad absurdum argument, obviously there is a reasonable effort for a reasonable assurance that I want.
I do not want or expect perfection.
)  This resturant serves only for cross-country drivers, so their reputation doesn't suffer.
Given the high costs of a lawsuit, and my time spent on it, I doubt I would try a civil suit.
So what disincentive can we place upon this business, other than only eating at McDonalds with its deep corporate coffers and world-wide reputation.
Or can I not eat a hamburger without a corporation providing 20 references?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30858956</id>
	<title>call me inelegant</title>
	<author>memnock</author>
	<datestamp>1264173360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that's just fucked up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that 's just fucked up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that's just fucked up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853666</id>
	<title>Re:Not just corporations</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1264076040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yes, I'm sure that the Union's will be able to match the corporations contributionsActually, what will probably happen is that Unions will be made illegal after all of the government is bought and paid for.</p></div><p>I think you seriously underestimate both the influence and affluence of unions.  When you have thousands (or more) employees at a given place, and all of them are REQUIRED to tithe to you for the privilege of working... it adds up fast.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , I 'm sure that the Union 's will be able to match the corporations contributionsActually , what will probably happen is that Unions will be made illegal after all of the government is bought and paid for.I think you seriously underestimate both the influence and affluence of unions .
When you have thousands ( or more ) employees at a given place , and all of them are REQUIRED to tithe to you for the privilege of working... it adds up fast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, I'm sure that the Union's will be able to match the corporations contributionsActually, what will probably happen is that Unions will be made illegal after all of the government is bought and paid for.I think you seriously underestimate both the influence and affluence of unions.
When you have thousands (or more) employees at a given place, and all of them are REQUIRED to tithe to you for the privilege of working... it adds up fast.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853350</id>
	<title>Re:Bad, bad news</title>
	<author>bloobamator</author>
	<datestamp>1264074900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes you are correct.  Rights are protected by the Constitution, not granted.  Those same rights are elaborated by the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, both of which are explicit about the source of our rights: our humanity.

So how does your point refute the parent's assertion that corporations should not have the same rights as individuals?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes you are correct .
Rights are protected by the Constitution , not granted .
Those same rights are elaborated by the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights , both of which are explicit about the source of our rights : our humanity .
So how does your point refute the parent 's assertion that corporations should not have the same rights as individuals ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes you are correct.
Rights are protected by the Constitution, not granted.
Those same rights are elaborated by the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, both of which are explicit about the source of our rights: our humanity.
So how does your point refute the parent's assertion that corporations should not have the same rights as individuals?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850944</id>
	<title>Re:So much for government by the people</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1264067340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> With unlimited spending the sheep who listen without thinking will just keep electing who they're told and never consider the consequences. Yay...</i></p><p>You are just bitter that the sheep will listen to someone besides you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With unlimited spending the sheep who listen without thinking will just keep electing who they 're told and never consider the consequences .
Yay...You are just bitter that the sheep will listen to someone besides you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> With unlimited spending the sheep who listen without thinking will just keep electing who they're told and never consider the consequences.
Yay...You are just bitter that the sheep will listen to someone besides you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30856782</id>
	<title>Re:Both good and bad ways aspects</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264100820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> They're not people. They don't get a vote.</i> <br>Don't give them ideas...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're not people .
They do n't get a vote .
Do n't give them ideas.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> They're not people.
They don't get a vote.
Don't give them ideas...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851826</id>
	<title>Re:Bad, bad news</title>
	<author>ATairov</author>
	<datestamp>1264069920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So where do rights come from, exactly?  Ownership, for example, is clearly a social construct based on mutual agreement that someone should possess control over a resource.  (After all, if ownership isn't control over something, what is ownership?)  The resources themselves don't care who "owns" them, nor does the world/universe itself have some sort of meta data tag saying "This rock is ScentCone's rock."

Where do your rights come from?  Surely, they must come from somewhere -- but I have yet to have a "libertarian" give me a satisfying explanation why rights aren't just proxies for Utility, and thus subordinate to Utility.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So where do rights come from , exactly ?
Ownership , for example , is clearly a social construct based on mutual agreement that someone should possess control over a resource .
( After all , if ownership is n't control over something , what is ownership ?
) The resources themselves do n't care who " owns " them , nor does the world/universe itself have some sort of meta data tag saying " This rock is ScentCone 's rock .
" Where do your rights come from ?
Surely , they must come from somewhere -- but I have yet to have a " libertarian " give me a satisfying explanation why rights are n't just proxies for Utility , and thus subordinate to Utility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So where do rights come from, exactly?
Ownership, for example, is clearly a social construct based on mutual agreement that someone should possess control over a resource.
(After all, if ownership isn't control over something, what is ownership?
)  The resources themselves don't care who "owns" them, nor does the world/universe itself have some sort of meta data tag saying "This rock is ScentCone's rock.
"

Where do your rights come from?
Surely, they must come from somewhere -- but I have yet to have a "libertarian" give me a satisfying explanation why rights aren't just proxies for Utility, and thus subordinate to Utility.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30854780</id>
	<title>Re:Free sppech?</title>
	<author>theycallmeB</author>
	<datestamp>1264081560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, but if you do not tax corporations to pay for the government services they consume, then you artificially lower the cost of doing business and distort the market by separating the market price of a product or service from its actual cost to the people who are paying taxes. By ensuring that all of the costs of a given product are included in its price, including the cost of government services used by the company making the product, corporate taxes can result in consumers better optimizing their purchasing decisions to give themselves a maximized return on their expenditures.
<br> <br>
Its really just the application of free and fair market principles without the anti-tax ideology or slavish devotion to corporate welfare. I'm not sure why that is so hard for people to get.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but if you do not tax corporations to pay for the government services they consume , then you artificially lower the cost of doing business and distort the market by separating the market price of a product or service from its actual cost to the people who are paying taxes .
By ensuring that all of the costs of a given product are included in its price , including the cost of government services used by the company making the product , corporate taxes can result in consumers better optimizing their purchasing decisions to give themselves a maximized return on their expenditures .
Its really just the application of free and fair market principles without the anti-tax ideology or slavish devotion to corporate welfare .
I 'm not sure why that is so hard for people to get .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but if you do not tax corporations to pay for the government services they consume, then you artificially lower the cost of doing business and distort the market by separating the market price of a product or service from its actual cost to the people who are paying taxes.
By ensuring that all of the costs of a given product are included in its price, including the cost of government services used by the company making the product, corporate taxes can result in consumers better optimizing their purchasing decisions to give themselves a maximized return on their expenditures.
Its really just the application of free and fair market principles without the anti-tax ideology or slavish devotion to corporate welfare.
I'm not sure why that is so hard for people to get.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30860738</id>
	<title>Re:Corporations are not individuals</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1264182300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to reply to clarify my misunderstanding - After reading a New York Times article (dead tree form) it turns out the ruling is a lot smaller than I thought.  Before this ruling, corporations could make political ads about issues, but not endorsing specific candidates.  Now, they can do both.  So the only change is the candidate part.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to reply to clarify my misunderstanding - After reading a New York Times article ( dead tree form ) it turns out the ruling is a lot smaller than I thought .
Before this ruling , corporations could make political ads about issues , but not endorsing specific candidates .
Now , they can do both .
So the only change is the candidate part .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to reply to clarify my misunderstanding - After reading a New York Times article (dead tree form) it turns out the ruling is a lot smaller than I thought.
Before this ruling, corporations could make political ads about issues, but not endorsing specific candidates.
Now, they can do both.
So the only change is the candidate part.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851030</id>
	<title>Re:Not just corporations</title>
	<author>RyoShin</author>
	<datestamp>1264067580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>True, but I'd bet the ratio of "greedy, no good corp":"all corporations" is far higher than "greedy, useless union":"all unions".  So while those unions who still strive for their members will get a boost here, that will be overwhelmingly drowned out by corporations hurrying to create ad campaigns for whatever they want.</p><p>However, there is one distinction I find important that is not mentioned in the summary (surprise!):</p><blockquote><div><p>It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.</p></div></blockquote><p>So both corps and unions still can't funnel money directly to candidates, they can basically accomplish everything themselves.  While important, it doesn't leave a lot of hope; it's like saying 'Oh, this pile of shit is slightly less pungent than those last 15 piles of shit. Jolly good!' And I find this funny:</p><blockquote><div><p>The ruling will lead to a "stampede of special interest money in our politics," Obama said in a statement.</p></div></blockquote><p>Because that doesn't already happen, amirite?  Then there's this, which is just stupid:</p><blockquote><div><p>Roberts, in a separate opinion, said that upholding the limits would have restrained "the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy."</p></div></blockquote><p>I don't know about you, but my local corporations have certainly been interested in furthering discord--er, discourse.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>True , but I 'd bet the ratio of " greedy , no good corp " : " all corporations " is far higher than " greedy , useless union " : " all unions " .
So while those unions who still strive for their members will get a boost here , that will be overwhelmingly drowned out by corporations hurrying to create ad campaigns for whatever they want.However , there is one distinction I find important that is not mentioned in the summary ( surprise !
) : It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.So both corps and unions still ca n't funnel money directly to candidates , they can basically accomplish everything themselves .
While important , it does n't leave a lot of hope ; it 's like saying 'Oh , this pile of shit is slightly less pungent than those last 15 piles of shit .
Jolly good !
' And I find this funny : The ruling will lead to a " stampede of special interest money in our politics , " Obama said in a statement.Because that does n't already happen , amirite ?
Then there 's this , which is just stupid : Roberts , in a separate opinion , said that upholding the limits would have restrained " the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy .
" I do n't know about you , but my local corporations have certainly been interested in furthering discord--er , discourse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True, but I'd bet the ratio of "greedy, no good corp":"all corporations" is far higher than "greedy, useless union":"all unions".
So while those unions who still strive for their members will get a boost here, that will be overwhelmingly drowned out by corporations hurrying to create ad campaigns for whatever they want.However, there is one distinction I find important that is not mentioned in the summary (surprise!
):It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.So both corps and unions still can't funnel money directly to candidates, they can basically accomplish everything themselves.
While important, it doesn't leave a lot of hope; it's like saying 'Oh, this pile of shit is slightly less pungent than those last 15 piles of shit.
Jolly good!
' And I find this funny:The ruling will lead to a "stampede of special interest money in our politics," Obama said in a statement.Because that doesn't already happen, amirite?
Then there's this, which is just stupid:Roberts, in a separate opinion, said that upholding the limits would have restrained "the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy.
"I don't know about you, but my local corporations have certainly been interested in furthering discord--er, discourse.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853582</id>
	<title>Message from Lawrence Lessig's "Change Congress"</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1264075740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is an email sent to people who subscribed the "Change Congress" newsletter. If you read Slashdot, you probably are interested in this movement too.<p><div class="quote"><p>Friend --<br>
<br> <br>
I'm about to get on a plane, and I've only had a brief chance to look over the decision, but it appears the Supreme Court has struck down restrictions on corporate speech in political campaigns -- overturning 20 years of campaign finance regulations and allowing corporations to wield unprecedented control over our elections.<br> <br>

What we need is a system in which the American people can trust that when Congress acts, it does so based on principle, or reason, or the will of the voters -- but not on the need for campaign funds. This decision erodes that trust down to nothingness.<br> <br>

We need to act now to fix this broken system -- and fortunately, the path forward is clear.<br> <br>

I just recorded a video from the terminal with my initial reaction -- watch the video and please say you'll join this battle for fundamental reform:<br> <br>

Watch my reaction to the Citizens United decision<br>
<a href="http://action.change-congress.org/SupremeCourt" title="change-congress.org">http://action.change-congress.org/SupremeCourt</a> [change-congress.org] <br> <br>

Please forward this email to everyone you know who cares about the future of our democracy and ask them to get involved. And please stay tuned to <a href="http://change-congress.org/" title="change-congress.org">http://change-congress.org/</a> [change-congress.org] for more on today's decision.<br> <br>

-- Lawrence Lessig</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is an email sent to people who subscribed the " Change Congress " newsletter .
If you read Slashdot , you probably are interested in this movement too.Friend -- I 'm about to get on a plane , and I 've only had a brief chance to look over the decision , but it appears the Supreme Court has struck down restrictions on corporate speech in political campaigns -- overturning 20 years of campaign finance regulations and allowing corporations to wield unprecedented control over our elections .
What we need is a system in which the American people can trust that when Congress acts , it does so based on principle , or reason , or the will of the voters -- but not on the need for campaign funds .
This decision erodes that trust down to nothingness .
We need to act now to fix this broken system -- and fortunately , the path forward is clear .
I just recorded a video from the terminal with my initial reaction -- watch the video and please say you 'll join this battle for fundamental reform : Watch my reaction to the Citizens United decision http : //action.change-congress.org/SupremeCourt [ change-congress.org ] Please forward this email to everyone you know who cares about the future of our democracy and ask them to get involved .
And please stay tuned to http : //change-congress.org/ [ change-congress.org ] for more on today 's decision .
-- Lawrence Lessig</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is an email sent to people who subscribed the "Change Congress" newsletter.
If you read Slashdot, you probably are interested in this movement too.Friend --
 
I'm about to get on a plane, and I've only had a brief chance to look over the decision, but it appears the Supreme Court has struck down restrictions on corporate speech in political campaigns -- overturning 20 years of campaign finance regulations and allowing corporations to wield unprecedented control over our elections.
What we need is a system in which the American people can trust that when Congress acts, it does so based on principle, or reason, or the will of the voters -- but not on the need for campaign funds.
This decision erodes that trust down to nothingness.
We need to act now to fix this broken system -- and fortunately, the path forward is clear.
I just recorded a video from the terminal with my initial reaction -- watch the video and please say you'll join this battle for fundamental reform: 

Watch my reaction to the Citizens United decision
http://action.change-congress.org/SupremeCourt [change-congress.org]  

Please forward this email to everyone you know who cares about the future of our democracy and ask them to get involved.
And please stay tuned to http://change-congress.org/ [change-congress.org] for more on today's decision.
-- Lawrence Lessig
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851574</id>
	<title>Re:A great victory for free speech!</title>
	<author>EzInKy</author>
	<datestamp>1264069140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i><br>Corporations are voluntary contracts between individuals, and those individuals have rights, period. If some of you Slashdot commies fail to comprehend that, that is your problem and yours alone.<br></i></p><p>"Under today's decision, multinational corporations controlled by foreign governments" would have the same rights as Americans to spend money to tilt U.S. elections."</p><p>-Justice Stevens, dissenting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Corporations are voluntary contracts between individuals , and those individuals have rights , period .
If some of you Slashdot commies fail to comprehend that , that is your problem and yours alone .
" Under today 's decision , multinational corporations controlled by foreign governments " would have the same rights as Americans to spend money to tilt U.S .
elections. " -Justice Stevens , dissenting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Corporations are voluntary contracts between individuals, and those individuals have rights, period.
If some of you Slashdot commies fail to comprehend that, that is your problem and yours alone.
"Under today's decision, multinational corporations controlled by foreign governments" would have the same rights as Americans to spend money to tilt U.S.
elections."-Justice Stevens, dissenting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852034</id>
	<title>Re:America's downfall was person == corp</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264070460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>America's downfall was person == corp?  Really?  Do realize that since at least world war 2, people have been coming up with reasons for America's downfall?  We've been comparing ourselves with Rome since at least the 70s.  "Lack of responsibility" "people only think of themselves" "no science in schools" "gays" "women working" All these things have been blamed for the fall of America, and all of them have one thing in common: America hasn't fallen yet.<br> <br>
Really.  We're still here.  Yeah, we're in a recession, but every recession before now ended, the depression ended, and that even though corporations existed through all of them.  And this one will end too.<br> <br>
Seriously, a corporation is just a tax structure. A legal hack.  Ending the legal structure of the corporation isn't going to change the fact that a bunch of people have gotten together under the Coca Cola name and want to do business together.  They are still going to want that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>America 's downfall was person = = corp ?
Really ? Do realize that since at least world war 2 , people have been coming up with reasons for America 's downfall ?
We 've been comparing ourselves with Rome since at least the 70s .
" Lack of responsibility " " people only think of themselves " " no science in schools " " gays " " women working " All these things have been blamed for the fall of America , and all of them have one thing in common : America has n't fallen yet .
Really. We 're still here .
Yeah , we 're in a recession , but every recession before now ended , the depression ended , and that even though corporations existed through all of them .
And this one will end too .
Seriously , a corporation is just a tax structure .
A legal hack .
Ending the legal structure of the corporation is n't going to change the fact that a bunch of people have gotten together under the Coca Cola name and want to do business together .
They are still going to want that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>America's downfall was person == corp?
Really?  Do realize that since at least world war 2, people have been coming up with reasons for America's downfall?
We've been comparing ourselves with Rome since at least the 70s.
"Lack of responsibility" "people only think of themselves" "no science in schools" "gays" "women working" All these things have been blamed for the fall of America, and all of them have one thing in common: America hasn't fallen yet.
Really.  We're still here.
Yeah, we're in a recession, but every recession before now ended, the depression ended, and that even though corporations existed through all of them.
And this one will end too.
Seriously, a corporation is just a tax structure.
A legal hack.
Ending the legal structure of the corporation isn't going to change the fact that a bunch of people have gotten together under the Coca Cola name and want to do business together.
They are still going to want that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30855568</id>
	<title>Corporatism at its finest</title>
	<author>Conspire</author>
	<datestamp>1264087920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here is a synopsis for ya:

Every single citizen above the age of 18 has a right to free speech both with their pocket book and their vote.

Now corporations and unions are made of what?  Citizens and non-citizens (shareholders, board of directors, managers, employees).  How corporations money is spent on campaigns and politicians is normally limited to board level decisions (the deciding power of usually no more than 20 people in a corporation).  So, in effect we are giving these 20 people of each corporation extra dollar votes.  They are able to spend other people's money (shareholders money), in effect "speech" twice!  Once for themselves and once again for themselves using other people's money.  Why do we feel the need to let these 20 or so board members get extra spending power.  If those 20 want to spend on campaigns why don't they all pool their bonuses and buy an advertisement?  Why is it they are able to spend shareholder money on campaigns?  We are just giving them more power, its a beautiful coup for the people who control the corporations in the US, they now get more swing power with mass opinion.  And oh yeah, and do you think that when Citibank or Exxon's big Saudi shareholders tell the board who they want in office and the company really should run some ads for that politician, do you think they will do it?  That's right, we now have more foreign interest swaying public opinion.

Next, if corporations really are people and get to spend whatever they like, we might as well let them vote, oh yeah, how many votes do they get?  I suggest everyone write your congressman and senators and bitch about this one.  It is so much bigger than everybody thinks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is a synopsis for ya : Every single citizen above the age of 18 has a right to free speech both with their pocket book and their vote .
Now corporations and unions are made of what ?
Citizens and non-citizens ( shareholders , board of directors , managers , employees ) .
How corporations money is spent on campaigns and politicians is normally limited to board level decisions ( the deciding power of usually no more than 20 people in a corporation ) .
So , in effect we are giving these 20 people of each corporation extra dollar votes .
They are able to spend other people 's money ( shareholders money ) , in effect " speech " twice !
Once for themselves and once again for themselves using other people 's money .
Why do we feel the need to let these 20 or so board members get extra spending power .
If those 20 want to spend on campaigns why do n't they all pool their bonuses and buy an advertisement ?
Why is it they are able to spend shareholder money on campaigns ?
We are just giving them more power , its a beautiful coup for the people who control the corporations in the US , they now get more swing power with mass opinion .
And oh yeah , and do you think that when Citibank or Exxon 's big Saudi shareholders tell the board who they want in office and the company really should run some ads for that politician , do you think they will do it ?
That 's right , we now have more foreign interest swaying public opinion .
Next , if corporations really are people and get to spend whatever they like , we might as well let them vote , oh yeah , how many votes do they get ?
I suggest everyone write your congressman and senators and bitch about this one .
It is so much bigger than everybody thinks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is a synopsis for ya:

Every single citizen above the age of 18 has a right to free speech both with their pocket book and their vote.
Now corporations and unions are made of what?
Citizens and non-citizens (shareholders, board of directors, managers, employees).
How corporations money is spent on campaigns and politicians is normally limited to board level decisions (the deciding power of usually no more than 20 people in a corporation).
So, in effect we are giving these 20 people of each corporation extra dollar votes.
They are able to spend other people's money (shareholders money), in effect "speech" twice!
Once for themselves and once again for themselves using other people's money.
Why do we feel the need to let these 20 or so board members get extra spending power.
If those 20 want to spend on campaigns why don't they all pool their bonuses and buy an advertisement?
Why is it they are able to spend shareholder money on campaigns?
We are just giving them more power, its a beautiful coup for the people who control the corporations in the US, they now get more swing power with mass opinion.
And oh yeah, and do you think that when Citibank or Exxon's big Saudi shareholders tell the board who they want in office and the company really should run some ads for that politician, do you think they will do it?
That's right, we now have more foreign interest swaying public opinion.
Next, if corporations really are people and get to spend whatever they like, we might as well let them vote, oh yeah, how many votes do they get?
I suggest everyone write your congressman and senators and bitch about this one.
It is so much bigger than everybody thinks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851040</id>
	<title>Re:A great victory for free speech!</title>
	<author>mweather</author>
	<datestamp>1264067640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The individuals in the corporation weren't affected by these limits, only the corporation itself.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The individuals in the corporation were n't affected by these limits , only the corporation itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The individuals in the corporation weren't affected by these limits, only the corporation itself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30866334</id>
	<title>I think the real problem is money = speech</title>
	<author>yuhong</author>
	<datestamp>1264173960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Money should not equal speech. I'm sure that equating money with speech is far from the intent of whoever was writing the Constitution.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Money should not equal speech .
I 'm sure that equating money with speech is far from the intent of whoever was writing the Constitution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Money should not equal speech.
I'm sure that equating money with speech is far from the intent of whoever was writing the Constitution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852718</id>
	<title>Re:Both good and bad ways aspects</title>
	<author>Scooby Snacks</author>
	<datestamp>1264072680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you want to equate the rights of free persons with those of legal constructs, start by removing the "limited liability" provisions of the laws which enable those constructs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to equate the rights of free persons with those of legal constructs , start by removing the " limited liability " provisions of the laws which enable those constructs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to equate the rights of free persons with those of legal constructs, start by removing the "limited liability" provisions of the laws which enable those constructs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852624</id>
	<title>Re:Bad, bad news</title>
	<author>Scooby Snacks</author>
	<datestamp>1264072320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Corporations are possible only because of laws enabling their creation.  Why, then, is it wrong that they be regulated by the same mechanism that allows for their existence?

<p>People are different because they exist independently of laws.

</p><p>You may point out that corporations are comprised, principally, of groups of people, and you'd be right, but they have more power than do individuals, primarily because they have more money than any person could hope to amass.  When you combine this greater power with limited liability and other special rights that are allowed them, it becomes quite obvious that it is entirely appropriate to restrict their behavior.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Corporations are possible only because of laws enabling their creation .
Why , then , is it wrong that they be regulated by the same mechanism that allows for their existence ?
People are different because they exist independently of laws .
You may point out that corporations are comprised , principally , of groups of people , and you 'd be right , but they have more power than do individuals , primarily because they have more money than any person could hope to amass .
When you combine this greater power with limited liability and other special rights that are allowed them , it becomes quite obvious that it is entirely appropriate to restrict their behavior .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Corporations are possible only because of laws enabling their creation.
Why, then, is it wrong that they be regulated by the same mechanism that allows for their existence?
People are different because they exist independently of laws.
You may point out that corporations are comprised, principally, of groups of people, and you'd be right, but they have more power than do individuals, primarily because they have more money than any person could hope to amass.
When you combine this greater power with limited liability and other special rights that are allowed them, it becomes quite obvious that it is entirely appropriate to restrict their behavior.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851928</id>
	<title>I Want My Fucking Country Back!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264070160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dear Supreme Court,
<br> <br>
Please fuck off with the intentionally misleading phrases you use in an attempt to put a positive spin on the shit you shove down our throats.  Allowing our corporations to buy any legislation they wish at the cost of our freedom is not even close to "free speech" and never will be.  I'm tired of losing freedoms for the sake of "national security" and "a corporation's right to free speech".  I thought Obama was going to end lobbying - these actions only extend the ability to lobby.  All of the people who were ready to take our country back were calmed down by the hope that our new President would fix some of the fundamental problems with our government, but that shit ain't happening, and I personally am getting angry again.
<br> <br>
Give us back our country or we'll be forced to take it!
<br> <br>
One of many American Patriots,
Anonymous Coward</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear Supreme Court , Please fuck off with the intentionally misleading phrases you use in an attempt to put a positive spin on the shit you shove down our throats .
Allowing our corporations to buy any legislation they wish at the cost of our freedom is not even close to " free speech " and never will be .
I 'm tired of losing freedoms for the sake of " national security " and " a corporation 's right to free speech " .
I thought Obama was going to end lobbying - these actions only extend the ability to lobby .
All of the people who were ready to take our country back were calmed down by the hope that our new President would fix some of the fundamental problems with our government , but that shit ai n't happening , and I personally am getting angry again .
Give us back our country or we 'll be forced to take it !
One of many American Patriots , Anonymous Coward</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear Supreme Court,
 
Please fuck off with the intentionally misleading phrases you use in an attempt to put a positive spin on the shit you shove down our throats.
Allowing our corporations to buy any legislation they wish at the cost of our freedom is not even close to "free speech" and never will be.
I'm tired of losing freedoms for the sake of "national security" and "a corporation's right to free speech".
I thought Obama was going to end lobbying - these actions only extend the ability to lobby.
All of the people who were ready to take our country back were calmed down by the hope that our new President would fix some of the fundamental problems with our government, but that shit ain't happening, and I personally am getting angry again.
Give us back our country or we'll be forced to take it!
One of many American Patriots,
Anonymous Coward</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850698</id>
	<title>Bad, bad news</title>
	<author>truthsearch</author>
	<datestamp>1264066560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We need to replace the "conservatives" on the supreme court who don't understand that corporations should not have the constitutional rights of citizens.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We need to replace the " conservatives " on the supreme court who do n't understand that corporations should not have the constitutional rights of citizens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need to replace the "conservatives" on the supreme court who don't understand that corporations should not have the constitutional rights of citizens.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851914</id>
	<title>Behind Closed Doors...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264070100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aide: "Mr. Candidate, you're losing Big Oil's ads in primetime because of your stance on the environment, and just today your opponent announced double taxes on hybrid and electric vehicles as a goal of his, what are you doing to regain that adspace? Might I suggest taking up the drill in our national parks platform to help get you that mindshare back?"</p><p>For extra thought-</p><p>"In the 1980s capitalism triumphed over communism. In the 1990s it triumphed over democracy." - David Korten</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Aide : " Mr. Candidate , you 're losing Big Oil 's ads in primetime because of your stance on the environment , and just today your opponent announced double taxes on hybrid and electric vehicles as a goal of his , what are you doing to regain that adspace ?
Might I suggest taking up the drill in our national parks platform to help get you that mindshare back ?
" For extra thought- " In the 1980s capitalism triumphed over communism .
In the 1990s it triumphed over democracy .
" - David Korten</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aide: "Mr. Candidate, you're losing Big Oil's ads in primetime because of your stance on the environment, and just today your opponent announced double taxes on hybrid and electric vehicles as a goal of his, what are you doing to regain that adspace?
Might I suggest taking up the drill in our national parks platform to help get you that mindshare back?
"For extra thought-"In the 1980s capitalism triumphed over communism.
In the 1990s it triumphed over democracy.
" - David Korten</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30861690</id>
	<title>Re:This decision is horrible</title>
	<author>jwhitener</author>
	<datestamp>1264187100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love how I got marked troll for saying the same thing hehe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love how I got marked troll for saying the same thing hehe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love how I got marked troll for saying the same thing hehe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853638</id>
	<title>Re:Good explanation, great ruling</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1264075920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why shouldn't corporations be entitled to free speech, just as any person who is a part of that corporation is entitled to it? If I speak as part of a company, do I suddenly lose my right whereas if I take off my "Exxon" cap I get it back? Doesn't really make sense to me.</p></div><p>It makes perfect sense to me. See, when you're wearing your "Exxon" cap, you don't speak what <em>you</em> want, you speak what the corporation tells you to speak. When you take your hat off, <em>then</em> you speak freely as an individual. If your position matches with that of the corporation, there's no difference, but then no rights are harmed - the collective voice of all people making up the corporation is then equal to the voice of the corporation itself, should it have one.</p><p>But if some members of the corporation don't agree with its "overall voice", and you still consider said voice as equivalent to the aggregate of all their individual voices, you had effectively taken away the voice of some people within the corporation. If anything, that harms free speech, not helps it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should n't corporations be entitled to free speech , just as any person who is a part of that corporation is entitled to it ?
If I speak as part of a company , do I suddenly lose my right whereas if I take off my " Exxon " cap I get it back ?
Does n't really make sense to me.It makes perfect sense to me .
See , when you 're wearing your " Exxon " cap , you do n't speak what you want , you speak what the corporation tells you to speak .
When you take your hat off , then you speak freely as an individual .
If your position matches with that of the corporation , there 's no difference , but then no rights are harmed - the collective voice of all people making up the corporation is then equal to the voice of the corporation itself , should it have one.But if some members of the corporation do n't agree with its " overall voice " , and you still consider said voice as equivalent to the aggregate of all their individual voices , you had effectively taken away the voice of some people within the corporation .
If anything , that harms free speech , not helps it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why shouldn't corporations be entitled to free speech, just as any person who is a part of that corporation is entitled to it?
If I speak as part of a company, do I suddenly lose my right whereas if I take off my "Exxon" cap I get it back?
Doesn't really make sense to me.It makes perfect sense to me.
See, when you're wearing your "Exxon" cap, you don't speak what you want, you speak what the corporation tells you to speak.
When you take your hat off, then you speak freely as an individual.
If your position matches with that of the corporation, there's no difference, but then no rights are harmed - the collective voice of all people making up the corporation is then equal to the voice of the corporation itself, should it have one.But if some members of the corporation don't agree with its "overall voice", and you still consider said voice as equivalent to the aggregate of all their individual voices, you had effectively taken away the voice of some people within the corporation.
If anything, that harms free speech, not helps it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30856106</id>
	<title>Re:Free sppech?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264092840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You cannot tax a corporation. Increased tax burdens just trickle down to reduced wages for low level employees and increased prices. I'm not sure why that is so hard for people to get.</p></div><p>I don't think it's very hard for people to get at all. I think the people who understand it and still advocate it know full well what they're doing. Corporate income tax is effectively sales tax, but people know that a general sales tax is regressive and harms the poor. So you have a corporate income tax, it still harms the poor, but now Joe Incumbent gets reelected for punishing those dastardly corporations and lowering taxes on "real" people. Never mind that "real" people are still paying more for the things they buy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can not tax a corporation .
Increased tax burdens just trickle down to reduced wages for low level employees and increased prices .
I 'm not sure why that is so hard for people to get.I do n't think it 's very hard for people to get at all .
I think the people who understand it and still advocate it know full well what they 're doing .
Corporate income tax is effectively sales tax , but people know that a general sales tax is regressive and harms the poor .
So you have a corporate income tax , it still harms the poor , but now Joe Incumbent gets reelected for punishing those dastardly corporations and lowering taxes on " real " people .
Never mind that " real " people are still paying more for the things they buy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You cannot tax a corporation.
Increased tax burdens just trickle down to reduced wages for low level employees and increased prices.
I'm not sure why that is so hard for people to get.I don't think it's very hard for people to get at all.
I think the people who understand it and still advocate it know full well what they're doing.
Corporate income tax is effectively sales tax, but people know that a general sales tax is regressive and harms the poor.
So you have a corporate income tax, it still harms the poor, but now Joe Incumbent gets reelected for punishing those dastardly corporations and lowering taxes on "real" people.
Never mind that "real" people are still paying more for the things they buy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852634</id>
	<title>Let corporations speak freely</title>
	<author>bugs2squash</author>
	<datestamp>1264072380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have yet to hear any corporation speak, or communicate in any way. It always needs people to do that on its behalf. I say when the corporation itself, with no people to help it can speak on its own then it should be free to do so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have yet to hear any corporation speak , or communicate in any way .
It always needs people to do that on its behalf .
I say when the corporation itself , with no people to help it can speak on its own then it should be free to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have yet to hear any corporation speak, or communicate in any way.
It always needs people to do that on its behalf.
I say when the corporation itself, with no people to help it can speak on its own then it should be free to do so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851938</id>
	<title>Corporations are not individuals</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1264070160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't get it.  This does not make sense to me either legally, or ethically.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Critics of the stricter limits have argued that they amount to an unconstitutional restraint of free speech, and the court majority agreed.</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>But Sen. Mitch McConnell<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...praised the court for "restoring the First Amendment rights" of corporations and unions.</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>Kennedy<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... said, "No sufficient government interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations."</p></div><p>Corporations do not have first amendment rights.  They cannot vote.  They are not individuals.  They have no rights at all.</p><p>If people want to get together and spend money on a commercial about something political, because they really feel strongly enough to give their own money, they can do that via a PAC.  Why the heck would we want corporations to be able to do this?  No good can come of it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't get it .
This does not make sense to me either legally , or ethically.Critics of the stricter limits have argued that they amount to an unconstitutional restraint of free speech , and the court majority agreed.But Sen. Mitch McConnell ...praised the court for " restoring the First Amendment rights " of corporations and unions.Kennedy ... said , " No sufficient government interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations .
" Corporations do not have first amendment rights .
They can not vote .
They are not individuals .
They have no rights at all.If people want to get together and spend money on a commercial about something political , because they really feel strongly enough to give their own money , they can do that via a PAC .
Why the heck would we want corporations to be able to do this ?
No good can come of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't get it.
This does not make sense to me either legally, or ethically.Critics of the stricter limits have argued that they amount to an unconstitutional restraint of free speech, and the court majority agreed.But Sen. Mitch McConnell ...praised the court for "restoring the First Amendment rights" of corporations and unions.Kennedy ... said, "No sufficient government interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations.
"Corporations do not have first amendment rights.
They cannot vote.
They are not individuals.
They have no rights at all.If people want to get together and spend money on a commercial about something political, because they really feel strongly enough to give their own money, they can do that via a PAC.
Why the heck would we want corporations to be able to do this?
No good can come of it.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30854480</id>
	<title>Re:Free sppech?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264079940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or, if corporations want to be persons, they need to be burdened with the mortality and infirmities of persons.  For instance, with the actual corporations to be selected randomly, without recourse and with no appeal:</p><p>* each year some number of corporations should be instantly eliminated with no warning whatsoever - in the same percentages as people die without warning.  Think of it as the corporate equivalent of a traffic accident, or drive-by shooting, or undetected aneurysm.</p><p>* no corporation should be allowed to have a lifespan greater than that of a real person and they should be randomly selected for elimination at ages mirroring actuarial figures for humans.  Some should die at birth and a very, very few could make it to 110+ years.  Most should be eliminated by age 85 or so.</p><p>* each year some number of corporations should be declared "ill" and have to suspend their activities for a randomly chosen period of time.  Some of them would be declared terminally "ill" and be forced to run up huge expenses before being eliminated.  Think of it as corporate cancer.</p><p>* each year some number of corporations should start losing their memories, have their cognitive functions reduced, and finally be eliminated after having been made ineffective and impoverished.  Think of it as corporate Alzheimers.</p><p>The list of things they should be subject to, if they really want to be allowed "person-hood" is quite long.  And none of it is very good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or , if corporations want to be persons , they need to be burdened with the mortality and infirmities of persons .
For instance , with the actual corporations to be selected randomly , without recourse and with no appeal : * each year some number of corporations should be instantly eliminated with no warning whatsoever - in the same percentages as people die without warning .
Think of it as the corporate equivalent of a traffic accident , or drive-by shooting , or undetected aneurysm .
* no corporation should be allowed to have a lifespan greater than that of a real person and they should be randomly selected for elimination at ages mirroring actuarial figures for humans .
Some should die at birth and a very , very few could make it to 110 + years .
Most should be eliminated by age 85 or so .
* each year some number of corporations should be declared " ill " and have to suspend their activities for a randomly chosen period of time .
Some of them would be declared terminally " ill " and be forced to run up huge expenses before being eliminated .
Think of it as corporate cancer .
* each year some number of corporations should start losing their memories , have their cognitive functions reduced , and finally be eliminated after having been made ineffective and impoverished .
Think of it as corporate Alzheimers.The list of things they should be subject to , if they really want to be allowed " person-hood " is quite long .
And none of it is very good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or, if corporations want to be persons, they need to be burdened with the mortality and infirmities of persons.
For instance, with the actual corporations to be selected randomly, without recourse and with no appeal:* each year some number of corporations should be instantly eliminated with no warning whatsoever - in the same percentages as people die without warning.
Think of it as the corporate equivalent of a traffic accident, or drive-by shooting, or undetected aneurysm.
* no corporation should be allowed to have a lifespan greater than that of a real person and they should be randomly selected for elimination at ages mirroring actuarial figures for humans.
Some should die at birth and a very, very few could make it to 110+ years.
Most should be eliminated by age 85 or so.
* each year some number of corporations should be declared "ill" and have to suspend their activities for a randomly chosen period of time.
Some of them would be declared terminally "ill" and be forced to run up huge expenses before being eliminated.
Think of it as corporate cancer.
* each year some number of corporations should start losing their memories, have their cognitive functions reduced, and finally be eliminated after having been made ineffective and impoverished.
Think of it as corporate Alzheimers.The list of things they should be subject to, if they really want to be allowed "person-hood" is quite long.
And none of it is very good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30856276</id>
	<title>Corporate "persons" leveraging political speech</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264094580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> I can't imagine why SCOTUS is taking this approach.  True, since 1866 it has been swept along in the idea that corporations should have the rights of citizens, but they don't have to rule this way if they don't want to.  And they didn't always.  Below is a cut from 1905 I've probably sent you before.  Even after 1866 The Court knew the difference between individual and corporation.  I have no theory why it keeps screwing America by ruling this way.  And we also suffer from the reverse; individuals being treated as corporations with no rights.  For example the IRS says you have no "cost basis" in your own labor so when you sell it, it's all "profit or gain" and therefore "income".  They wouldn't talk to an individual like that, IRS thinks everyone is a corporation, under its jurisdiction, the bastards.</p><p>Come the revolution they'll be the first ones up against the wall<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Hale vs Henkel<br>201US74<br>Year 1905.<br>a 5th amendment case</p><p>"Conceding that the witness was an officer of the corporation under investigation, and that he was entitled to assert the rights of the corporation with respect to the production of its books and papers, we are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the State.</p><p>The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.</p><p>Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the State.  It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public.  It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the State and the limitations of its charter.  Its powers are limited by law.  It can make no contract not authorized by its charter.  Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation.  There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers.  It would be a strange anomaly to hold that a State, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not in the exercise of its sovereignty inquire how these franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of the corporate books and papers for that purpose."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't imagine why SCOTUS is taking this approach .
True , since 1866 it has been swept along in the idea that corporations should have the rights of citizens , but they do n't have to rule this way if they do n't want to .
And they did n't always .
Below is a cut from 1905 I 've probably sent you before .
Even after 1866 The Court knew the difference between individual and corporation .
I have no theory why it keeps screwing America by ruling this way .
And we also suffer from the reverse ; individuals being treated as corporations with no rights .
For example the IRS says you have no " cost basis " in your own labor so when you sell it , it 's all " profit or gain " and therefore " income " .
They would n't talk to an individual like that , IRS thinks everyone is a corporation , under its jurisdiction , the bastards.Come the revolution they 'll be the first ones up against the wall : ) Hale vs Henkel201US74Year 1905.a 5th amendment case " Conceding that the witness was an officer of the corporation under investigation , and that he was entitled to assert the rights of the corporation with respect to the production of its books and papers , we are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation , and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the State.The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen .
He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way .
His power to contract is unlimited .
He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business , or to open his doors to an investigation , so far as it may tend to criminate him .
He owes no such duty to the State , since he receives nothing therefrom beyond the protection of his life and property .
His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State , and can only be taken from him by due process of law , and in accordance with the Constitution .
Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law .
He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.Upon the other hand , the corporation is a creature of the State .
It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public .
It receives certain special privileges and franchises , and holds them subject to the laws of the State and the limitations of its charter .
Its powers are limited by law .
It can make no contract not authorized by its charter .
Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation .
There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers .
It would be a strange anomaly to hold that a State , having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises , could not in the exercise of its sovereignty inquire how these franchises had been employed , and whether they had been abused , and demand the production of the corporate books and papers for that purpose .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I can't imagine why SCOTUS is taking this approach.
True, since 1866 it has been swept along in the idea that corporations should have the rights of citizens, but they don't have to rule this way if they don't want to.
And they didn't always.
Below is a cut from 1905 I've probably sent you before.
Even after 1866 The Court knew the difference between individual and corporation.
I have no theory why it keeps screwing America by ruling this way.
And we also suffer from the reverse; individuals being treated as corporations with no rights.
For example the IRS says you have no "cost basis" in your own labor so when you sell it, it's all "profit or gain" and therefore "income".
They wouldn't talk to an individual like that, IRS thinks everyone is a corporation, under its jurisdiction, the bastards.Come the revolution they'll be the first ones up against the wall :)Hale vs Henkel201US74Year 1905.a 5th amendment case"Conceding that the witness was an officer of the corporation under investigation, and that he was entitled to assert the rights of the corporation with respect to the production of its books and papers, we are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the State.The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen.
He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way.
His power to contract is unlimited.
He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him.
He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom beyond the protection of his life and property.
His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution.
Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law.
He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the State.
It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public.
It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the State and the limitations of its charter.
Its powers are limited by law.
It can make no contract not authorized by its charter.
Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation.
There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers.
It would be a strange anomaly to hold that a State, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not in the exercise of its sovereignty inquire how these franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of the corporate books and papers for that purpose.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851150</id>
	<title>Re:Welcome to Fascism</title>
	<author>ArcherB</author>
	<datestamp>1264067880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The U(F)SA is now a de facto fascist state.</p></div><p>Does this qualify as a Godwin violation?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The U ( F ) SA is now a de facto fascist state.Does this qualify as a Godwin violation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The U(F)SA is now a de facto fascist state.Does this qualify as a Godwin violation?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30867490</id>
	<title>Re:Both good and bad ways aspects</title>
	<author>seekertom</author>
	<datestamp>1264188600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Joshua--- I'm glad you are fascinated by the way most of us have knee-jerk reactions to most anything our govt has to say anymore. Most of us probably have come to the conclusion that anything coming out of Washington is probably bad news for us, but you seem to believe otherwise. Give me YOUR list of all the great and wonderful things that have occurred during the past two or three decades that would dispute this.... as for corporations having the right to 'free speech': the first amendment does say the govt can't pass a law to limit it, but the constitution is all about individuals, citizens of the United States of America, not fictitious entities (who may or may not even be American!). Corporations can't own a gun, can't vote, can't do a lot of other things provided for by the Constitution, because corporations are not citizens, not people! Also, corporations are legally established, licensed etc to do a specific type of business. NONE that I know of, have included in their charter the activities of politics. Thanks fer lis'nin' seekertom</htmltext>
<tokenext>Joshua--- I 'm glad you are fascinated by the way most of us have knee-jerk reactions to most anything our govt has to say anymore .
Most of us probably have come to the conclusion that anything coming out of Washington is probably bad news for us , but you seem to believe otherwise .
Give me YOUR list of all the great and wonderful things that have occurred during the past two or three decades that would dispute this.... as for corporations having the right to 'free speech ' : the first amendment does say the govt ca n't pass a law to limit it , but the constitution is all about individuals , citizens of the United States of America , not fictitious entities ( who may or may not even be American ! ) .
Corporations ca n't own a gun , ca n't vote , ca n't do a lot of other things provided for by the Constitution , because corporations are not citizens , not people !
Also , corporations are legally established , licensed etc to do a specific type of business .
NONE that I know of , have included in their charter the activities of politics .
Thanks fer lis'nin ' seekertom</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Joshua--- I'm glad you are fascinated by the way most of us have knee-jerk reactions to most anything our govt has to say anymore.
Most of us probably have come to the conclusion that anything coming out of Washington is probably bad news for us, but you seem to believe otherwise.
Give me YOUR list of all the great and wonderful things that have occurred during the past two or three decades that would dispute this.... as for corporations having the right to 'free speech': the first amendment does say the govt can't pass a law to limit it, but the constitution is all about individuals, citizens of the United States of America, not fictitious entities (who may or may not even be American!).
Corporations can't own a gun, can't vote, can't do a lot of other things provided for by the Constitution, because corporations are not citizens, not people!
Also, corporations are legally established, licensed etc to do a specific type of business.
NONE that I know of, have included in their charter the activities of politics.
Thanks fer lis'nin' seekertom</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30856940</id>
	<title>BS there is nothing good about this.</title>
	<author>ukemike</author>
	<datestamp>1264102980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Corporations absolutely should not have rights equal to those of humans.   Corporations are effectively immortal.  Since they cannot be captured, jailed, or put to death they are not subject to criminal law at all.  They are only subject to civil law and in many ways even that is limited.  In comparison to the way individuals are taxed, corporations are almost exempt from taxes.  If a corporation incurs more debt that it can pay it is able to file for bankruptcy and walk away from the debt and any contracts it does not like (say with unions) and often time w/in a year the stockholders have MADE money on the process.<br> <br>

When our country was young people understood how dangerous corporations are to liberty.  In fact it was largely in response to the abuses of the British East India Company that our revolution took place.  When our country was young corporate charters were issued for limited periods, 10- 40 years; for limited purposes, say to build a rail line and could be easily revoked for violating a law.  Corporations could only engage in activities directly related to their charter; could not own property or stock in other corporations; and stockholders were not protected from the liabilities of the corporation.  You can see how radically different things are today.<br> <br>

You may be surprised but Adam Smith actually argued against corporations in "The Wealth of Nations" because they drove out competition from individual merchants and artisans.

It was not until the railroads gained such power that they were able to get a Supreme Court to declare them "persons" that corporations began their meteoric rise to becoming the dominant world organizations.  Now most governments act as proxies for corporations.  The US governemnt already does more for the benefit of corporations that that of citizens, now with all restrictions on corporate electioneering removed these incorporeal, immortal, lawless monsters will be able to buy whatever elected position they desire by simply buying up so much propaganda that any truth will be buried in the din.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Corporations absolutely should not have rights equal to those of humans .
Corporations are effectively immortal .
Since they can not be captured , jailed , or put to death they are not subject to criminal law at all .
They are only subject to civil law and in many ways even that is limited .
In comparison to the way individuals are taxed , corporations are almost exempt from taxes .
If a corporation incurs more debt that it can pay it is able to file for bankruptcy and walk away from the debt and any contracts it does not like ( say with unions ) and often time w/in a year the stockholders have MADE money on the process .
When our country was young people understood how dangerous corporations are to liberty .
In fact it was largely in response to the abuses of the British East India Company that our revolution took place .
When our country was young corporate charters were issued for limited periods , 10- 40 years ; for limited purposes , say to build a rail line and could be easily revoked for violating a law .
Corporations could only engage in activities directly related to their charter ; could not own property or stock in other corporations ; and stockholders were not protected from the liabilities of the corporation .
You can see how radically different things are today .
You may be surprised but Adam Smith actually argued against corporations in " The Wealth of Nations " because they drove out competition from individual merchants and artisans .
It was not until the railroads gained such power that they were able to get a Supreme Court to declare them " persons " that corporations began their meteoric rise to becoming the dominant world organizations .
Now most governments act as proxies for corporations .
The US governemnt already does more for the benefit of corporations that that of citizens , now with all restrictions on corporate electioneering removed these incorporeal , immortal , lawless monsters will be able to buy whatever elected position they desire by simply buying up so much propaganda that any truth will be buried in the din .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Corporations absolutely should not have rights equal to those of humans.
Corporations are effectively immortal.
Since they cannot be captured, jailed, or put to death they are not subject to criminal law at all.
They are only subject to civil law and in many ways even that is limited.
In comparison to the way individuals are taxed, corporations are almost exempt from taxes.
If a corporation incurs more debt that it can pay it is able to file for bankruptcy and walk away from the debt and any contracts it does not like (say with unions) and often time w/in a year the stockholders have MADE money on the process.
When our country was young people understood how dangerous corporations are to liberty.
In fact it was largely in response to the abuses of the British East India Company that our revolution took place.
When our country was young corporate charters were issued for limited periods, 10- 40 years; for limited purposes, say to build a rail line and could be easily revoked for violating a law.
Corporations could only engage in activities directly related to their charter; could not own property or stock in other corporations; and stockholders were not protected from the liabilities of the corporation.
You can see how radically different things are today.
You may be surprised but Adam Smith actually argued against corporations in "The Wealth of Nations" because they drove out competition from individual merchants and artisans.
It was not until the railroads gained such power that they were able to get a Supreme Court to declare them "persons" that corporations began their meteoric rise to becoming the dominant world organizations.
Now most governments act as proxies for corporations.
The US governemnt already does more for the benefit of corporations that that of citizens, now with all restrictions on corporate electioneering removed these incorporeal, immortal, lawless monsters will be able to buy whatever elected position they desire by simply buying up so much propaganda that any truth will be buried in the din.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30864580</id>
	<title>Re:America's downfall was person == corp</title>
	<author>haapi</author>
	<datestamp>1264160040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Corporations, in America, unlike natural persons:</p><p>* live forever<br>* can own slaves (not wage-slaves, but subsidiaries)<br>* can marry for wealth over and over and over (mergers and acquisitions)<br>* can kill with impunity (market warfare, monopolistic actions)<br>* cannot be directly taxed, as such costs are passed on to customers</p><p>I, for one, welcome my new Sony overlords.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Corporations , in America , unlike natural persons : * live forever * can own slaves ( not wage-slaves , but subsidiaries ) * can marry for wealth over and over and over ( mergers and acquisitions ) * can kill with impunity ( market warfare , monopolistic actions ) * can not be directly taxed , as such costs are passed on to customersI , for one , welcome my new Sony overlords .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Corporations, in America, unlike natural persons:* live forever* can own slaves (not wage-slaves, but subsidiaries)* can marry for wealth over and over and over (mergers and acquisitions)* can kill with impunity (market warfare, monopolistic actions)* cannot be directly taxed, as such costs are passed on to customersI, for one, welcome my new Sony overlords.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30856964</id>
	<title>10 years ago this might have been real exiting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264103340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>10 years ago this might have been real exiting.  I really don't like people who say things like "I'm so suprised!" or such because it's so lame to act like you were the person who saw it all coming.</p><p>This last round of medical health care debate has made, I hope, everyone aware that the battle against corporate money was lost a long time ago.  Hopefully this decision will open the door to some obvious (so obvious that even Joe the Plumber can't ignore it) bit of corporate sway so that EVERYONE is clued in.  Unfortunately our country (as always) needs a very large dildo poking between the cheeks before the electorate wonders what's goin' down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>10 years ago this might have been real exiting .
I really do n't like people who say things like " I 'm so suprised !
" or such because it 's so lame to act like you were the person who saw it all coming.This last round of medical health care debate has made , I hope , everyone aware that the battle against corporate money was lost a long time ago .
Hopefully this decision will open the door to some obvious ( so obvious that even Joe the Plumber ca n't ignore it ) bit of corporate sway so that EVERYONE is clued in .
Unfortunately our country ( as always ) needs a very large dildo poking between the cheeks before the electorate wonders what 's goin ' down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>10 years ago this might have been real exiting.
I really don't like people who say things like "I'm so suprised!
" or such because it's so lame to act like you were the person who saw it all coming.This last round of medical health care debate has made, I hope, everyone aware that the battle against corporate money was lost a long time ago.
Hopefully this decision will open the door to some obvious (so obvious that even Joe the Plumber can't ignore it) bit of corporate sway so that EVERYONE is clued in.
Unfortunately our country (as always) needs a very large dildo poking between the cheeks before the electorate wonders what's goin' down.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851366</id>
	<title>Re:Not just corporations</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264068540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unions have always been able to take money from their members, without their consent and support, and apply that to what ever political issue (which is to say the Democrats) they deem suitable without restriction.</p><p>Or should some organizations be more equal than others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unions have always been able to take money from their members , without their consent and support , and apply that to what ever political issue ( which is to say the Democrats ) they deem suitable without restriction.Or should some organizations be more equal than others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unions have always been able to take money from their members, without their consent and support, and apply that to what ever political issue (which is to say the Democrats) they deem suitable without restriction.Or should some organizations be more equal than others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850884</id>
	<title>Re:Bad, bad news</title>
	<author>Captain Splendid</author>
	<datestamp>1264067160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>So The Conservatives get huge funding from Corporations and jesus freaks.<br>
The Liberals get huge funding from Corporations and Unions.</i> <br> <br>

Fixed that for you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So The Conservatives get huge funding from Corporations and jesus freaks .
The Liberals get huge funding from Corporations and Unions .
Fixed that for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So The Conservatives get huge funding from Corporations and jesus freaks.
The Liberals get huge funding from Corporations and Unions.
Fixed that for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851012</id>
	<title>This has nothing to do with free speech...</title>
	<author>Pojut</author>
	<datestamp>1264067520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and everything to do with money.  Most of the time shouts of "free speech!" are heard, it's because of money.</p><p>A CORPORATION doesn't have an opinion, and thus doesn't need to be financing political commercials.  A PERSON can, sure...but not a frakking COMPANY.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and everything to do with money .
Most of the time shouts of " free speech !
" are heard , it 's because of money.A CORPORATION does n't have an opinion , and thus does n't need to be financing political commercials .
A PERSON can , sure...but not a frakking COMPANY .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and everything to do with money.
Most of the time shouts of "free speech!
" are heard, it's because of money.A CORPORATION doesn't have an opinion, and thus doesn't need to be financing political commercials.
A PERSON can, sure...but not a frakking COMPANY.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853198</id>
	<title>Re:Corporations are Individuals</title>
	<author>lousyd</author>
	<datestamp>1264074300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sympathetic to the cries of those who say a corporation is not an individual.  But it seems like the people who say that always follow up with, "therefore we should get to screw companies any way we want".  Just because a corporation is not truly an individual does not mean that they don't deserve protections under the law.

And anyway, there's some extent to which trampling on corporations becomes trampling on the people who own or operate the corporations.  If the CEO wants to give money to a candidate, and his or her board agrees and the company's bylaws don't prevent it, then who's to say the CEO can't do that?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sympathetic to the cries of those who say a corporation is not an individual .
But it seems like the people who say that always follow up with , " therefore we should get to screw companies any way we want " .
Just because a corporation is not truly an individual does not mean that they do n't deserve protections under the law .
And anyway , there 's some extent to which trampling on corporations becomes trampling on the people who own or operate the corporations .
If the CEO wants to give money to a candidate , and his or her board agrees and the company 's bylaws do n't prevent it , then who 's to say the CEO ca n't do that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sympathetic to the cries of those who say a corporation is not an individual.
But it seems like the people who say that always follow up with, "therefore we should get to screw companies any way we want".
Just because a corporation is not truly an individual does not mean that they don't deserve protections under the law.
And anyway, there's some extent to which trampling on corporations becomes trampling on the people who own or operate the corporations.
If the CEO wants to give money to a candidate, and his or her board agrees and the company's bylaws don't prevent it, then who's to say the CEO can't do that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850870</id>
	<title>In Soviet America:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264067100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Corporate spending LIMIT You !</p><p>Yours In Perm,<br>K. Trout</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Corporate spending LIMIT You ! Yours In Perm,K .
Trout</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Corporate spending LIMIT You !Yours In Perm,K.
Trout</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850738</id>
	<title>Re:Bad, bad news</title>
	<author>igadget78</author>
	<datestamp>1264066680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We need to replace the "conservatives" on the supreme court who don't understand that corporations should not have the constitutional rights of citizens.</p></div><p>Doesn't matter. they are all the same.
<br> <br>
Do you want Cauliflower or Broccoli?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We need to replace the " conservatives " on the supreme court who do n't understand that corporations should not have the constitutional rights of citizens.Does n't matter .
they are all the same .
Do you want Cauliflower or Broccoli ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need to replace the "conservatives" on the supreme court who don't understand that corporations should not have the constitutional rights of citizens.Doesn't matter.
they are all the same.
Do you want Cauliflower or Broccoli?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853962</id>
	<title>Re:America's downfall was person == corp</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264077180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And the sick part is that they used the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth\_Amendment\_to\_the\_United\_States\_Constitution" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">amendment</a> [wikipedia.org] intended to help out freed slaves to do it. Sick. Sick sick sick sick SICK. What can we possibly do to fight it? The soap box, ballot box, and jury box have all failed. What's left?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And the sick part is that they used the amendment [ wikipedia.org ] intended to help out freed slaves to do it .
Sick. Sick sick sick sick SICK .
What can we possibly do to fight it ?
The soap box , ballot box , and jury box have all failed .
What 's left ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the sick part is that they used the amendment [wikipedia.org] intended to help out freed slaves to do it.
Sick. Sick sick sick sick SICK.
What can we possibly do to fight it?
The soap box, ballot box, and jury box have all failed.
What's left?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852356</id>
	<title>Re:Fair enough...</title>
	<author>KraftDinner</author>
	<datestamp>1264071480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>tastycrats and fingerlick'ans.</p></div><p>I'm trying to figure out if you meant to reference Futurama or if that was a mistake.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>tastycrats and fingerlick'ans.I 'm trying to figure out if you meant to reference Futurama or if that was a mistake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>tastycrats and fingerlick'ans.I'm trying to figure out if you meant to reference Futurama or if that was a mistake.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30856384</id>
	<title>It's about time McCain-Feingold got tossed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264095600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The act had very little to do with limiting corporations in any meaningful way - they could donate infinity dollars via soft money contributions to the parties.  And this happens very regularly and has been in place for at least a few dozen years.  "There's a limit to the campaign contributions?  ok, I'll donate:<br>$3,000 to each state democratic party<br>$3,000 to the campaign<br>$3,000 to Ralph Nader or Bob Barr who'll use it split the vote<br>That $3,000 limit just watched me dump $156,000.00 without trying hard.  There are corporate attorneys whose FULL TIME JOB it is to do things like that.  How much money can they pump in?  Answer: as much as needed.</p><p>So McCain-Feingold never stopped that, and realistically had no serious intentions in that regard.  What it did do was ensure that non-major-party candidates had zero chance.  They used to have about 100,000:1 longshot odds in the average election, but apparently the big two felt threatened that 5 or 6 libertarians being elected to a school committee post or to dog catcher was too close for comfort.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The act had very little to do with limiting corporations in any meaningful way - they could donate infinity dollars via soft money contributions to the parties .
And this happens very regularly and has been in place for at least a few dozen years .
" There 's a limit to the campaign contributions ?
ok , I 'll donate : $ 3,000 to each state democratic party $ 3,000 to the campaign $ 3,000 to Ralph Nader or Bob Barr who 'll use it split the voteThat $ 3,000 limit just watched me dump $ 156,000.00 without trying hard .
There are corporate attorneys whose FULL TIME JOB it is to do things like that .
How much money can they pump in ?
Answer : as much as needed.So McCain-Feingold never stopped that , and realistically had no serious intentions in that regard .
What it did do was ensure that non-major-party candidates had zero chance .
They used to have about 100,000 : 1 longshot odds in the average election , but apparently the big two felt threatened that 5 or 6 libertarians being elected to a school committee post or to dog catcher was too close for comfort .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The act had very little to do with limiting corporations in any meaningful way - they could donate infinity dollars via soft money contributions to the parties.
And this happens very regularly and has been in place for at least a few dozen years.
"There's a limit to the campaign contributions?
ok, I'll donate:$3,000 to each state democratic party$3,000 to the campaign$3,000 to Ralph Nader or Bob Barr who'll use it split the voteThat $3,000 limit just watched me dump $156,000.00 without trying hard.
There are corporate attorneys whose FULL TIME JOB it is to do things like that.
How much money can they pump in?
Answer: as much as needed.So McCain-Feingold never stopped that, and realistically had no serious intentions in that regard.
What it did do was ensure that non-major-party candidates had zero chance.
They used to have about 100,000:1 longshot odds in the average election, but apparently the big two felt threatened that 5 or 6 libertarians being elected to a school committee post or to dog catcher was too close for comfort.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851442</id>
	<title>Re:Bad, bad news</title>
	<author>dpilot</author>
	<datestamp>1264068720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't forget that these same "conservatives", whose critics you have criticized, also are telling us that "Nowhere in the Constitution is there an enumerated right to privacy."  I also wish that some "Strict Constructionists" (Exactly what's written, no more, no less) would take a walk over to the Jefferson Memorial and read some of his thoughts chiseled onto the walls there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget that these same " conservatives " , whose critics you have criticized , also are telling us that " Nowhere in the Constitution is there an enumerated right to privacy .
" I also wish that some " Strict Constructionists " ( Exactly what 's written , no more , no less ) would take a walk over to the Jefferson Memorial and read some of his thoughts chiseled onto the walls there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget that these same "conservatives", whose critics you have criticized, also are telling us that "Nowhere in the Constitution is there an enumerated right to privacy.
"  I also wish that some "Strict Constructionists" (Exactly what's written, no more, no less) would take a walk over to the Jefferson Memorial and read some of his thoughts chiseled onto the walls there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30857372</id>
	<title>Re:Both good and bad ways aspects</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264152660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You miss the point. An individual can't simply drop a few million dollars on an ad campaign to pass a bill that in some way might benefit them. Corporations can.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You miss the point .
An individual ca n't simply drop a few million dollars on an ad campaign to pass a bill that in some way might benefit them .
Corporations can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You miss the point.
An individual can't simply drop a few million dollars on an ad campaign to pass a bill that in some way might benefit them.
Corporations can.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851350</id>
	<title>Re:Bad, bad news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264068480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hear, hear!  It's hard to imagine that an individual has rights, but those people lose their rights when they work together as a business or union.  There is no danger in letting everyone, and every group of people, contribute to campaigns as long as those contributions are made public.  the only alternative is the spectre of government financing of campaigns.  If you want to see a real conflict of interest, think about the idea of the government giving money to the people who are vying to run that government.  Scary thought!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hear , hear !
It 's hard to imagine that an individual has rights , but those people lose their rights when they work together as a business or union .
There is no danger in letting everyone , and every group of people , contribute to campaigns as long as those contributions are made public .
the only alternative is the spectre of government financing of campaigns .
If you want to see a real conflict of interest , think about the idea of the government giving money to the people who are vying to run that government .
Scary thought !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hear, hear!
It's hard to imagine that an individual has rights, but those people lose their rights when they work together as a business or union.
There is no danger in letting everyone, and every group of people, contribute to campaigns as long as those contributions are made public.
the only alternative is the spectre of government financing of campaigns.
If you want to see a real conflict of interest, think about the idea of the government giving money to the people who are vying to run that government.
Scary thought!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850748</id>
	<title>Re:Bad, bad news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264066680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, those rights should be reserved for terrorists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , those rights should be reserved for terrorists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, those rights should be reserved for terrorists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853504</id>
	<title>Re:Welcome to Fascism</title>
	<author>BlackCobra43</author>
	<datestamp>1264075500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fascism's single greatest achievement is convincing the world it doesn't actually exist. Hell, that's basically the entire game plan once fascism is installed - deny the people the chance to ever publicly acknowledge their situation, quashing dissent and revolution before they can even begin.<br> <br>Who CARES if it's not a textbook Mussolini-style fascist state <i>yet</i>?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fascism 's single greatest achievement is convincing the world it does n't actually exist .
Hell , that 's basically the entire game plan once fascism is installed - deny the people the chance to ever publicly acknowledge their situation , quashing dissent and revolution before they can even begin .
Who CARES if it 's not a textbook Mussolini-style fascist state yet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fascism's single greatest achievement is convincing the world it doesn't actually exist.
Hell, that's basically the entire game plan once fascism is installed - deny the people the chance to ever publicly acknowledge their situation, quashing dissent and revolution before they can even begin.
Who CARES if it's not a textbook Mussolini-style fascist state yet?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852596</id>
	<title>To Fight a Corporation</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1264072200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the past, Americans have shown a tenacity and zealotry for fighting, in a very literal and physical manner, those other 'people' that have done harm to them or their way of life. The most direct manner of fighting another person is to do harm unto that person. There are various methods of doing harm unto other people. A person needs food, water, and oxygen. Depriving a person of these things can cause significant harm to the target eventually resulting in the death, or end of that person. An adversary may also cause a powerful, sudden shock to the body of a person. This shock, often involving damage so extensive, can lead to long term suffering and, eventually, death.
<br> <br>
Now let's draw an analogy.
<br> <br>
If we are going to consider corporations (or any large social interest group) to be people, how might we fight them if they do us considerable harm or threaten us? Corporations need income of money to survive. They also need willing individuals to power them. If we deprive a corporation of either its income, or the mindset necessary to power it, then we can cause damage to the corporation, eventually resulting in death. These come in the form of boycotts and strikes. However, in times of extremism, it's not long term deprivation that we use as a fighting tactic, rather, against people, we prefer the sudden irreparable shock and damage clause (a bullet, a bomb, a knife, whatever).
<br> <br>
So if we are really fed up with the way social interests buy out our government. If we, as Americans, genuinely feel threatened, how do we pick a fight with social interest groups? How do we cause a powerful, sudden shock to the body of a corporation? To figure this out, perhaps we need to draw an appropriate analogue to the body of a person. The body of a person is the vehicle in which the mind or personality of a person travels. The means by which it physically interacts with the world. So how does a social interest group, like a corporation, navigate and interact with this world? If we can answer that question, then we have a target. If we have a target, then we can damage that target. If we can damage that target significantly, we can successfully combat the threat that corporations and similar large social entities may present to us.
<br> <br>
Of course this all borders on the notion that folk want to fight this type of seemingly corrupt social motion. So, any ideas on how to attack the body of a corporation?
<br> <br>
As an idea (and only an idea, not an answer) perhaps we could make the case that the body of a corporation is the goods which it peddles to people, as well as the feedback-advertising loop (PR) that it uses to interact with its customers. Perhaps the best way to combat social interests is to do sudden shock and harm to their products (or the production of said products) or their PR work. Smear campaigns work well enough for this, but they need a large, international, focused effort these days to work. Look at what smear campaigns did to Big Tobacco for instance. Finding a way to eliminate their goods from the market, in a sudden, coordinated manner, could be enough to drive a social interest or corporation six feet under as well. Again...not an answer, but some food for thought.
<br> <br>
Those claiming that a revolution in order might want to keep this kind of thinking in mind.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the past , Americans have shown a tenacity and zealotry for fighting , in a very literal and physical manner , those other 'people ' that have done harm to them or their way of life .
The most direct manner of fighting another person is to do harm unto that person .
There are various methods of doing harm unto other people .
A person needs food , water , and oxygen .
Depriving a person of these things can cause significant harm to the target eventually resulting in the death , or end of that person .
An adversary may also cause a powerful , sudden shock to the body of a person .
This shock , often involving damage so extensive , can lead to long term suffering and , eventually , death .
Now let 's draw an analogy .
If we are going to consider corporations ( or any large social interest group ) to be people , how might we fight them if they do us considerable harm or threaten us ?
Corporations need income of money to survive .
They also need willing individuals to power them .
If we deprive a corporation of either its income , or the mindset necessary to power it , then we can cause damage to the corporation , eventually resulting in death .
These come in the form of boycotts and strikes .
However , in times of extremism , it 's not long term deprivation that we use as a fighting tactic , rather , against people , we prefer the sudden irreparable shock and damage clause ( a bullet , a bomb , a knife , whatever ) .
So if we are really fed up with the way social interests buy out our government .
If we , as Americans , genuinely feel threatened , how do we pick a fight with social interest groups ?
How do we cause a powerful , sudden shock to the body of a corporation ?
To figure this out , perhaps we need to draw an appropriate analogue to the body of a person .
The body of a person is the vehicle in which the mind or personality of a person travels .
The means by which it physically interacts with the world .
So how does a social interest group , like a corporation , navigate and interact with this world ?
If we can answer that question , then we have a target .
If we have a target , then we can damage that target .
If we can damage that target significantly , we can successfully combat the threat that corporations and similar large social entities may present to us .
Of course this all borders on the notion that folk want to fight this type of seemingly corrupt social motion .
So , any ideas on how to attack the body of a corporation ?
As an idea ( and only an idea , not an answer ) perhaps we could make the case that the body of a corporation is the goods which it peddles to people , as well as the feedback-advertising loop ( PR ) that it uses to interact with its customers .
Perhaps the best way to combat social interests is to do sudden shock and harm to their products ( or the production of said products ) or their PR work .
Smear campaigns work well enough for this , but they need a large , international , focused effort these days to work .
Look at what smear campaigns did to Big Tobacco for instance .
Finding a way to eliminate their goods from the market , in a sudden , coordinated manner , could be enough to drive a social interest or corporation six feet under as well .
Again...not an answer , but some food for thought .
Those claiming that a revolution in order might want to keep this kind of thinking in mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the past, Americans have shown a tenacity and zealotry for fighting, in a very literal and physical manner, those other 'people' that have done harm to them or their way of life.
The most direct manner of fighting another person is to do harm unto that person.
There are various methods of doing harm unto other people.
A person needs food, water, and oxygen.
Depriving a person of these things can cause significant harm to the target eventually resulting in the death, or end of that person.
An adversary may also cause a powerful, sudden shock to the body of a person.
This shock, often involving damage so extensive, can lead to long term suffering and, eventually, death.
Now let's draw an analogy.
If we are going to consider corporations (or any large social interest group) to be people, how might we fight them if they do us considerable harm or threaten us?
Corporations need income of money to survive.
They also need willing individuals to power them.
If we deprive a corporation of either its income, or the mindset necessary to power it, then we can cause damage to the corporation, eventually resulting in death.
These come in the form of boycotts and strikes.
However, in times of extremism, it's not long term deprivation that we use as a fighting tactic, rather, against people, we prefer the sudden irreparable shock and damage clause (a bullet, a bomb, a knife, whatever).
So if we are really fed up with the way social interests buy out our government.
If we, as Americans, genuinely feel threatened, how do we pick a fight with social interest groups?
How do we cause a powerful, sudden shock to the body of a corporation?
To figure this out, perhaps we need to draw an appropriate analogue to the body of a person.
The body of a person is the vehicle in which the mind or personality of a person travels.
The means by which it physically interacts with the world.
So how does a social interest group, like a corporation, navigate and interact with this world?
If we can answer that question, then we have a target.
If we have a target, then we can damage that target.
If we can damage that target significantly, we can successfully combat the threat that corporations and similar large social entities may present to us.
Of course this all borders on the notion that folk want to fight this type of seemingly corrupt social motion.
So, any ideas on how to attack the body of a corporation?
As an idea (and only an idea, not an answer) perhaps we could make the case that the body of a corporation is the goods which it peddles to people, as well as the feedback-advertising loop (PR) that it uses to interact with its customers.
Perhaps the best way to combat social interests is to do sudden shock and harm to their products (or the production of said products) or their PR work.
Smear campaigns work well enough for this, but they need a large, international, focused effort these days to work.
Look at what smear campaigns did to Big Tobacco for instance.
Finding a way to eliminate their goods from the market, in a sudden, coordinated manner, could be enough to drive a social interest or corporation six feet under as well.
Again...not an answer, but some food for thought.
Those claiming that a revolution in order might want to keep this kind of thinking in mind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30855798</id>
	<title>Re:Free speech?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264089900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why give them the discount? Historically corporations usually pay more than individuals. When I had my C-corp it paid more in taxes then I did on the same income after you take Social Security out of it.  S-corps pass taxes through to the owners so they pay directly, so they are taxed exactly like individuals already.</p><p>I get the feeling there is a lot of misinformation about what a corporation is.  A gathering of people like you and I who have common goals, invest in these goals, and want others to share in the risk and reward so we sell shares.  Retirement funds, savvy individuals and the like buy into this newly found organization so our parents and families can retire on more then Social Security alone.</p><p>Corporations do not have soles, are not evil and do not fall on a moral plain. The mangers of the corporation do, and the share owners of the corporation do.  There is the check and balance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why give them the discount ?
Historically corporations usually pay more than individuals .
When I had my C-corp it paid more in taxes then I did on the same income after you take Social Security out of it .
S-corps pass taxes through to the owners so they pay directly , so they are taxed exactly like individuals already.I get the feeling there is a lot of misinformation about what a corporation is .
A gathering of people like you and I who have common goals , invest in these goals , and want others to share in the risk and reward so we sell shares .
Retirement funds , savvy individuals and the like buy into this newly found organization so our parents and families can retire on more then Social Security alone.Corporations do not have soles , are not evil and do not fall on a moral plain .
The mangers of the corporation do , and the share owners of the corporation do .
There is the check and balance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why give them the discount?
Historically corporations usually pay more than individuals.
When I had my C-corp it paid more in taxes then I did on the same income after you take Social Security out of it.
S-corps pass taxes through to the owners so they pay directly, so they are taxed exactly like individuals already.I get the feeling there is a lot of misinformation about what a corporation is.
A gathering of people like you and I who have common goals, invest in these goals, and want others to share in the risk and reward so we sell shares.
Retirement funds, savvy individuals and the like buy into this newly found organization so our parents and families can retire on more then Social Security alone.Corporations do not have soles, are not evil and do not fall on a moral plain.
The mangers of the corporation do, and the share owners of the corporation do.
There is the check and balance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30858560</id>
	<title>this is the death of the GOP and democratic party</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1264170060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>political parties are irrelevant if they are dwarfed in spending and organization by corporations</p><p>hate the current political parties all you want, but at least they are organized along ideological grounds, rather than crass profit-driven interest</p><p>its also the death of charismatic politicians. a politician's personality will now be sublimated to his corporate master's pr interests. and they WILL be working for corporate masters, rather than the general public. is there any doubt in your mind about that?</p><p>man this sucks so bad. hopefully they can legislate against this fucking retarded supreme court decision</p><p>thank you, constitutional fundamentalists. you know, the constitution is a living document, not the goddamn bible. it really does change over time. in fact, it is an unhealthy society that does not alter the constitution's original precepts. the constitution is not something you refer to in the past as some unchangeable entity. it must be questioned, and it must be refined over time: it governs a LIVING society</p><p>the founding fathers themselves stood against such unthinking unchanging fundamentalism. the founding fathers would tweak their documents if they were alive today. the founding fathers got so much right, but there is plenty they got wrong and there is plenty the future delivered that they did not address. meanwhile, this low iq anti-judicial activist trend: you don't consider this decision to be judicial activism? judicial activism in the name of NOT changing the constitution is the real enemy, and also reveals the one-sided moronic propaganda against "judicial activism" since ALL interpretation of the constitution is "activism." and of course the fucking constitution is interpreted: the constitution did not directly address campaign spending by corporations. the constitution is not a religious document, you constitutional fundamentalist assholes. i'm looking at you scalia</p><p>change is good. not changing is the real enemy of a healthy liberal democracy</p><p>man it will take a long time to purge our society of the rot the gw bush presidency infected it with</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>political parties are irrelevant if they are dwarfed in spending and organization by corporationshate the current political parties all you want , but at least they are organized along ideological grounds , rather than crass profit-driven interestits also the death of charismatic politicians .
a politician 's personality will now be sublimated to his corporate master 's pr interests .
and they WILL be working for corporate masters , rather than the general public .
is there any doubt in your mind about that ? man this sucks so bad .
hopefully they can legislate against this fucking retarded supreme court decisionthank you , constitutional fundamentalists .
you know , the constitution is a living document , not the goddamn bible .
it really does change over time .
in fact , it is an unhealthy society that does not alter the constitution 's original precepts .
the constitution is not something you refer to in the past as some unchangeable entity .
it must be questioned , and it must be refined over time : it governs a LIVING societythe founding fathers themselves stood against such unthinking unchanging fundamentalism .
the founding fathers would tweak their documents if they were alive today .
the founding fathers got so much right , but there is plenty they got wrong and there is plenty the future delivered that they did not address .
meanwhile , this low iq anti-judicial activist trend : you do n't consider this decision to be judicial activism ?
judicial activism in the name of NOT changing the constitution is the real enemy , and also reveals the one-sided moronic propaganda against " judicial activism " since ALL interpretation of the constitution is " activism .
" and of course the fucking constitution is interpreted : the constitution did not directly address campaign spending by corporations .
the constitution is not a religious document , you constitutional fundamentalist assholes .
i 'm looking at you scaliachange is good .
not changing is the real enemy of a healthy liberal democracyman it will take a long time to purge our society of the rot the gw bush presidency infected it with</tokentext>
<sentencetext>political parties are irrelevant if they are dwarfed in spending and organization by corporationshate the current political parties all you want, but at least they are organized along ideological grounds, rather than crass profit-driven interestits also the death of charismatic politicians.
a politician's personality will now be sublimated to his corporate master's pr interests.
and they WILL be working for corporate masters, rather than the general public.
is there any doubt in your mind about that?man this sucks so bad.
hopefully they can legislate against this fucking retarded supreme court decisionthank you, constitutional fundamentalists.
you know, the constitution is a living document, not the goddamn bible.
it really does change over time.
in fact, it is an unhealthy society that does not alter the constitution's original precepts.
the constitution is not something you refer to in the past as some unchangeable entity.
it must be questioned, and it must be refined over time: it governs a LIVING societythe founding fathers themselves stood against such unthinking unchanging fundamentalism.
the founding fathers would tweak their documents if they were alive today.
the founding fathers got so much right, but there is plenty they got wrong and there is plenty the future delivered that they did not address.
meanwhile, this low iq anti-judicial activist trend: you don't consider this decision to be judicial activism?
judicial activism in the name of NOT changing the constitution is the real enemy, and also reveals the one-sided moronic propaganda against "judicial activism" since ALL interpretation of the constitution is "activism.
" and of course the fucking constitution is interpreted: the constitution did not directly address campaign spending by corporations.
the constitution is not a religious document, you constitutional fundamentalist assholes.
i'm looking at you scaliachange is good.
not changing is the real enemy of a healthy liberal democracyman it will take a long time to purge our society of the rot the gw bush presidency infected it with</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853228</id>
	<title>Another examples of republicans</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1264074360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and there corporate welfare.</p><p>The biggest threat to America is corporations and there control. When creating the constitution, there was a huge debate over wether otr not to out right forbid corporations becasue of the amount of control they had gained in England.</p><p>We are very close to just being serfs.<br>Are speech won't matter because we won't have billion dollar ad campaigns, or enough of a voice to point out specific lies.</p><p>I look forward to seeing candidates replacing the American flag on there lapels with the Nike swoosh~</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and there corporate welfare.The biggest threat to America is corporations and there control .
When creating the constitution , there was a huge debate over wether otr not to out right forbid corporations becasue of the amount of control they had gained in England.We are very close to just being serfs.Are speech wo n't matter because we wo n't have billion dollar ad campaigns , or enough of a voice to point out specific lies.I look forward to seeing candidates replacing the American flag on there lapels with the Nike swoosh ~</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and there corporate welfare.The biggest threat to America is corporations and there control.
When creating the constitution, there was a huge debate over wether otr not to out right forbid corporations becasue of the amount of control they had gained in England.We are very close to just being serfs.Are speech won't matter because we won't have billion dollar ad campaigns, or enough of a voice to point out specific lies.I look forward to seeing candidates replacing the American flag on there lapels with the Nike swoosh~</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30863570</id>
	<title>The More Things Change...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264155420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an Invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul this unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of today." President Theodore Roosevelt, 1906</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an Invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people .
To destroy this invisible government , to befoul this unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of today .
" President Theodore Roosevelt , 1906</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an Invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.
To destroy this invisible government, to befoul this unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of today.
" President Theodore Roosevelt, 1906</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851212</id>
	<title>Re:So much for government by the people</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264068060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How exactly does this affect my vote counting or not ?  It just means more spam in the mail - which becomes kindling in my fireplace, and more commercials on radio and TV. .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.which I generally don't listen to or watch anyway.

They're ALL pimps and whores, and if they want to spend more money in political advertising BS, well, it's a free country, and the rest of us are free to ignore the noise. . .</htmltext>
<tokenext>How exactly does this affect my vote counting or not ?
It just means more spam in the mail - which becomes kindling in my fireplace , and more commercials on radio and TV .
. .which I generally do n't listen to or watch anyway .
They 're ALL pimps and whores , and if they want to spend more money in political advertising BS , well , it 's a free country , and the rest of us are free to ignore the noise .
. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How exactly does this affect my vote counting or not ?
It just means more spam in the mail - which becomes kindling in my fireplace, and more commercials on radio and TV.
. .which I generally don't listen to or watch anyway.
They're ALL pimps and whores, and if they want to spend more money in political advertising BS, well, it's a free country, and the rest of us are free to ignore the noise.
. .</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853146</id>
	<title>Re:So much for government by the people</title>
	<author>Thuktun</author>
	<datestamp>1264074120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now your vote really doesn't count... if it ever did after creation of the electoral college.</p></div><p>You mean, with the writing of the Constitution?  It's been there from the start.  All the Twelfth Amendment did is make the President and VP get elected together on the same ticket, rather than separately.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now your vote really does n't count... if it ever did after creation of the electoral college.You mean , with the writing of the Constitution ?
It 's been there from the start .
All the Twelfth Amendment did is make the President and VP get elected together on the same ticket , rather than separately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now your vote really doesn't count... if it ever did after creation of the electoral college.You mean, with the writing of the Constitution?
It's been there from the start.
All the Twelfth Amendment did is make the President and VP get elected together on the same ticket, rather than separately.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30857724</id>
	<title>Re:Welcome to Fascism</title>
	<author>JBaustian</author>
	<datestamp>1264158600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>First, learn what fascism is. Second, learn the history of the progressive movement in America. Third, report back with your findings.</htmltext>
<tokenext>First , learn what fascism is .
Second , learn the history of the progressive movement in America .
Third , report back with your findings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, learn what fascism is.
Second, learn the history of the progressive movement in America.
Third, report back with your findings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851810</id>
	<title>Re:Free sppech?</title>
	<author>ocularsinister</author>
	<datestamp>1264069800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Corporations are already taxed, and at a higher rate than individuals. What we need is a way to properly punish badly behaved companies and their share holders. For less serious cases this could involve state imprisonment: the board is replaced with government officials, profits go to the state, shares are suspended. For more serious cases, corporate execution may be called for: the company is dissolved, assets are sold off (proceeds go to the state), shareholders get nothing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Corporations are already taxed , and at a higher rate than individuals .
What we need is a way to properly punish badly behaved companies and their share holders .
For less serious cases this could involve state imprisonment : the board is replaced with government officials , profits go to the state , shares are suspended .
For more serious cases , corporate execution may be called for : the company is dissolved , assets are sold off ( proceeds go to the state ) , shareholders get nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Corporations are already taxed, and at a higher rate than individuals.
What we need is a way to properly punish badly behaved companies and their share holders.
For less serious cases this could involve state imprisonment: the board is replaced with government officials, profits go to the state, shares are suspended.
For more serious cases, corporate execution may be called for: the company is dissolved, assets are sold off (proceeds go to the state), shareholders get nothing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30857790</id>
	<title>Money talks..</title>
	<author>Kazoo the Clown</author>
	<datestamp>1264159980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We're getting the best government that money can buy.  And who said the US has no state religion?   It's the ALMIGHTY DOLLAR, praise the hoard.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're getting the best government that money can buy .
And who said the US has no state religion ?
It 's the ALMIGHTY DOLLAR , praise the hoard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're getting the best government that money can buy.
And who said the US has no state religion?
It's the ALMIGHTY DOLLAR, praise the hoard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30854506</id>
	<title>Re:Corporations are not individuals</title>
	<author>TheSync</author>
	<datestamp>1264080060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Corporations do not have first amendment rights. They cannot vote. They are not individuals. They have no rights at all.</i></p><p>Amendment 1 does not require a human being, nor does it grant anyone or anything a "right".</p><p>It states:  "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press".  It is a limitation on the power of Congress.</p><p>In this case, Congress made a law abridging the freedom of the press.  Bad Congress.</p><p><i>Why the heck would we want corporations to be able to do this?</i></p><p>Because we believe that limiting free speech is bad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Corporations do not have first amendment rights .
They can not vote .
They are not individuals .
They have no rights at all.Amendment 1 does not require a human being , nor does it grant anyone or anything a " right " .It states : " Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech , or of the press " .
It is a limitation on the power of Congress.In this case , Congress made a law abridging the freedom of the press .
Bad Congress.Why the heck would we want corporations to be able to do this ? Because we believe that limiting free speech is bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Corporations do not have first amendment rights.
They cannot vote.
They are not individuals.
They have no rights at all.Amendment 1 does not require a human being, nor does it grant anyone or anything a "right".It states:  "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press".
It is a limitation on the power of Congress.In this case, Congress made a law abridging the freedom of the press.
Bad Congress.Why the heck would we want corporations to be able to do this?Because we believe that limiting free speech is bad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853628</id>
	<title>Re:Bad, bad news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264075860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm always amazed at how many misguided people think their rights come <i>from</i> the government. That explains a lot about why statists like Pelosi and Reid think they have so much more traction than they really do. Don't give it to them, now matter how much you want the government to be your Nanny.</p></div><p>I'm never amazed. It is part of a miseducation programme to dumb down the populace. It is much more convienient for government when people perceive that they bestow (and therefore may revoke) rights.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm always amazed at how many misguided people think their rights come from the government .
That explains a lot about why statists like Pelosi and Reid think they have so much more traction than they really do .
Do n't give it to them , now matter how much you want the government to be your Nanny.I 'm never amazed .
It is part of a miseducation programme to dumb down the populace .
It is much more convienient for government when people perceive that they bestow ( and therefore may revoke ) rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm always amazed at how many misguided people think their rights come from the government.
That explains a lot about why statists like Pelosi and Reid think they have so much more traction than they really do.
Don't give it to them, now matter how much you want the government to be your Nanny.I'm never amazed.
It is part of a miseducation programme to dumb down the populace.
It is much more convienient for government when people perceive that they bestow (and therefore may revoke) rights.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30856342</id>
	<title>Re:Corporations are Individuals</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264095180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, in 1886 it was NOT the Court which 'ruled' that corporations are 'persons', it was inserted in the headnotes by the reporter, who used to be a lawyer for the Railroad Unions. For some reason The Court just accepted this and ran with it. One expects that The Court knows this, knows that they do not have to continue ruling that corporations are 'persons', yet they continue doing so.</p><p>Why? I think we may assume that the Supreme Court is not corrupt (for the last 120 years). So why do they do it?</p><p>Source: "Unequal Protection" by Thom Hartmann 2002, reviewed here:<br>http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/book\_review/unequal\_protection\_hartmann.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , in 1886 it was NOT the Court which 'ruled ' that corporations are 'persons ' , it was inserted in the headnotes by the reporter , who used to be a lawyer for the Railroad Unions .
For some reason The Court just accepted this and ran with it .
One expects that The Court knows this , knows that they do not have to continue ruling that corporations are 'persons ' , yet they continue doing so.Why ?
I think we may assume that the Supreme Court is not corrupt ( for the last 120 years ) .
So why do they do it ? Source : " Unequal Protection " by Thom Hartmann 2002 , reviewed here : http : //www.reclaimdemocracy.org/book \ _review/unequal \ _protection \ _hartmann.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, in 1886 it was NOT the Court which 'ruled' that corporations are 'persons', it was inserted in the headnotes by the reporter, who used to be a lawyer for the Railroad Unions.
For some reason The Court just accepted this and ran with it.
One expects that The Court knows this, knows that they do not have to continue ruling that corporations are 'persons', yet they continue doing so.Why?
I think we may assume that the Supreme Court is not corrupt (for the last 120 years).
So why do they do it?Source: "Unequal Protection" by Thom Hartmann 2002, reviewed here:http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/book\_review/unequal\_protection\_hartmann.html</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30866896</id>
	<title>Re:Welcome to Fascism</title>
	<author>wallsg</author>
	<datestamp>1264180500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What is different about this is that we aren't talking about putting the power of the State in the hands of an individual or group of individuals. We are talking about putting it at the disposal of artificial entities; immortal profit making machines with a capacity for accumulating wealth beyond that of any individual.</p></div><p>I'm looking forward to the <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073631/" title="imdb.com" rel="nofollow">Rollerball</a> [imdb.com] championships...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is different about this is that we are n't talking about putting the power of the State in the hands of an individual or group of individuals .
We are talking about putting it at the disposal of artificial entities ; immortal profit making machines with a capacity for accumulating wealth beyond that of any individual.I 'm looking forward to the Rollerball [ imdb.com ] championships.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is different about this is that we aren't talking about putting the power of the State in the hands of an individual or group of individuals.
We are talking about putting it at the disposal of artificial entities; immortal profit making machines with a capacity for accumulating wealth beyond that of any individual.I'm looking forward to the Rollerball [imdb.com] championships...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852300</id>
	<title>Re:Corporations are Individuals</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264071360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If there were reasonable caps to contributions, say, $1,000 per person (people) and \_no\_ corporations were allowed to contribute, then the people get the power back.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.</p></div><p>So, if I want to spend $2,000 (of my money) to rent an auditorium to stand up and tell everyone who shows up how terrible a particular political candidate is, "Sorry, that's more than $1,000, you can't say that"?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If there were reasonable caps to contributions , say , $ 1,000 per person ( people ) and \ _no \ _ corporations were allowed to contribute , then the people get the power back .
.So , if I want to spend $ 2,000 ( of my money ) to rent an auditorium to stand up and tell everyone who shows up how terrible a particular political candidate is , " Sorry , that 's more than $ 1,000 , you ca n't say that " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If there were reasonable caps to contributions, say, $1,000 per person (people) and \_no\_ corporations were allowed to contribute, then the people get the power back.
.So, if I want to spend $2,000 (of my money) to rent an auditorium to stand up and tell everyone who shows up how terrible a particular political candidate is, "Sorry, that's more than $1,000, you can't say that"?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850706</id>
	<title>Not just corporations</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264066560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unions too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unions too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unions too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852068</id>
	<title>Re:Welcome to Fascism</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1264070580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are close to the mark, but this is potentially worse than fascism as we have known it. It opens the possibility of an entirely new form of tyranny that the human race has not yet experienced.</p><p>If you study the history of fascism, the various ideas that "fascists" have become confusing, until you realize that fascism isn't an ideology. Fascism isn't about ideas, but achieving a specific effect: maximizing the power of an individual or group of people who have control of the government.   Where it serves that purpose, fascism will embrace extremes of spiritualism or materialism, or even mix the two. Consistency doesn't matter.  Authority does.</p><p>What is different about this is that we aren't talking about putting the power of the State in the hands of an individual or group of individuals.  We are talking about putting it at the disposal of artificial entities; immortal profit making machines with a capacity for accumulating wealth beyond that of any individual. This is like *Colossus: The Forbin Project*, only with machines we've already built and operated.</p><p>It's not that making a profit is evil. It's that the very definition of evil (see Saint Augustine, or even Kant) is making one sided decisions.  Human concerns like ethics are not part of the design of the institution of the corporation. Ethics are forced on corporations by two things: the individuals working for the corporations, and by law.</p><p>But the ethics of the individual are always under pressure in a corporation. We've all seen that.  There's always the question of whether we can push the limit just a bit, and if we try it and get away with it, we suddenly have a new conception of what "normal behavior" is.   We know that "everybody does it" doesn't excuse something, but we don't act that way.  The law is what makes it possible for people to remain ethical. They can always say, "we will go to jail if we try that," or "we'll be fined," or even "we'll get bad publicity," which of course depends on individuals having rights that are respected under the law.</p><p>Corporations have inappropriate influence now on government, but that doesn't make a dystopia.  Life is still good for most of us.  But we can't extrapolate that to giving them unchecked power to make laws for their own benefit. If we do that, the safety net provided by individual ethics won't matter.  Once corporations are above the law, any corporation that fails to take the profit maximizing step regardless of the other consequences won't survive.</p><p>Allow the power of corporations to grow without any check, and for the first time in human history human affairs will be governed with absolutely no regard to human welfare.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are close to the mark , but this is potentially worse than fascism as we have known it .
It opens the possibility of an entirely new form of tyranny that the human race has not yet experienced.If you study the history of fascism , the various ideas that " fascists " have become confusing , until you realize that fascism is n't an ideology .
Fascism is n't about ideas , but achieving a specific effect : maximizing the power of an individual or group of people who have control of the government .
Where it serves that purpose , fascism will embrace extremes of spiritualism or materialism , or even mix the two .
Consistency does n't matter .
Authority does.What is different about this is that we are n't talking about putting the power of the State in the hands of an individual or group of individuals .
We are talking about putting it at the disposal of artificial entities ; immortal profit making machines with a capacity for accumulating wealth beyond that of any individual .
This is like * Colossus : The Forbin Project * , only with machines we 've already built and operated.It 's not that making a profit is evil .
It 's that the very definition of evil ( see Saint Augustine , or even Kant ) is making one sided decisions .
Human concerns like ethics are not part of the design of the institution of the corporation .
Ethics are forced on corporations by two things : the individuals working for the corporations , and by law.But the ethics of the individual are always under pressure in a corporation .
We 've all seen that .
There 's always the question of whether we can push the limit just a bit , and if we try it and get away with it , we suddenly have a new conception of what " normal behavior " is .
We know that " everybody does it " does n't excuse something , but we do n't act that way .
The law is what makes it possible for people to remain ethical .
They can always say , " we will go to jail if we try that , " or " we 'll be fined , " or even " we 'll get bad publicity , " which of course depends on individuals having rights that are respected under the law.Corporations have inappropriate influence now on government , but that does n't make a dystopia .
Life is still good for most of us .
But we ca n't extrapolate that to giving them unchecked power to make laws for their own benefit .
If we do that , the safety net provided by individual ethics wo n't matter .
Once corporations are above the law , any corporation that fails to take the profit maximizing step regardless of the other consequences wo n't survive.Allow the power of corporations to grow without any check , and for the first time in human history human affairs will be governed with absolutely no regard to human welfare .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are close to the mark, but this is potentially worse than fascism as we have known it.
It opens the possibility of an entirely new form of tyranny that the human race has not yet experienced.If you study the history of fascism, the various ideas that "fascists" have become confusing, until you realize that fascism isn't an ideology.
Fascism isn't about ideas, but achieving a specific effect: maximizing the power of an individual or group of people who have control of the government.
Where it serves that purpose, fascism will embrace extremes of spiritualism or materialism, or even mix the two.
Consistency doesn't matter.
Authority does.What is different about this is that we aren't talking about putting the power of the State in the hands of an individual or group of individuals.
We are talking about putting it at the disposal of artificial entities; immortal profit making machines with a capacity for accumulating wealth beyond that of any individual.
This is like *Colossus: The Forbin Project*, only with machines we've already built and operated.It's not that making a profit is evil.
It's that the very definition of evil (see Saint Augustine, or even Kant) is making one sided decisions.
Human concerns like ethics are not part of the design of the institution of the corporation.
Ethics are forced on corporations by two things: the individuals working for the corporations, and by law.But the ethics of the individual are always under pressure in a corporation.
We've all seen that.
There's always the question of whether we can push the limit just a bit, and if we try it and get away with it, we suddenly have a new conception of what "normal behavior" is.
We know that "everybody does it" doesn't excuse something, but we don't act that way.
The law is what makes it possible for people to remain ethical.
They can always say, "we will go to jail if we try that," or "we'll be fined," or even "we'll get bad publicity," which of course depends on individuals having rights that are respected under the law.Corporations have inappropriate influence now on government, but that doesn't make a dystopia.
Life is still good for most of us.
But we can't extrapolate that to giving them unchecked power to make laws for their own benefit.
If we do that, the safety net provided by individual ethics won't matter.
Once corporations are above the law, any corporation that fails to take the profit maximizing step regardless of the other consequences won't survive.Allow the power of corporations to grow without any check, and for the first time in human history human affairs will be governed with absolutely no regard to human welfare.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851018</id>
	<title>Both good and bad ways aspects</title>
	<author>JoshuaZ</author>
	<datestamp>1264067580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I haven't read the decision and the dissent yet, but I'm fascinated by how immediately negative the comments prior to this one are, especially the comments that try to argue that corporations should have fewer free speech rights than people. Part of the nature of free speech is that there's always some category that one would often not want to apply it to. For the Slashdot crowd that seems to be corporations. But the whole point of robust free speech is that you give it to any who want to use it. Concern over what this will do to elections is understandable as a policy concern but that's a pragmatic consideration that shouldn't impact such basic philosophical decisions. Moreover, what this really does is level the playing field between corporations. As it is now, Fox or MSNBC or any major newspaper can effectively push for a candidate or policy they want simply by the bias in their coverage. But a corporation that isn't involved in "news" or the like has its hands tied. And as for the impact this might have on elections: It should be apparent from the election of Obama that if a lot of people actually care about a candidate they can give in both time and money a lot more than even many large corporations. Of course, that candidate might then turn around and sell people out, but that's a separate problem...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't read the decision and the dissent yet , but I 'm fascinated by how immediately negative the comments prior to this one are , especially the comments that try to argue that corporations should have fewer free speech rights than people .
Part of the nature of free speech is that there 's always some category that one would often not want to apply it to .
For the Slashdot crowd that seems to be corporations .
But the whole point of robust free speech is that you give it to any who want to use it .
Concern over what this will do to elections is understandable as a policy concern but that 's a pragmatic consideration that should n't impact such basic philosophical decisions .
Moreover , what this really does is level the playing field between corporations .
As it is now , Fox or MSNBC or any major newspaper can effectively push for a candidate or policy they want simply by the bias in their coverage .
But a corporation that is n't involved in " news " or the like has its hands tied .
And as for the impact this might have on elections : It should be apparent from the election of Obama that if a lot of people actually care about a candidate they can give in both time and money a lot more than even many large corporations .
Of course , that candidate might then turn around and sell people out , but that 's a separate problem.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't read the decision and the dissent yet, but I'm fascinated by how immediately negative the comments prior to this one are, especially the comments that try to argue that corporations should have fewer free speech rights than people.
Part of the nature of free speech is that there's always some category that one would often not want to apply it to.
For the Slashdot crowd that seems to be corporations.
But the whole point of robust free speech is that you give it to any who want to use it.
Concern over what this will do to elections is understandable as a policy concern but that's a pragmatic consideration that shouldn't impact such basic philosophical decisions.
Moreover, what this really does is level the playing field between corporations.
As it is now, Fox or MSNBC or any major newspaper can effectively push for a candidate or policy they want simply by the bias in their coverage.
But a corporation that isn't involved in "news" or the like has its hands tied.
And as for the impact this might have on elections: It should be apparent from the election of Obama that if a lot of people actually care about a candidate they can give in both time and money a lot more than even many large corporations.
Of course, that candidate might then turn around and sell people out, but that's a separate problem...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30854172</id>
	<title>Re:Welcome to Fascism</title>
	<author>bigngamer92</author>
	<datestamp>1264078260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Assyrian's and Nazi's cared about human welfare?  Corporations would grant some human welfare, its just equivalent to that of those working in sweatshops in China.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Assyrian 's and Nazi 's cared about human welfare ?
Corporations would grant some human welfare , its just equivalent to that of those working in sweatshops in China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Assyrian's and Nazi's cared about human welfare?
Corporations would grant some human welfare, its just equivalent to that of those working in sweatshops in China.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853862</id>
	<title>Re:Bad, bad news</title>
	<author>forkazoo</author>
	<datestamp>1264076820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The constitution doesn't give you, or a business formed by you and a friend, any rights.</p></div></blockquote><p>People have inherent human rights which are protected by the constitution.  Corporations have no inherent rights because they are constructions of law.  Because they are created by law, they can be created with whatever restrictions and permissions one chooses.  It's dangerous to assume that a corporation is an inherent entity which has fundamental rights independent of law.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The constitution does n't give you , or a business formed by you and a friend , any rights.People have inherent human rights which are protected by the constitution .
Corporations have no inherent rights because they are constructions of law .
Because they are created by law , they can be created with whatever restrictions and permissions one chooses .
It 's dangerous to assume that a corporation is an inherent entity which has fundamental rights independent of law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The constitution doesn't give you, or a business formed by you and a friend, any rights.People have inherent human rights which are protected by the constitution.
Corporations have no inherent rights because they are constructions of law.
Because they are created by law, they can be created with whatever restrictions and permissions one chooses.
It's dangerous to assume that a corporation is an inherent entity which has fundamental rights independent of law.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850972</id>
	<title>Re:Not just corporations</title>
	<author>Em Emalb</author>
	<datestamp>1264067400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh <b>YAY</b>!</p><p>Like the Air Traffic Controllers union wasn't ALREADY spamming the air waves enough with their crap, now we get to hear from all the unions.  Good stuff.  It's not bad enough we get stupid ads slandering the crap out of whatever goober is running for office by another goober running for office, now unions are gonna weigh in too.</p><p>Just frigging peachy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh YAY ! Like the Air Traffic Controllers union was n't ALREADY spamming the air waves enough with their crap , now we get to hear from all the unions .
Good stuff .
It 's not bad enough we get stupid ads slandering the crap out of whatever goober is running for office by another goober running for office , now unions are gon na weigh in too.Just frigging peachy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh YAY!Like the Air Traffic Controllers union wasn't ALREADY spamming the air waves enough with their crap, now we get to hear from all the unions.
Good stuff.
It's not bad enough we get stupid ads slandering the crap out of whatever goober is running for office by another goober running for office, now unions are gonna weigh in too.Just frigging peachy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851438</id>
	<title>Re:Both good and bad ways aspects</title>
	<author>kindbud</author>
	<datestamp>1264068720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I haven't read the decision and the dissent yet</i></p><p>Then you must be an evangelical Christian Republican.  Only one of those would proudly proclaim their ignorance as if it were a virtue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't read the decision and the dissent yetThen you must be an evangelical Christian Republican .
Only one of those would proudly proclaim their ignorance as if it were a virtue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't read the decision and the dissent yetThen you must be an evangelical Christian Republican.
Only one of those would proudly proclaim their ignorance as if it were a virtue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30854886</id>
	<title>Re:Bad, bad news</title>
	<author>dryeo</author>
	<datestamp>1264082160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a whole bunch of rights or maybe a better term is privileges that the constitution gives some people. Things like which people had the right to vote, which people were counted as people and which were counted as 3/5ths of a person, who had the right to run for congress and president, the option to grant copyright come to mind.<br>I doubt if they thought of it that they would have added the right of groups of people who may consist of potentially hostile foreigners to have a disproportionate influence on the elections.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a whole bunch of rights or maybe a better term is privileges that the constitution gives some people .
Things like which people had the right to vote , which people were counted as people and which were counted as 3/5ths of a person , who had the right to run for congress and president , the option to grant copyright come to mind.I doubt if they thought of it that they would have added the right of groups of people who may consist of potentially hostile foreigners to have a disproportionate influence on the elections .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a whole bunch of rights or maybe a better term is privileges that the constitution gives some people.
Things like which people had the right to vote, which people were counted as people and which were counted as 3/5ths of a person, who had the right to run for congress and president, the option to grant copyright come to mind.I doubt if they thought of it that they would have added the right of groups of people who may consist of potentially hostile foreigners to have a disproportionate influence on the elections.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850982</id>
	<title>Re:Not just corporations</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264067400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, I'm sure that the Union's will be able to match the corporations contributions.</p><p>Actually, what will probably happen is that Unions will be made illegal after all of the government is bought and paid for.</p><p>*This* is what the second amendment is for.  We apparently don't have a working democracy anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , I 'm sure that the Union 's will be able to match the corporations contributions.Actually , what will probably happen is that Unions will be made illegal after all of the government is bought and paid for .
* This * is what the second amendment is for .
We apparently do n't have a working democracy anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, I'm sure that the Union's will be able to match the corporations contributions.Actually, what will probably happen is that Unions will be made illegal after all of the government is bought and paid for.
*This* is what the second amendment is for.
We apparently don't have a working democracy anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850912</id>
	<title>There goes the neighborhood</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264067220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sheesh.  As if we weren't in enough of a state of decay with corporations running the government.  Looks as if the plan is to remove all restrictions and rush headlong toward complete fascism.  Perhaps we should re-read Orwell's 1984 and Gibson's Neuromancer to see what happens next.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sheesh .
As if we were n't in enough of a state of decay with corporations running the government .
Looks as if the plan is to remove all restrictions and rush headlong toward complete fascism .
Perhaps we should re-read Orwell 's 1984 and Gibson 's Neuromancer to see what happens next .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sheesh.
As if we weren't in enough of a state of decay with corporations running the government.
Looks as if the plan is to remove all restrictions and rush headlong toward complete fascism.
Perhaps we should re-read Orwell's 1984 and Gibson's Neuromancer to see what happens next.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851850</id>
	<title>Re:America's downfall was person == corp</title>
	<author>rsborg</author>
	<datestamp>1264069980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>A corp has no real responsibility, no sense of morals, and rarely ever is punished for many of its crimes.</p></div></blockquote><p>Not to mention, they can effectively live forever (like undead), and continually crowd out real people for money, resources and now rights.</p><p>Welcome to the Corporatocracy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A corp has no real responsibility , no sense of morals , and rarely ever is punished for many of its crimes.Not to mention , they can effectively live forever ( like undead ) , and continually crowd out real people for money , resources and now rights.Welcome to the Corporatocracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A corp has no real responsibility, no sense of morals, and rarely ever is punished for many of its crimes.Not to mention, they can effectively live forever (like undead), and continually crowd out real people for money, resources and now rights.Welcome to the Corporatocracy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850712</id>
	<title>Decision here</title>
	<author>dazedNconfuzed</author>
	<datestamp>1264066560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf" title="supremecourtus.gov">http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf</a> [supremecourtus.gov] </p><blockquote><div><p>...<br>Some members of the public might consider Hillary to be insightful and instructive; some might find it to beneither high art nor a fair discussion on how to set the Nation&rsquo;s course; still others simply might suspend judg-ment on these points but decide to think more about issuesand candidates. Those choices and assessments, however, are not for the Government to make. &ldquo;The First Amend-ment underwrites the freedom to experiment and to create in the realm of thought and speech. Citizens must be free to use new forms, and new forums, for the expression ofideas. The civic discourse belongs to the people, and the Government may not prescribe the means used to conduct it.&rdquo; McConnell, supra, at 341 (opinion of KENNEDY, J.).</p><p>The judgment of the District Court is reversed withrespect to the constitutionality of 2 U. S. C. 441b&rsquo;s re-strictions on corporate independent expenditures. The judgment is affirmed with respect to BCRA&rsquo;s disclaimer and disclosure requirements. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf [ supremecourtus.gov ] ...Some members of the public might consider Hillary to be insightful and instructive ; some might find it to beneither high art nor a fair discussion on how to set the Nation    s course ; still others simply might suspend judg-ment on these points but decide to think more about issuesand candidates .
Those choices and assessments , however , are not for the Government to make .
   The First Amend-ment underwrites the freedom to experiment and to create in the realm of thought and speech .
Citizens must be free to use new forms , and new forums , for the expression ofideas .
The civic discourse belongs to the people , and the Government may not prescribe the means used to conduct it.    McConnell , supra , at 341 ( opinion of KENNEDY , J .
) .The judgment of the District Court is reversed withrespect to the constitutionality of 2 U. S. C. 441b    s re-strictions on corporate independent expenditures .
The judgment is affirmed with respect to BCRA    s disclaimer and disclosure requirements .
The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion .
It is so ordered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf [supremecourtus.gov] ...Some members of the public might consider Hillary to be insightful and instructive; some might find it to beneither high art nor a fair discussion on how to set the Nation’s course; still others simply might suspend judg-ment on these points but decide to think more about issuesand candidates.
Those choices and assessments, however, are not for the Government to make.
“The First Amend-ment underwrites the freedom to experiment and to create in the realm of thought and speech.
Citizens must be free to use new forms, and new forums, for the expression ofideas.
The civic discourse belongs to the people, and the Government may not prescribe the means used to conduct it.” McConnell, supra, at 341 (opinion of KENNEDY, J.
).The judgment of the District Court is reversed withrespect to the constitutionality of 2 U. S. C. 441b’s re-strictions on corporate independent expenditures.
The judgment is affirmed with respect to BCRA’s disclaimer and disclosure requirements.
The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851114</id>
	<title>Re:A great victory for free speech!</title>
	<author>jjohn24680</author>
	<datestamp>1264067820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Corporations are voluntary contracts between individuals, and those individuals have rights, period.  If some of you Slashdot commies fail to comprehend that, that is your problem and yours alone.</p></div><p>I agree, those individuals do have rights. So, let those individuals pay for the advertisements. If a collective of individuals wishes to pay for the advertisement, they can give an individual the money to pay for it. The bottom line for me is that the rights are a person's rights, a U.S. Citizen's rights, not a corporation's rights. Let the person spend the money and put their name on the advertisement. Does it become inconvenient for them to do this? Yes, but inconvenience is not an excuse. If some Chinese corporation wants to pay a U.S. Citizen to run a political advertisement here in the U.S., let them. As long as a U.S. Citizen puts their name on the bottom line, let them do it. They can bear the responsibility. Oh, yea, that's the whole issue. Nobody wants to be responsible for the advertisement by putting their name on it. But that's a whole different issue.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Corporations are voluntary contracts between individuals , and those individuals have rights , period .
If some of you Slashdot commies fail to comprehend that , that is your problem and yours alone.I agree , those individuals do have rights .
So , let those individuals pay for the advertisements .
If a collective of individuals wishes to pay for the advertisement , they can give an individual the money to pay for it .
The bottom line for me is that the rights are a person 's rights , a U.S. Citizen 's rights , not a corporation 's rights .
Let the person spend the money and put their name on the advertisement .
Does it become inconvenient for them to do this ?
Yes , but inconvenience is not an excuse .
If some Chinese corporation wants to pay a U.S. Citizen to run a political advertisement here in the U.S. , let them .
As long as a U.S. Citizen puts their name on the bottom line , let them do it .
They can bear the responsibility .
Oh , yea , that 's the whole issue .
Nobody wants to be responsible for the advertisement by putting their name on it .
But that 's a whole different issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Corporations are voluntary contracts between individuals, and those individuals have rights, period.
If some of you Slashdot commies fail to comprehend that, that is your problem and yours alone.I agree, those individuals do have rights.
So, let those individuals pay for the advertisements.
If a collective of individuals wishes to pay for the advertisement, they can give an individual the money to pay for it.
The bottom line for me is that the rights are a person's rights, a U.S. Citizen's rights, not a corporation's rights.
Let the person spend the money and put their name on the advertisement.
Does it become inconvenient for them to do this?
Yes, but inconvenience is not an excuse.
If some Chinese corporation wants to pay a U.S. Citizen to run a political advertisement here in the U.S., let them.
As long as a U.S. Citizen puts their name on the bottom line, let them do it.
They can bear the responsibility.
Oh, yea, that's the whole issue.
Nobody wants to be responsible for the advertisement by putting their name on it.
But that's a whole different issue.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853576</id>
	<title>Re:Corporations are not individuals</title>
	<author>SETIGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1264075680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Kennedy<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... said, "No sufficient government interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations."</p></div><p>
It this or an equivalent is in the decision it also opens the door for churches to donate and support candidates from the pulpit with no recourse from the IRS.  And the Catholic Church (or any other foreign government for that matter) is now entitled to spend unlimited money to influence elections.
</p><p>
Gotta love those "conservatives" on the court.  They don't care who's in charge, as long as there's plenty of money involved.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Kennedy ... said , " No sufficient government interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations .
" It this or an equivalent is in the decision it also opens the door for churches to donate and support candidates from the pulpit with no recourse from the IRS .
And the Catholic Church ( or any other foreign government for that matter ) is now entitled to spend unlimited money to influence elections .
Got ta love those " conservatives " on the court .
They do n't care who 's in charge , as long as there 's plenty of money involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kennedy ... said, "No sufficient government interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations.
"
It this or an equivalent is in the decision it also opens the door for churches to donate and support candidates from the pulpit with no recourse from the IRS.
And the Catholic Church (or any other foreign government for that matter) is now entitled to spend unlimited money to influence elections.
Gotta love those "conservatives" on the court.
They don't care who's in charge, as long as there's plenty of money involved.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852084</id>
	<title>Good explanation, great ruling</title>
	<author>Sheepmage</author>
	<datestamp>1264070640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I'm glad you said this. I'm also shocked by how many misconceptions are apparent throughout these comments.
</p><p>
People seem to go on and on about 1886. Corporations are certainly not people strictly speaking, they are just groups of people. Those people have individual rights, and by extension, a group of people also has the same set of rights. And by rights, I simply mean things that the government is restricted from doing to those people.
</p><p>
Why shouldn't corporations be entitled to free speech, just as any person who is a part of that corporation is entitled to it? If I speak as part of a company, do I suddenly lose my right whereas if I take off my "Exxon" cap I get it back? Doesn't really make sense to me.
</p><p>
I think overall this ruling is excellent for many reasons. One, it upholds the Constitution as opposed to reinterpreting it...that's really great. We need more rulings like this. Second, it forces people to rethink their approach to this problem. Yes, it is a problem that corporations and other groups of people can essentially "buy" elections. As opposed to restricting their ability to spend money on speech though, what we should instead be focusing on is the motivation behind why these groups of people find it in their best interest to spend millions of dollars on campaigns. The real problem is that the government makes decisions that redirect billions of dollars from one group of people to another. These groups have incredible monetary incentive to spend billions to ensure that the pot goes to them and not to the others vying for it.
</p><p>
The reality is that the only way to end this constant conflict between groups of men is to end the government's ability to determine who gets the pot by taking away that pot from the government to begin with. Let private citizens individually make decisions on how their money gets spent....not voters. The government's job and how it should go about it should be clearly defined and restricted by the constitution. It's ability to raise money shouldn't be arbitrarily determined by majority rules voting, but rather, by people voluntarily investing in it because of the results it produces. Only by sufficiently limiting the government's role in the economy and it's overall power will you be able to eliminate the corporations incentive to buy elections and profit from a process that is inherently and essentially unfair.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm glad you said this .
I 'm also shocked by how many misconceptions are apparent throughout these comments .
People seem to go on and on about 1886 .
Corporations are certainly not people strictly speaking , they are just groups of people .
Those people have individual rights , and by extension , a group of people also has the same set of rights .
And by rights , I simply mean things that the government is restricted from doing to those people .
Why should n't corporations be entitled to free speech , just as any person who is a part of that corporation is entitled to it ?
If I speak as part of a company , do I suddenly lose my right whereas if I take off my " Exxon " cap I get it back ?
Does n't really make sense to me .
I think overall this ruling is excellent for many reasons .
One , it upholds the Constitution as opposed to reinterpreting it...that 's really great .
We need more rulings like this .
Second , it forces people to rethink their approach to this problem .
Yes , it is a problem that corporations and other groups of people can essentially " buy " elections .
As opposed to restricting their ability to spend money on speech though , what we should instead be focusing on is the motivation behind why these groups of people find it in their best interest to spend millions of dollars on campaigns .
The real problem is that the government makes decisions that redirect billions of dollars from one group of people to another .
These groups have incredible monetary incentive to spend billions to ensure that the pot goes to them and not to the others vying for it .
The reality is that the only way to end this constant conflict between groups of men is to end the government 's ability to determine who gets the pot by taking away that pot from the government to begin with .
Let private citizens individually make decisions on how their money gets spent....not voters .
The government 's job and how it should go about it should be clearly defined and restricted by the constitution .
It 's ability to raise money should n't be arbitrarily determined by majority rules voting , but rather , by people voluntarily investing in it because of the results it produces .
Only by sufficiently limiting the government 's role in the economy and it 's overall power will you be able to eliminate the corporations incentive to buy elections and profit from a process that is inherently and essentially unfair .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I'm glad you said this.
I'm also shocked by how many misconceptions are apparent throughout these comments.
People seem to go on and on about 1886.
Corporations are certainly not people strictly speaking, they are just groups of people.
Those people have individual rights, and by extension, a group of people also has the same set of rights.
And by rights, I simply mean things that the government is restricted from doing to those people.
Why shouldn't corporations be entitled to free speech, just as any person who is a part of that corporation is entitled to it?
If I speak as part of a company, do I suddenly lose my right whereas if I take off my "Exxon" cap I get it back?
Doesn't really make sense to me.
I think overall this ruling is excellent for many reasons.
One, it upholds the Constitution as opposed to reinterpreting it...that's really great.
We need more rulings like this.
Second, it forces people to rethink their approach to this problem.
Yes, it is a problem that corporations and other groups of people can essentially "buy" elections.
As opposed to restricting their ability to spend money on speech though, what we should instead be focusing on is the motivation behind why these groups of people find it in their best interest to spend millions of dollars on campaigns.
The real problem is that the government makes decisions that redirect billions of dollars from one group of people to another.
These groups have incredible monetary incentive to spend billions to ensure that the pot goes to them and not to the others vying for it.
The reality is that the only way to end this constant conflict between groups of men is to end the government's ability to determine who gets the pot by taking away that pot from the government to begin with.
Let private citizens individually make decisions on how their money gets spent....not voters.
The government's job and how it should go about it should be clearly defined and restricted by the constitution.
It's ability to raise money shouldn't be arbitrarily determined by majority rules voting, but rather, by people voluntarily investing in it because of the results it produces.
Only by sufficiently limiting the government's role in the economy and it's overall power will you be able to eliminate the corporations incentive to buy elections and profit from a process that is inherently and essentially unfair.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853814</id>
	<title>Re:Bad, bad news</title>
	<author>nickmalthus</author>
	<datestamp>1264076580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Being familiar with the Constitution you would know that it makes no reference to corporations or what legal privileges and entitlements they should or should not have. Corporations are in fact intangible legal entities conjured by the state whose sole function, like Intellectual Property laws, is to promote trade and commerce for the benefit of society. As a civilization we have agreed to a social compact that limits the liability that participants in corporation may incur and in return we all enjoy the benefits that their pooled investments and risks generate. With corporations being artificial entities of the state then certainly in a government of the People, by the People, and for the People the People should be able to define and regulate the legal status of corporations in accordance with their benefit to society. The Constitution explicitly protects the rights of Individuals to freely associate and organize together but those members should not expect and demand special legal entitlements for doing so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Being familiar with the Constitution you would know that it makes no reference to corporations or what legal privileges and entitlements they should or should not have .
Corporations are in fact intangible legal entities conjured by the state whose sole function , like Intellectual Property laws , is to promote trade and commerce for the benefit of society .
As a civilization we have agreed to a social compact that limits the liability that participants in corporation may incur and in return we all enjoy the benefits that their pooled investments and risks generate .
With corporations being artificial entities of the state then certainly in a government of the People , by the People , and for the People the People should be able to define and regulate the legal status of corporations in accordance with their benefit to society .
The Constitution explicitly protects the rights of Individuals to freely associate and organize together but those members should not expect and demand special legal entitlements for doing so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being familiar with the Constitution you would know that it makes no reference to corporations or what legal privileges and entitlements they should or should not have.
Corporations are in fact intangible legal entities conjured by the state whose sole function, like Intellectual Property laws, is to promote trade and commerce for the benefit of society.
As a civilization we have agreed to a social compact that limits the liability that participants in corporation may incur and in return we all enjoy the benefits that their pooled investments and risks generate.
With corporations being artificial entities of the state then certainly in a government of the People, by the People, and for the People the People should be able to define and regulate the legal status of corporations in accordance with their benefit to society.
The Constitution explicitly protects the rights of Individuals to freely associate and organize together but those members should not expect and demand special legal entitlements for doing so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851728</id>
	<title>I smell foul play</title>
	<author>C\_Kode</author>
	<datestamp>1264069560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This undermines the entire election process.   They claim it's against freedom of speech.  No it's not.  You are free to say whatever you want.  It has no baring on free speech at all.  This is people wanting to buy an election.  There is a reason the law was enacted in the first freaking place!</p><p>There should be an investigation here and all parties proven to be involved in these shenanigans should be sent to prison.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This undermines the entire election process .
They claim it 's against freedom of speech .
No it 's not .
You are free to say whatever you want .
It has no baring on free speech at all .
This is people wanting to buy an election .
There is a reason the law was enacted in the first freaking place ! There should be an investigation here and all parties proven to be involved in these shenanigans should be sent to prison .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This undermines the entire election process.
They claim it's against freedom of speech.
No it's not.
You are free to say whatever you want.
It has no baring on free speech at all.
This is people wanting to buy an election.
There is a reason the law was enacted in the first freaking place!There should be an investigation here and all parties proven to be involved in these shenanigans should be sent to prison.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852002</id>
	<title>Re:Free sppech?</title>
	<author>MindlessAutomata</author>
	<datestamp>1264070340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree, but we should also stop taxing individuals<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , but we should also stop taxing individuals : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, but we should also stop taxing individuals :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30855536</id>
	<title>Re:Bad, bad news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264087740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the constitution states that individuals have inalienable rights. for the first 100 years of our countries existence, corporations did not have constitutional rights. corporations are not mentioned in the constitution. if i start a business, for god sake of course i can do with the profits what i want. but if i want to INCORPORATE, ie seek legal protection from certain consequences, and make it easier to operate, my corporation can and must be limited by what WE THE PEOPLE feel is necessary to maintain civil society. our country, and people like yourself, are sooo far down the road to corporate rule (ie fascism), you have forgotten the difference between a human being and a legal fiction. god save us all. the government can and must be able to protect society from actions of the corporations that government itself licenses to operate. if WE dont like what a corporation is doing, we can force them to stop doing those things under threat of dissolution of their incorporation. sometimes the tin hat wearing basement dwelling libertarian cultists at slashdot really depress me. this is probably the worst blow to the constitution ever. the 5 justices should be impeached and removed for office, and tried for treason, and hanged, and all the republicans who support this tried, and hanged, and the republican party tried under RICO, and fined in civil court for billions of dollars, and their name, and the names of all their minions removed from the annals of history. and as far as im concerned, this is a moderate position.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the constitution states that individuals have inalienable rights .
for the first 100 years of our countries existence , corporations did not have constitutional rights .
corporations are not mentioned in the constitution .
if i start a business , for god sake of course i can do with the profits what i want .
but if i want to INCORPORATE , ie seek legal protection from certain consequences , and make it easier to operate , my corporation can and must be limited by what WE THE PEOPLE feel is necessary to maintain civil society .
our country , and people like yourself , are sooo far down the road to corporate rule ( ie fascism ) , you have forgotten the difference between a human being and a legal fiction .
god save us all .
the government can and must be able to protect society from actions of the corporations that government itself licenses to operate .
if WE dont like what a corporation is doing , we can force them to stop doing those things under threat of dissolution of their incorporation .
sometimes the tin hat wearing basement dwelling libertarian cultists at slashdot really depress me .
this is probably the worst blow to the constitution ever .
the 5 justices should be impeached and removed for office , and tried for treason , and hanged , and all the republicans who support this tried , and hanged , and the republican party tried under RICO , and fined in civil court for billions of dollars , and their name , and the names of all their minions removed from the annals of history .
and as far as im concerned , this is a moderate position .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the constitution states that individuals have inalienable rights.
for the first 100 years of our countries existence, corporations did not have constitutional rights.
corporations are not mentioned in the constitution.
if i start a business, for god sake of course i can do with the profits what i want.
but if i want to INCORPORATE, ie seek legal protection from certain consequences, and make it easier to operate, my corporation can and must be limited by what WE THE PEOPLE feel is necessary to maintain civil society.
our country, and people like yourself, are sooo far down the road to corporate rule (ie fascism), you have forgotten the difference between a human being and a legal fiction.
god save us all.
the government can and must be able to protect society from actions of the corporations that government itself licenses to operate.
if WE dont like what a corporation is doing, we can force them to stop doing those things under threat of dissolution of their incorporation.
sometimes the tin hat wearing basement dwelling libertarian cultists at slashdot really depress me.
this is probably the worst blow to the constitution ever.
the 5 justices should be impeached and removed for office, and tried for treason, and hanged, and all the republicans who support this tried, and hanged, and the republican party tried under RICO, and fined in civil court for billions of dollars, and their name, and the names of all their minions removed from the annals of history.
and as far as im concerned, this is a moderate position.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30854374</id>
	<title>Re:So much for government by the people</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1264079340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would argue that increasing the weight of an individual vote is a flaw, not a feature.</p><p>To me, the 'fairest' election is the one in which all votes are as equally influential as possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would argue that increasing the weight of an individual vote is a flaw , not a feature.To me , the 'fairest ' election is the one in which all votes are as equally influential as possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would argue that increasing the weight of an individual vote is a flaw, not a feature.To me, the 'fairest' election is the one in which all votes are as equally influential as possible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852482</id>
	<title>Re:Free sppech?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264071900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If corporations want to be individuals, it's time we start taxing them like individuals.</p></div></blockquote><p>So you're suggesting we tax them less than they're taxed now?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If corporations want to be individuals , it 's time we start taxing them like individuals.So you 're suggesting we tax them less than they 're taxed now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If corporations want to be individuals, it's time we start taxing them like individuals.So you're suggesting we tax them less than they're taxed now?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851828</id>
	<title>Re:Fair enough...</title>
	<author>z4ce</author>
	<datestamp>1264069920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't think they don't already give unlimited sums of money through PACs and lobbyists? The only change is now it will be more above board and we'll know who is supporting what.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't think they do n't already give unlimited sums of money through PACs and lobbyists ?
The only change is now it will be more above board and we 'll know who is supporting what .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't think they don't already give unlimited sums of money through PACs and lobbyists?
The only change is now it will be more above board and we'll know who is supporting what.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851690</id>
	<title>Re:Both good and bad ways aspects</title>
	<author>EzInKy</author>
	<datestamp>1264069440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i><br>Moreover, what this really does is level the playing field between corporations.<br></i></p><p>Yes, it does level the playing field...</p><p>"Under today's decision, multinational corporations controlled by foreign governments would have the same rights as Americans to spend money to tilt U.S. elections."</p><p>-Justice Stevens, dissenting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Moreover , what this really does is level the playing field between corporations.Yes , it does level the playing field... " Under today 's decision , multinational corporations controlled by foreign governments would have the same rights as Americans to spend money to tilt U.S .
elections. " -Justice Stevens , dissenting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Moreover, what this really does is level the playing field between corporations.Yes, it does level the playing field..."Under today's decision, multinational corporations controlled by foreign governments would have the same rights as Americans to spend money to tilt U.S.
elections."-Justice Stevens, dissenting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850800</id>
	<title>Re:Bad, bad news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264066800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So The Conservatives get huge funding from Corporations.<br>The Liberals get huge funding from Unions.</p><p>What is new here.  Both sides are just as corrupt and twised.</p><p>The right will steal money out of your right pocket.<br>The Left will send next to you on you left and reach around and steal money out of your right pocket.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So The Conservatives get huge funding from Corporations.The Liberals get huge funding from Unions.What is new here .
Both sides are just as corrupt and twised.The right will steal money out of your right pocket.The Left will send next to you on you left and reach around and steal money out of your right pocket .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So The Conservatives get huge funding from Corporations.The Liberals get huge funding from Unions.What is new here.
Both sides are just as corrupt and twised.The right will steal money out of your right pocket.The Left will send next to you on you left and reach around and steal money out of your right pocket.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850880</id>
	<title>Before the blame game begins...</title>
	<author>whatajoke</author>
	<datestamp>1264067100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, Adam Sutler. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent.<br>    - V</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And the truth is , there is something terribly wrong with this country , is n't there ?
Cruelty and injustice , intolerance and oppression .
And where once you had the freedom to object , to think and speak as you saw fit , you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission .
How did this happen ?
Who 's to blame ?
Well certainly there are those more responsible than others , and they will be held accountable , but again truth be told , if you 're looking for the guilty , you need only look into a mirror .
I know why you did it .
I know you were afraid .
Who would n't be ?
War , terror , disease .
There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense .
Fear got the best of you , and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor , Adam Sutler .
He promised you order , he promised you peace , and all he demanded in return was your silent , obedient consent .
- V</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there?
Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression.
And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission.
How did this happen?
Who's to blame?
Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror.
I know why you did it.
I know you were afraid.
Who wouldn't be?
War, terror, disease.
There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense.
Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, Adam Sutler.
He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent.
- V
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30857006</id>
	<title>Money is not reasonable political speech</title>
	<author>bgspence</author>
	<datestamp>1264103940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Money is not speech. Money has no argument. It embodies no logic. It says nothing. But, money easily can become votes.</p><p>We live in a free market economy, but prohibit buying and selling votes. I cannot legally sell my vote or buy yours. No matter how compelling the offer it cannot be used as an argument to sway my political choices. I can not offer money to a politician to sway positions on issues. That is the very definition of corruption. Money is not reasonable political speech.</p><p>Money sways elections. Add more money to a campaign and it wins more votes.</p><p>We have a democracy which allows one vote per citizen. Corporations may be persons, but all persons are not citizens. Corporations have no restrictions on foreign ownership or influence. Corporations are foreign persons. They do not have the voting rights of a citizen. They possess fewer political rights than any citizen.</p><p>Corporations are granted special legal and financial rights. They have no human moral obligations. They can amass vast fortunes beyond those of an average citizen. They are unlimited in their size and social influence. Their rights need to be tempered to allow their amoral influence to be balanced by the human rights of the citizenry.</p><p>Corporations can express their freedom of speech through their corporate channels. They should be allowed unfettered press releases. Their voice cannot be ignored. But, they should be prohibited from buying press to amplify their political voice. Their vast financial resources would overwhelm the public discourse. Let them speak, but don't let them shout.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Money is not speech .
Money has no argument .
It embodies no logic .
It says nothing .
But , money easily can become votes.We live in a free market economy , but prohibit buying and selling votes .
I can not legally sell my vote or buy yours .
No matter how compelling the offer it can not be used as an argument to sway my political choices .
I can not offer money to a politician to sway positions on issues .
That is the very definition of corruption .
Money is not reasonable political speech.Money sways elections .
Add more money to a campaign and it wins more votes.We have a democracy which allows one vote per citizen .
Corporations may be persons , but all persons are not citizens .
Corporations have no restrictions on foreign ownership or influence .
Corporations are foreign persons .
They do not have the voting rights of a citizen .
They possess fewer political rights than any citizen.Corporations are granted special legal and financial rights .
They have no human moral obligations .
They can amass vast fortunes beyond those of an average citizen .
They are unlimited in their size and social influence .
Their rights need to be tempered to allow their amoral influence to be balanced by the human rights of the citizenry.Corporations can express their freedom of speech through their corporate channels .
They should be allowed unfettered press releases .
Their voice can not be ignored .
But , they should be prohibited from buying press to amplify their political voice .
Their vast financial resources would overwhelm the public discourse .
Let them speak , but do n't let them shout .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Money is not speech.
Money has no argument.
It embodies no logic.
It says nothing.
But, money easily can become votes.We live in a free market economy, but prohibit buying and selling votes.
I cannot legally sell my vote or buy yours.
No matter how compelling the offer it cannot be used as an argument to sway my political choices.
I can not offer money to a politician to sway positions on issues.
That is the very definition of corruption.
Money is not reasonable political speech.Money sways elections.
Add more money to a campaign and it wins more votes.We have a democracy which allows one vote per citizen.
Corporations may be persons, but all persons are not citizens.
Corporations have no restrictions on foreign ownership or influence.
Corporations are foreign persons.
They do not have the voting rights of a citizen.
They possess fewer political rights than any citizen.Corporations are granted special legal and financial rights.
They have no human moral obligations.
They can amass vast fortunes beyond those of an average citizen.
They are unlimited in their size and social influence.
Their rights need to be tempered to allow their amoral influence to be balanced by the human rights of the citizenry.Corporations can express their freedom of speech through their corporate channels.
They should be allowed unfettered press releases.
Their voice cannot be ignored.
But, they should be prohibited from buying press to amplify their political voice.
Their vast financial resources would overwhelm the public discourse.
Let them speak, but don't let them shout.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851738</id>
	<title>Re:So much for government by the people</title>
	<author>MindlessAutomata</author>
	<datestamp>1264069560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>With unlimited spending the sheep who listen without thinking will just keep electing who they're told and never consider the consequences. Yay...</p></div></blockquote><p>So your argument basically is, "If some groups that I don't like get greater influence, they will convince people to vote ways I don't like."</p><p>Sorry, buddy!  You can't complain about people disagreeing with you if you buy into the democratic premise to begin with!  Trying to silence groups that don't match your agenda is actually undemocratic, anyway, because it makes a farce out of the idea of people voting their mind.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>With unlimited spending the sheep who listen without thinking will just keep electing who they 're told and never consider the consequences .
Yay...So your argument basically is , " If some groups that I do n't like get greater influence , they will convince people to vote ways I do n't like .
" Sorry , buddy !
You ca n't complain about people disagreeing with you if you buy into the democratic premise to begin with !
Trying to silence groups that do n't match your agenda is actually undemocratic , anyway , because it makes a farce out of the idea of people voting their mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With unlimited spending the sheep who listen without thinking will just keep electing who they're told and never consider the consequences.
Yay...So your argument basically is, "If some groups that I don't like get greater influence, they will convince people to vote ways I don't like.
"Sorry, buddy!
You can't complain about people disagreeing with you if you buy into the democratic premise to begin with!
Trying to silence groups that don't match your agenda is actually undemocratic, anyway, because it makes a farce out of the idea of people voting their mind.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851802</id>
	<title>Re:America's downfall was person == corp</title>
	<author>city</author>
	<datestamp>1264069800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They know neither death, nor taxes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They know neither death , nor taxes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They know neither death, nor taxes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30855172</id>
	<title>Re:I for one, welcome our Chinese Overlords</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264084620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This comment needs to be reverberated throughout the United States, now.  This will affect everyone, regardless of party affiliation.</p><p>If you think that our current government is "less than adequate", wait until the Chinese or Saudis control the products that can be imported and exported from this country.  They will be given the financial nod for this control when our congressmen will allow more loopholes for their interests.  If not, punishing those that oppose them.</p><p>This is more than simple US corporations and unions controlling the flow of money to campaigns, but world control of the United States.</p><p>Please contest this passage of the Supreme Court ruling, because it is giving U.S. Constitutional power to "world" identities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This comment needs to be reverberated throughout the United States , now .
This will affect everyone , regardless of party affiliation.If you think that our current government is " less than adequate " , wait until the Chinese or Saudis control the products that can be imported and exported from this country .
They will be given the financial nod for this control when our congressmen will allow more loopholes for their interests .
If not , punishing those that oppose them.This is more than simple US corporations and unions controlling the flow of money to campaigns , but world control of the United States.Please contest this passage of the Supreme Court ruling , because it is giving U.S. Constitutional power to " world " identities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This comment needs to be reverberated throughout the United States, now.
This will affect everyone, regardless of party affiliation.If you think that our current government is "less than adequate", wait until the Chinese or Saudis control the products that can be imported and exported from this country.
They will be given the financial nod for this control when our congressmen will allow more loopholes for their interests.
If not, punishing those that oppose them.This is more than simple US corporations and unions controlling the flow of money to campaigns, but world control of the United States.Please contest this passage of the Supreme Court ruling, because it is giving U.S. Constitutional power to "world" identities.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852492</id>
	<title>/sigh</title>
	<author>Galestar</author>
	<datestamp>1264071900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is what happens when you award corporations the same rights as those awarded to real people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is what happens when you award corporations the same rights as those awarded to real people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is what happens when you award corporations the same rights as those awarded to real people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852352</id>
	<title>how to get around this?</title>
	<author>krull</author>
	<datestamp>1264071480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could this decision by made ineffective by passing a law saying that when political / issue advertising is purchased in media, groups with opposition views must be \_freely\_ given an equal amount of time / space to rebut the advertisement. Perhaps even stronger, the space / time the rebuttal is given must immediately follow / be next to the original advertisement?</p><p>Can someone explain why this wouldn't be constitutionally legal? I don't see a free speech argument since any group can now advertise / make their views heard...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could this decision by made ineffective by passing a law saying that when political / issue advertising is purchased in media , groups with opposition views must be \ _freely \ _ given an equal amount of time / space to rebut the advertisement .
Perhaps even stronger , the space / time the rebuttal is given must immediately follow / be next to the original advertisement ? Can someone explain why this would n't be constitutionally legal ?
I do n't see a free speech argument since any group can now advertise / make their views heard.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could this decision by made ineffective by passing a law saying that when political / issue advertising is purchased in media, groups with opposition views must be \_freely\_ given an equal amount of time / space to rebut the advertisement.
Perhaps even stronger, the space / time the rebuttal is given must immediately follow / be next to the original advertisement?Can someone explain why this wouldn't be constitutionally legal?
I don't see a free speech argument since any group can now advertise / make their views heard...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850810</id>
	<title>I for one, welcome our Chinese Overlords</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1264066860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>[Chief Justice] Roberts said he was not prepared to "embrace a theory of the 1st Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern."</p><p>But [Justice] Stevens and the dissenters said the majority was ignoring the long-understood rule that the government could limit election money from corporations, unions and others, such as foreign governments. <b>"Under today's decision, multinational corporations controlled by foreign governments" would have the same rights as Americans to spend money to tilt U.S. elections</b>. "Corporations are not human beings. They can't vote and can't run for office," Stevens said, and should be subject to restrictions under the election laws.</p></div><p>Maybe China now has something useful to do with the trillion+ dollars they have burning a hole in their pocket.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ Chief Justice ] Roberts said he was not prepared to " embrace a theory of the 1st Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts , but of pamphlets , posters , the Internet and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern .
" But [ Justice ] Stevens and the dissenters said the majority was ignoring the long-understood rule that the government could limit election money from corporations , unions and others , such as foreign governments .
" Under today 's decision , multinational corporations controlled by foreign governments " would have the same rights as Americans to spend money to tilt U.S. elections. " Corporations are not human beings .
They ca n't vote and ca n't run for office , " Stevens said , and should be subject to restrictions under the election laws.Maybe China now has something useful to do with the trillion + dollars they have burning a hole in their pocket .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[Chief Justice] Roberts said he was not prepared to "embrace a theory of the 1st Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern.
"But [Justice] Stevens and the dissenters said the majority was ignoring the long-understood rule that the government could limit election money from corporations, unions and others, such as foreign governments.
"Under today's decision, multinational corporations controlled by foreign governments" would have the same rights as Americans to spend money to tilt U.S. elections. "Corporations are not human beings.
They can't vote and can't run for office," Stevens said, and should be subject to restrictions under the election laws.Maybe China now has something useful to do with the trillion+ dollars they have burning a hole in their pocket.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30858872</id>
	<title>Re:Corporations are Individuals</title>
	<author>NeoSkandranon</author>
	<datestamp>1264173000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you can actually do that all you want. You just can't give 2 grand to the candidate's opponent so he can do the same.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you can actually do that all you want .
You just ca n't give 2 grand to the candidate 's opponent so he can do the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you can actually do that all you want.
You just can't give 2 grand to the candidate's opponent so he can do the same.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30854552</id>
	<title>Limited Liability</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264080360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So I'm not a lawyer and am probably talking out of my ass about corporate law and governance stuff...but  hey this is slashdot!</p><p>My question is can hypothetical insane rich asshole X to do the following:<br>1) Create a Limited Liability Corporation Y<br>2) Issue a bunch of shares to myself.<br>3) Use said shares to vote in some stooges as members of the board.<br>4) Use the cash from the shares to liable and slander the hell out of Candidate Z, I mean totally scurrilous shit and a non-stop barrage of it.<br>5)???<br>6) Profit</p><p>Can rich asshole X be sued for liable/slander? Presumably, only Corporation Y can be sued for damages  (which by design has the bare minimum of assets) or at worst members of the board (ditto).</p><p>Or are similar things going on already but with non-profits?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So I 'm not a lawyer and am probably talking out of my ass about corporate law and governance stuff...but hey this is slashdot ! My question is can hypothetical insane rich asshole X to do the following : 1 ) Create a Limited Liability Corporation Y2 ) Issue a bunch of shares to myself.3 ) Use said shares to vote in some stooges as members of the board.4 ) Use the cash from the shares to liable and slander the hell out of Candidate Z , I mean totally scurrilous shit and a non-stop barrage of it.5 ) ? ?
? 6 ) ProfitCan rich asshole X be sued for liable/slander ?
Presumably , only Corporation Y can be sued for damages ( which by design has the bare minimum of assets ) or at worst members of the board ( ditto ) .Or are similar things going on already but with non-profits ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I'm not a lawyer and am probably talking out of my ass about corporate law and governance stuff...but  hey this is slashdot!My question is can hypothetical insane rich asshole X to do the following:1) Create a Limited Liability Corporation Y2) Issue a bunch of shares to myself.3) Use said shares to vote in some stooges as members of the board.4) Use the cash from the shares to liable and slander the hell out of Candidate Z, I mean totally scurrilous shit and a non-stop barrage of it.5)??
?6) ProfitCan rich asshole X be sued for liable/slander?
Presumably, only Corporation Y can be sued for damages  (which by design has the bare minimum of assets) or at worst members of the board (ditto).Or are similar things going on already but with non-profits?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852706</id>
	<title>Sadly</title>
	<author>Charliemopps</author>
	<datestamp>1264072620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sadly both sides are right. We need reform... but the only way we could do that would be to amend the constitution. Either that or the supreme court needs to get off their ass and finally define corporations as non-citizens.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly both sides are right .
We need reform... but the only way we could do that would be to amend the constitution .
Either that or the supreme court needs to get off their ass and finally define corporations as non-citizens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly both sides are right.
We need reform... but the only way we could do that would be to amend the constitution.
Either that or the supreme court needs to get off their ass and finally define corporations as non-citizens.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851916</id>
	<title>Re:Both good and bad ways aspects</title>
	<author>MindlessAutomata</author>
	<datestamp>1264070100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly.  You take the "money" out of electing politicians, you restrict donations, etc, then the media gets the run the show even more than they do now because they get to decide what to report and what not to report.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
You take the " money " out of electing politicians , you restrict donations , etc , then the media gets the run the show even more than they do now because they get to decide what to report and what not to report .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
You take the "money" out of electing politicians, you restrict donations, etc, then the media gets the run the show even more than they do now because they get to decide what to report and what not to report.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851142</id>
	<title>Re:Bad, bad news</title>
	<author>Seakip18</author>
	<datestamp>1264067880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the main distinction is that, the individual or group of individuals that put these opinions out there cannot be restricted by the gov't. If a corporation assists in extracting and spreading these opinions, then it's all good, because the opinions are not that of the corporation(at least on the face), just that of the individuals.</p><p>Granted, Fox news isn't going to want publish an editorial applauding Obama, but you get the point.</p><p>A  corporation, where there is NO individual in play, should not have any of these rights, because they are not a person, ergo, how can they have any fundamental rights?</p><p>A corporation, instead, is a legal entity created and defined under the US law. It can simplify the ownership of holdings, properties and patents as well as managing finances(yeah. I greatly simplified it, but again, you get the idea.)</p><p>Beyond that, it is as real as my perpetual motion machine. I have no problems placing legal restrictions on the financial "donations" of this legal entity to candidates. Their business practice alone should make me want to get behind whatever message/candidate they are pushing. I don't need them paying so much money that I can't turn on the TV without hearing "Obama this. Pelosi that!".</p><p>PS. For unions, just add "membership restricted/compelled membership" to the definition of a corporation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the main distinction is that , the individual or group of individuals that put these opinions out there can not be restricted by the gov't .
If a corporation assists in extracting and spreading these opinions , then it 's all good , because the opinions are not that of the corporation ( at least on the face ) , just that of the individuals.Granted , Fox news is n't going to want publish an editorial applauding Obama , but you get the point.A corporation , where there is NO individual in play , should not have any of these rights , because they are not a person , ergo , how can they have any fundamental rights ? A corporation , instead , is a legal entity created and defined under the US law .
It can simplify the ownership of holdings , properties and patents as well as managing finances ( yeah .
I greatly simplified it , but again , you get the idea .
) Beyond that , it is as real as my perpetual motion machine .
I have no problems placing legal restrictions on the financial " donations " of this legal entity to candidates .
Their business practice alone should make me want to get behind whatever message/candidate they are pushing .
I do n't need them paying so much money that I ca n't turn on the TV without hearing " Obama this .
Pelosi that ! " .PS .
For unions , just add " membership restricted/compelled membership " to the definition of a corporation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the main distinction is that, the individual or group of individuals that put these opinions out there cannot be restricted by the gov't.
If a corporation assists in extracting and spreading these opinions, then it's all good, because the opinions are not that of the corporation(at least on the face), just that of the individuals.Granted, Fox news isn't going to want publish an editorial applauding Obama, but you get the point.A  corporation, where there is NO individual in play, should not have any of these rights, because they are not a person, ergo, how can they have any fundamental rights?A corporation, instead, is a legal entity created and defined under the US law.
It can simplify the ownership of holdings, properties and patents as well as managing finances(yeah.
I greatly simplified it, but again, you get the idea.
)Beyond that, it is as real as my perpetual motion machine.
I have no problems placing legal restrictions on the financial "donations" of this legal entity to candidates.
Their business practice alone should make me want to get behind whatever message/candidate they are pushing.
I don't need them paying so much money that I can't turn on the TV without hearing "Obama this.
Pelosi that!".PS.
For unions, just add "membership restricted/compelled membership" to the definition of a corporation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852146</id>
	<title>Re:Free sppech?</title>
	<author>j79zlr</author>
	<datestamp>1264070880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You cannot tax a corporation. Increased tax burdens just trickle down to reduced wages for low level employees and increased prices. I'm not sure why that is so hard for people to get.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can not tax a corporation .
Increased tax burdens just trickle down to reduced wages for low level employees and increased prices .
I 'm not sure why that is so hard for people to get .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You cannot tax a corporation.
Increased tax burdens just trickle down to reduced wages for low level employees and increased prices.
I'm not sure why that is so hard for people to get.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851290</id>
	<title>Corporations are Individuals</title>
	<author>rotide</author>
	<datestamp>1264068240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>[A U.S.] Supreme Court ruling in 1886<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... arguably set the stage for the full-scale development of the culture of capitalism, by handing to corporations the right to use their economic power in a way they never had before. Relying on the Fourteenth Amendment, added to the Constitution in 1868 to protect the rights of freed slaves, the <b>Court ruled that a private corporation is a natural person under the U.S. Constitution, and consequently has the same rights and protection extended to persons by the Bill of Rights, including the right to free speech.</b> Thus corporations were given the same &ldquo;rights&rdquo; to influence the government in their own interests as were extended to individual citizens, paving the way for corporations to use their wealth to dominate public thought and discourse. The debates in the United States in the 1990s over campaign finance reform, in which corporate bodies can &ldquo;donate&rdquo; millions of dollars to political candidates stem from this ruling although rarely if ever is that mentioned. Thus, corporations, as &ldquo;persons,&rdquo; were free to lobby legislatures, use the mass media, establish educational institutions such as many business schools founded by corporate leaders in the early twentieth century, found charitable organizations to convince the public of their lofty intent, and in general construct an image that they believed would be in their best interests. All of this in the interest of &ldquo;free speech.&rdquo;

&mdash; Richard Robbins, Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism, (Allyn and Bacon, 1999), p.100</i> </p><p>Personally, in my opinion, that's where it went downhill.  A corporation doesn't need rights as an individual.  If a corporation needs to speak it has many members which can be enabled to speak for it.</p><p>The problem is that the voice of a business has no bearing on the amount of individuals it represents but merely by the amount of money it can throw.  If a business representing 100,000 employees only has $100,000 to contribute it won't even be registered against a tiny company of 5 people that can contribute $1,000,000,000.</p><p>If there were reasonable caps to contributions, say, $1,000 per person (people) and \_no\_ corporations were allowed to contribute, then the people get the power back.  If a large corporation wants to push an issue, they can lobby their own employees to contribute to their cause, but the choice would again be with the individual people.</p><p>I mean honestly, if I have $300 to contribute to a politician I support, how in the world is that going to compare to a $10,000,000 contribution from Big Media when they are leaning in the opposite direction on an issue?</p><p>I'm not saying "the people" have had any real power for a long time (when compared to big business), but this just skews it even farther away from us.</p><p>Sad day to be an American...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ A U.S. ] Supreme Court ruling in 1886 ... arguably set the stage for the full-scale development of the culture of capitalism , by handing to corporations the right to use their economic power in a way they never had before .
Relying on the Fourteenth Amendment , added to the Constitution in 1868 to protect the rights of freed slaves , the Court ruled that a private corporation is a natural person under the U.S. Constitution , and consequently has the same rights and protection extended to persons by the Bill of Rights , including the right to free speech .
Thus corporations were given the same    rights    to influence the government in their own interests as were extended to individual citizens , paving the way for corporations to use their wealth to dominate public thought and discourse .
The debates in the United States in the 1990s over campaign finance reform , in which corporate bodies can    donate    millions of dollars to political candidates stem from this ruling although rarely if ever is that mentioned .
Thus , corporations , as    persons ,    were free to lobby legislatures , use the mass media , establish educational institutions such as many business schools founded by corporate leaders in the early twentieth century , found charitable organizations to convince the public of their lofty intent , and in general construct an image that they believed would be in their best interests .
All of this in the interest of    free speech.       Richard Robbins , Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism , ( Allyn and Bacon , 1999 ) , p.100 Personally , in my opinion , that 's where it went downhill .
A corporation does n't need rights as an individual .
If a corporation needs to speak it has many members which can be enabled to speak for it.The problem is that the voice of a business has no bearing on the amount of individuals it represents but merely by the amount of money it can throw .
If a business representing 100,000 employees only has $ 100,000 to contribute it wo n't even be registered against a tiny company of 5 people that can contribute $ 1,000,000,000.If there were reasonable caps to contributions , say , $ 1,000 per person ( people ) and \ _no \ _ corporations were allowed to contribute , then the people get the power back .
If a large corporation wants to push an issue , they can lobby their own employees to contribute to their cause , but the choice would again be with the individual people.I mean honestly , if I have $ 300 to contribute to a politician I support , how in the world is that going to compare to a $ 10,000,000 contribution from Big Media when they are leaning in the opposite direction on an issue ? I 'm not saying " the people " have had any real power for a long time ( when compared to big business ) , but this just skews it even farther away from us.Sad day to be an American.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> [A U.S.] Supreme Court ruling in 1886 ... arguably set the stage for the full-scale development of the culture of capitalism, by handing to corporations the right to use their economic power in a way they never had before.
Relying on the Fourteenth Amendment, added to the Constitution in 1868 to protect the rights of freed slaves, the Court ruled that a private corporation is a natural person under the U.S. Constitution, and consequently has the same rights and protection extended to persons by the Bill of Rights, including the right to free speech.
Thus corporations were given the same “rights” to influence the government in their own interests as were extended to individual citizens, paving the way for corporations to use their wealth to dominate public thought and discourse.
The debates in the United States in the 1990s over campaign finance reform, in which corporate bodies can “donate” millions of dollars to political candidates stem from this ruling although rarely if ever is that mentioned.
Thus, corporations, as “persons,” were free to lobby legislatures, use the mass media, establish educational institutions such as many business schools founded by corporate leaders in the early twentieth century, found charitable organizations to convince the public of their lofty intent, and in general construct an image that they believed would be in their best interests.
All of this in the interest of “free speech.”

— Richard Robbins, Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism, (Allyn and Bacon, 1999), p.100 Personally, in my opinion, that's where it went downhill.
A corporation doesn't need rights as an individual.
If a corporation needs to speak it has many members which can be enabled to speak for it.The problem is that the voice of a business has no bearing on the amount of individuals it represents but merely by the amount of money it can throw.
If a business representing 100,000 employees only has $100,000 to contribute it won't even be registered against a tiny company of 5 people that can contribute $1,000,000,000.If there were reasonable caps to contributions, say, $1,000 per person (people) and \_no\_ corporations were allowed to contribute, then the people get the power back.
If a large corporation wants to push an issue, they can lobby their own employees to contribute to their cause, but the choice would again be with the individual people.I mean honestly, if I have $300 to contribute to a politician I support, how in the world is that going to compare to a $10,000,000 contribution from Big Media when they are leaning in the opposite direction on an issue?I'm not saying "the people" have had any real power for a long time (when compared to big business), but this just skews it even farther away from us.Sad day to be an American...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30870752</id>
	<title>Re:This decision is horrible</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264271880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>more like an oligarchy</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>more like an oligarchy</tokentext>
<sentencetext>more like an oligarchy</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30855656</id>
	<title>Re:America's downfall was person == corp</title>
	<author>AK Marc</author>
	<datestamp>1264088640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Seriously, a corporation is just a tax structure. A legal hack. Ending the legal structure of the corporation isn't going to change the fact that a bunch of people have gotten together under the Coca Cola name and want to do business together. They are still going to want that.</i> <br> <br>It was invented as a liability shield to shield investors who had no ability to control any aspect of the day-to-day operation from liability greater than their investment in that entity.  Instead, it shields actual people who do actual harm because we can't figure out which ones committed the illegal act that the corporation did.  It gives tax advantages.  It has legal "person" status and the ability to do person things, but none of the responsibility.  No corporation was even sentenced to jail, even though corporations like Ford explicitly stated that they took actions with the known consequence of killing people.  That sounds like premeditated murder for profit.  But rather than looking at them like a hitman, we see them as beancounters that aren't bad because they made good financial decisions.<br> <br>10 people want to get together and make something?  Great.  1000 people want to invest in that?  Also great.  The CEO wants to have the corporation push poison and kill people?  Even if the CEO deliberately used the company to kill people, the law would never treat this legal person as a person and sentence the corporation to jail.  Corporations are amoral and profit driven with little to no consequences for bad actions, and that leaves them often indistinguishable from evil.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , a corporation is just a tax structure .
A legal hack .
Ending the legal structure of the corporation is n't going to change the fact that a bunch of people have gotten together under the Coca Cola name and want to do business together .
They are still going to want that .
It was invented as a liability shield to shield investors who had no ability to control any aspect of the day-to-day operation from liability greater than their investment in that entity .
Instead , it shields actual people who do actual harm because we ca n't figure out which ones committed the illegal act that the corporation did .
It gives tax advantages .
It has legal " person " status and the ability to do person things , but none of the responsibility .
No corporation was even sentenced to jail , even though corporations like Ford explicitly stated that they took actions with the known consequence of killing people .
That sounds like premeditated murder for profit .
But rather than looking at them like a hitman , we see them as beancounters that are n't bad because they made good financial decisions .
10 people want to get together and make something ?
Great. 1000 people want to invest in that ?
Also great .
The CEO wants to have the corporation push poison and kill people ?
Even if the CEO deliberately used the company to kill people , the law would never treat this legal person as a person and sentence the corporation to jail .
Corporations are amoral and profit driven with little to no consequences for bad actions , and that leaves them often indistinguishable from evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, a corporation is just a tax structure.
A legal hack.
Ending the legal structure of the corporation isn't going to change the fact that a bunch of people have gotten together under the Coca Cola name and want to do business together.
They are still going to want that.
It was invented as a liability shield to shield investors who had no ability to control any aspect of the day-to-day operation from liability greater than their investment in that entity.
Instead, it shields actual people who do actual harm because we can't figure out which ones committed the illegal act that the corporation did.
It gives tax advantages.
It has legal "person" status and the ability to do person things, but none of the responsibility.
No corporation was even sentenced to jail, even though corporations like Ford explicitly stated that they took actions with the known consequence of killing people.
That sounds like premeditated murder for profit.
But rather than looking at them like a hitman, we see them as beancounters that aren't bad because they made good financial decisions.
10 people want to get together and make something?
Great.  1000 people want to invest in that?
Also great.
The CEO wants to have the corporation push poison and kill people?
Even if the CEO deliberately used the company to kill people, the law would never treat this legal person as a person and sentence the corporation to jail.
Corporations are amoral and profit driven with little to no consequences for bad actions, and that leaves them often indistinguishable from evil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30855148</id>
	<title>More Boots Needed</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1264084440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>       We may have thrown right wing politicians into the trash can but the Supreme Court has to die off on its own. Corporations should be banned from all political activity. Their employees and stock holders already get equal footing with others. Let them contribute as individuals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We may have thrown right wing politicians into the trash can but the Supreme Court has to die off on its own .
Corporations should be banned from all political activity .
Their employees and stock holders already get equal footing with others .
Let them contribute as individuals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>       We may have thrown right wing politicians into the trash can but the Supreme Court has to die off on its own.
Corporations should be banned from all political activity.
Their employees and stock holders already get equal footing with others.
Let them contribute as individuals.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30856278</id>
	<title>Why Is There So Little Money in U.S. Politics?</title>
	<author>Noble3001</author>
	<datestamp>1264094580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What does anyone else think of this MIT article from june of 2002
<a href="http://web.mit.edu/polisci/research/representation/CF\_JEP\_Final.pdf" title="mit.edu" rel="nofollow">http://web.mit.edu/polisci/research/representation/CF\_JEP\_Final.pdf</a> [mit.edu]
 titled ' Why is There So Little Money in U.S. Politics?'
which basically says that political campaigns do not get most of their money from corporations or corporation like entities, and furthermore, legislators largely do not vote based on donations from such entities.


It kinda makes my head spin as I still, maybe ignorantly, believe otherwise.


-Noble</htmltext>
<tokenext>What does anyone else think of this MIT article from june of 2002 http : //web.mit.edu/polisci/research/representation/CF \ _JEP \ _Final.pdf [ mit.edu ] titled ' Why is There So Little Money in U.S .
Politics ? ' which basically says that political campaigns do not get most of their money from corporations or corporation like entities , and furthermore , legislators largely do not vote based on donations from such entities .
It kinda makes my head spin as I still , maybe ignorantly , believe otherwise .
-Noble</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What does anyone else think of this MIT article from june of 2002
http://web.mit.edu/polisci/research/representation/CF\_JEP\_Final.pdf [mit.edu]
 titled ' Why is There So Little Money in U.S.
Politics?'
which basically says that political campaigns do not get most of their money from corporations or corporation like entities, and furthermore, legislators largely do not vote based on donations from such entities.
It kinda makes my head spin as I still, maybe ignorantly, believe otherwise.
-Noble</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852440</id>
	<title>Re:Bad, bad news</title>
	<author>Myrv</author>
	<datestamp>1264071720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But a corporation is merely a construct of government.  Every right that a corporation has should therefore be at the behest of the government. The government grants a corporation certain tax benefits and protections and in return can limit certain activities (such as politicking). If the corporation doesn't like this there is nobody stopping them from running their business as sole proprietorship (or partnership or whatever).  Of course doing so opens them up to liability (among other things) but those are the risks you have to take if you want all the privileges of a person. In this case the corporations want all the privileges of a person while sharing none of the responsibilities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But a corporation is merely a construct of government .
Every right that a corporation has should therefore be at the behest of the government .
The government grants a corporation certain tax benefits and protections and in return can limit certain activities ( such as politicking ) .
If the corporation does n't like this there is nobody stopping them from running their business as sole proprietorship ( or partnership or whatever ) .
Of course doing so opens them up to liability ( among other things ) but those are the risks you have to take if you want all the privileges of a person .
In this case the corporations want all the privileges of a person while sharing none of the responsibilities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But a corporation is merely a construct of government.
Every right that a corporation has should therefore be at the behest of the government.
The government grants a corporation certain tax benefits and protections and in return can limit certain activities (such as politicking).
If the corporation doesn't like this there is nobody stopping them from running their business as sole proprietorship (or partnership or whatever).
Of course doing so opens them up to liability (among other things) but those are the risks you have to take if you want all the privileges of a person.
In this case the corporations want all the privileges of a person while sharing none of the responsibilities.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30855518</id>
	<title>Re:Bad, bad news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264087560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If money = speech, why is bribery illegal?</p><p>"I'm not giving that guy money so he'll change his vote, I'm talking to him."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If money = speech , why is bribery illegal ?
" I 'm not giving that guy money so he 'll change his vote , I 'm talking to him .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If money = speech, why is bribery illegal?
"I'm not giving that guy money so he'll change his vote, I'm talking to him.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850866</id>
	<title>Welcome!</title>
	<author>Profane MuthaFucka</author>
	<datestamp>1264067040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I, for one, welcome our new psychopathic, immortal, politically empowered, corporate-person overlords!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I , for one , welcome our new psychopathic , immortal , politically empowered , corporate-person overlords !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I, for one, welcome our new psychopathic, immortal, politically empowered, corporate-person overlords!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851788</id>
	<title>Re:America's downfall was person == corp</title>
	<author>MindlessAutomata</author>
	<datestamp>1264069740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interestingly, the exact same is true of "politicians" and "government," as well, but I don't see you complaining about that.</p><p>And, strangely, if you are indeed right about corps rarely being punished for their crimes, then maybe that's a fault of the government moreso than even the corporation?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interestingly , the exact same is true of " politicians " and " government , " as well , but I do n't see you complaining about that.And , strangely , if you are indeed right about corps rarely being punished for their crimes , then maybe that 's a fault of the government moreso than even the corporation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interestingly, the exact same is true of "politicians" and "government," as well, but I don't see you complaining about that.And, strangely, if you are indeed right about corps rarely being punished for their crimes, then maybe that's a fault of the government moreso than even the corporation?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30894112</id>
	<title>Re:how to get around this?</title>
	<author>Uberbah</author>
	<datestamp>1264450620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nah, the easy work around is to ban corporate sponsored speech if the corporation has foreign shareholders or does not have it's headquarters in the United States.  Few corporations will want to give up having foreign investors, and the headquarter requirement will cut off the tax dodgers who have a mailing address in the Cayman islands.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nah , the easy work around is to ban corporate sponsored speech if the corporation has foreign shareholders or does not have it 's headquarters in the United States .
Few corporations will want to give up having foreign investors , and the headquarter requirement will cut off the tax dodgers who have a mailing address in the Cayman islands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nah, the easy work around is to ban corporate sponsored speech if the corporation has foreign shareholders or does not have it's headquarters in the United States.
Few corporations will want to give up having foreign investors, and the headquarter requirement will cut off the tax dodgers who have a mailing address in the Cayman islands.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851268</id>
	<title>Re:Welcome to Fascism</title>
	<author>Chris Mattern</author>
	<datestamp>1264068180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The U(F)SA is now a de facto fascist state.</p></div></blockquote><p>Because remember, kids, "fascist" means "something I personally don't approve of."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The U ( F ) SA is now a de facto fascist state.Because remember , kids , " fascist " means " something I personally do n't approve of .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The U(F)SA is now a de facto fascist state.Because remember, kids, "fascist" means "something I personally don't approve of.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851074</id>
	<title>Good call.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264067700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And not because I think corporations and other large entities buying votes is a good thing.  It's not.</p><p>It's a good call because a direct assault on free speech isn't the answer.  The answer is to use the FCC, use the tax laws, use other indirect methods to get this under control.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And not because I think corporations and other large entities buying votes is a good thing .
It 's not.It 's a good call because a direct assault on free speech is n't the answer .
The answer is to use the FCC , use the tax laws , use other indirect methods to get this under control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And not because I think corporations and other large entities buying votes is a good thing.
It's not.It's a good call because a direct assault on free speech isn't the answer.
The answer is to use the FCC, use the tax laws, use other indirect methods to get this under control.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851176</id>
	<title>Re:Bad, bad news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264067940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The constitution doesn't give you, or a business formed by you and a friend, any rights. The constitution is there to limit the government's ability to take those rights away. Being able to buy a newspaper advertisement or broadcast an advertisement isn't something that the goverment should be able to prevent you (or the company you've formed) from doing. Likewise for labor unions, advocacy groups, churches, scouting troops, bowling leagues, open source code projects, or anyone else.</p> </div><p>If your purchasing of that advertisement threatens the fundamentals of democracy, than it is absolutely the purview of the government to limit such purchases.</p><p>-Rick</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The constitution does n't give you , or a business formed by you and a friend , any rights .
The constitution is there to limit the government 's ability to take those rights away .
Being able to buy a newspaper advertisement or broadcast an advertisement is n't something that the goverment should be able to prevent you ( or the company you 've formed ) from doing .
Likewise for labor unions , advocacy groups , churches , scouting troops , bowling leagues , open source code projects , or anyone else .
If your purchasing of that advertisement threatens the fundamentals of democracy , than it is absolutely the purview of the government to limit such purchases.-Rick</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The constitution doesn't give you, or a business formed by you and a friend, any rights.
The constitution is there to limit the government's ability to take those rights away.
Being able to buy a newspaper advertisement or broadcast an advertisement isn't something that the goverment should be able to prevent you (or the company you've formed) from doing.
Likewise for labor unions, advocacy groups, churches, scouting troops, bowling leagues, open source code projects, or anyone else.
If your purchasing of that advertisement threatens the fundamentals of democracy, than it is absolutely the purview of the government to limit such purchases.-Rick
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853358</id>
	<title>Re:Bad, bad news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264074900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The constitution doesn't give you, or a business formed by you and a friend, any rights.</p></div><p>I was up with you until the 'business' bit.  A corporation is a legal entity, which exists only because of government-passed laws that permit it to exist.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The constitution does n't give you , or a business formed by you and a friend , any rights.I was up with you until the 'business ' bit .
A corporation is a legal entity , which exists only because of government-passed laws that permit it to exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The constitution doesn't give you, or a business formed by you and a friend, any rights.I was up with you until the 'business' bit.
A corporation is a legal entity, which exists only because of government-passed laws that permit it to exist.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851060</id>
	<title>Re:A great victory for free speech!</title>
	<author>twmcneil</author>
	<datestamp>1264067640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly!  And those individuals do not require a corporation has a vehicle to exercise their constitutional rights.  They can do that already as individuals.  What's next? Giving corporations the right to vote?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly !
And those individuals do not require a corporation has a vehicle to exercise their constitutional rights .
They can do that already as individuals .
What 's next ?
Giving corporations the right to vote ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly!
And those individuals do not require a corporation has a vehicle to exercise their constitutional rights.
They can do that already as individuals.
What's next?
Giving corporations the right to vote?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850770</id>
	<title>So much for government by the people</title>
	<author>bkr1\_2k</author>
	<datestamp>1264066740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now your vote really doesn't count... if it ever did after creation of the electoral college.  With unlimited spending the sheep who listen without thinking will just keep electing who they're told and never consider the consequences.  Yay...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now your vote really does n't count... if it ever did after creation of the electoral college .
With unlimited spending the sheep who listen without thinking will just keep electing who they 're told and never consider the consequences .
Yay.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now your vote really doesn't count... if it ever did after creation of the electoral college.
With unlimited spending the sheep who listen without thinking will just keep electing who they're told and never consider the consequences.
Yay...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851628</id>
	<title>Re:Both good and bad ways aspects</title>
	<author>\_Sprocket\_</author>
	<datestamp>1264069320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Moreover, what this really does is level the playing field between corporations. As it is now, Fox or MSNBC or any major newspaper can effectively push for a candidate or policy they want simply by the bias in their coverage. But a corporation that isn't involved in "news" or the like has its hands tied.</p></div><p>Yes - by all means.  We should have corporations like Fox or MSNBC able to sell their influence to a much wider audience of high-paying customers.  That's really leveled the playing field.</p><p>But perhaps I'm not being fair.  We should not be afraid to associate free speech beyond a human entity.  Corporations count.  So do radios.  Volume controls are censorship.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Moreover , what this really does is level the playing field between corporations .
As it is now , Fox or MSNBC or any major newspaper can effectively push for a candidate or policy they want simply by the bias in their coverage .
But a corporation that is n't involved in " news " or the like has its hands tied.Yes - by all means .
We should have corporations like Fox or MSNBC able to sell their influence to a much wider audience of high-paying customers .
That 's really leveled the playing field.But perhaps I 'm not being fair .
We should not be afraid to associate free speech beyond a human entity .
Corporations count .
So do radios .
Volume controls are censorship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Moreover, what this really does is level the playing field between corporations.
As it is now, Fox or MSNBC or any major newspaper can effectively push for a candidate or policy they want simply by the bias in their coverage.
But a corporation that isn't involved in "news" or the like has its hands tied.Yes - by all means.
We should have corporations like Fox or MSNBC able to sell their influence to a much wider audience of high-paying customers.
That's really leveled the playing field.But perhaps I'm not being fair.
We should not be afraid to associate free speech beyond a human entity.
Corporations count.
So do radios.
Volume controls are censorship.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852746</id>
	<title>Re:So much for government by the people</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264072740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <em>Now your vote really doesn't count... if it ever did after creation of the electoral college.</em> </p><p>What on EARTH do you mean? The electoral college and other hierarchical representation structures AMPLIFY the effects of individual votes. Look at what just happened in Massachusetts. The Senate was on a track toward passing a fairly remarkable health care bill, but a small fraction of the people in this country, specifically, those who live in one particular state, were able to completely turn the tide. If we were in a direct democracy, would that have happened?</p><p>(In a sense, it doesn't seem fair that such a small group of people should be able to completely redirect the Senate, but the balance of power in the Senate was already on a knife-edge. The bigger problem, IMHO, is that all Senators should be elected SIMULTANEOUSLY, so that one state can't come in in the middle of a process and completely change the dynamic. We should all make our choices at the same time. Of course, this wasn't your typical election. I'm not really sure how to deal with this situation)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now your vote really does n't count... if it ever did after creation of the electoral college .
What on EARTH do you mean ?
The electoral college and other hierarchical representation structures AMPLIFY the effects of individual votes .
Look at what just happened in Massachusetts .
The Senate was on a track toward passing a fairly remarkable health care bill , but a small fraction of the people in this country , specifically , those who live in one particular state , were able to completely turn the tide .
If we were in a direct democracy , would that have happened ?
( In a sense , it does n't seem fair that such a small group of people should be able to completely redirect the Senate , but the balance of power in the Senate was already on a knife-edge .
The bigger problem , IMHO , is that all Senators should be elected SIMULTANEOUSLY , so that one state ca n't come in in the middle of a process and completely change the dynamic .
We should all make our choices at the same time .
Of course , this was n't your typical election .
I 'm not really sure how to deal with this situation )</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Now your vote really doesn't count... if it ever did after creation of the electoral college.
What on EARTH do you mean?
The electoral college and other hierarchical representation structures AMPLIFY the effects of individual votes.
Look at what just happened in Massachusetts.
The Senate was on a track toward passing a fairly remarkable health care bill, but a small fraction of the people in this country, specifically, those who live in one particular state, were able to completely turn the tide.
If we were in a direct democracy, would that have happened?
(In a sense, it doesn't seem fair that such a small group of people should be able to completely redirect the Senate, but the balance of power in the Senate was already on a knife-edge.
The bigger problem, IMHO, is that all Senators should be elected SIMULTANEOUSLY, so that one state can't come in in the middle of a process and completely change the dynamic.
We should all make our choices at the same time.
Of course, this wasn't your typical election.
I'm not really sure how to deal with this situation)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851000</id>
	<title>Re:Welcome to Fascism</title>
	<author>Leghorn</author>
	<datestamp>1264067460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It has happened here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It has happened here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has happened here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30865368</id>
	<title>Re:Free sppech?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264165680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here, here!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here , here !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here, here!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30856698</id>
	<title>Re:Welcome to Fascism</title>
	<author>arminw</author>
	<datestamp>1264099620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...immortal profit making machines<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>Which are run by mortal human beings which don't all agree on any one issue. Historically, certain kinds of corporations have supported the Democrats and other  kinds of corporations have supported the Republicans. Corporations can be neither good or evil, only those that control them can. I have never heard of a corporation that isn't run by people. Your Colossus analogy is faulty.</p><p>(....They can always say, "we will go to jail if we try that," or "we'll be fined," or even "we'll get bad publicity,"....)</p><p>Corporations ultimately don't say anything, but the people that run them say things using the corporations money. Is there really a difference between a one man private business running a full-page ad for a given candidate that he likes for whatever reasons, or a corporation doing the same thing? Is there a difference between an individual businessman expressing his sentiments or those running a corporation?</p><p>It's not the business structure, but the people that control such a business structure, that can be either moral or immoral. The business structure itself, whether a sole proprietorship, a partnership, or corporation has no bearing on morality or criminality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...immortal profit making machines ...Which are run by mortal human beings which do n't all agree on any one issue .
Historically , certain kinds of corporations have supported the Democrats and other kinds of corporations have supported the Republicans .
Corporations can be neither good or evil , only those that control them can .
I have never heard of a corporation that is n't run by people .
Your Colossus analogy is faulty .
( ....They can always say , " we will go to jail if we try that , " or " we 'll be fined , " or even " we 'll get bad publicity , " .... ) Corporations ultimately do n't say anything , but the people that run them say things using the corporations money .
Is there really a difference between a one man private business running a full-page ad for a given candidate that he likes for whatever reasons , or a corporation doing the same thing ?
Is there a difference between an individual businessman expressing his sentiments or those running a corporation ? It 's not the business structure , but the people that control such a business structure , that can be either moral or immoral .
The business structure itself , whether a sole proprietorship , a partnership , or corporation has no bearing on morality or criminality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...immortal profit making machines ...Which are run by mortal human beings which don't all agree on any one issue.
Historically, certain kinds of corporations have supported the Democrats and other  kinds of corporations have supported the Republicans.
Corporations can be neither good or evil, only those that control them can.
I have never heard of a corporation that isn't run by people.
Your Colossus analogy is faulty.
(....They can always say, "we will go to jail if we try that," or "we'll be fined," or even "we'll get bad publicity,"....)Corporations ultimately don't say anything, but the people that run them say things using the corporations money.
Is there really a difference between a one man private business running a full-page ad for a given candidate that he likes for whatever reasons, or a corporation doing the same thing?
Is there a difference between an individual businessman expressing his sentiments or those running a corporation?It's not the business structure, but the people that control such a business structure, that can be either moral or immoral.
The business structure itself, whether a sole proprietorship, a partnership, or corporation has no bearing on morality or criminality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851038</id>
	<title>Congratulations, America</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264067640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>About time we got rid of this silly "democracy" nonsense
<br> <br>
I pledge allegiance<br>
To the logo<br>
Of the Corporate States of America<br>
And to the people<br>
On whom we stand<br>
One company<br>
Under money<br>
Indefatigable<br>
With misery and injustice for all</htmltext>
<tokenext>About time we got rid of this silly " democracy " nonsense I pledge allegiance To the logo Of the Corporate States of America And to the people On whom we stand One company Under money Indefatigable With misery and injustice for all</tokentext>
<sentencetext>About time we got rid of this silly "democracy" nonsense
 
I pledge allegiance
To the logo
Of the Corporate States of America
And to the people
On whom we stand
One company
Under money
Indefatigable
With misery and injustice for all</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852640</id>
	<title>Re:America's downfall was person == corp</title>
	<author>WrongMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1264072380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> We've been comparing ourselves with Rome since at least the 70s.</p> </div><p>The Roman Empire took a couple of centuries to fall from its peak, so the people making the comparison for a few decades still might be right.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've been comparing ourselves with Rome since at least the 70s .
The Roman Empire took a couple of centuries to fall from its peak , so the people making the comparison for a few decades still might be right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> We've been comparing ourselves with Rome since at least the 70s.
The Roman Empire took a couple of centuries to fall from its peak, so the people making the comparison for a few decades still might be right.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852502</id>
	<title>Re:Free sppech?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264071900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean giving them tax credits for employees instead of payroll taxes like parents get for dependents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean giving them tax credits for employees instead of payroll taxes like parents get for dependents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean giving them tax credits for employees instead of payroll taxes like parents get for dependents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851712</id>
	<title>Re:Not just corporations</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264069500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That sounds like an important thing to consider until you realize that most union leadership in the U.S. colludes with corporate leadership on nearly everything.</p><p>Boss wants to fire five people? He tells his employees that he has to lay off 15. The union reps "negotiate" with the boss, whittling the list down until it includes only the original five. The union declares victory, and the boss' problems are solved.</p><p>Your workers are organized and occupying your plant? Just call the real union - which would never do anything illegal, like a sit-down strike - to come bust their heads. (Look up the UAW's 1973 Mack Stamping action)</p><p>The AFL-CIO is just a more subtle branch of corporate America. The leaders claim to speak for their members, but when push comes to shove, union leadership falls over. The whole point of unionizing is to have collective bargaining, which can't happen if a union has a handful of bosses who don't consult union membership regularly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That sounds like an important thing to consider until you realize that most union leadership in the U.S. colludes with corporate leadership on nearly everything.Boss wants to fire five people ?
He tells his employees that he has to lay off 15 .
The union reps " negotiate " with the boss , whittling the list down until it includes only the original five .
The union declares victory , and the boss ' problems are solved.Your workers are organized and occupying your plant ?
Just call the real union - which would never do anything illegal , like a sit-down strike - to come bust their heads .
( Look up the UAW 's 1973 Mack Stamping action ) The AFL-CIO is just a more subtle branch of corporate America .
The leaders claim to speak for their members , but when push comes to shove , union leadership falls over .
The whole point of unionizing is to have collective bargaining , which ca n't happen if a union has a handful of bosses who do n't consult union membership regularly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That sounds like an important thing to consider until you realize that most union leadership in the U.S. colludes with corporate leadership on nearly everything.Boss wants to fire five people?
He tells his employees that he has to lay off 15.
The union reps "negotiate" with the boss, whittling the list down until it includes only the original five.
The union declares victory, and the boss' problems are solved.Your workers are organized and occupying your plant?
Just call the real union - which would never do anything illegal, like a sit-down strike - to come bust their heads.
(Look up the UAW's 1973 Mack Stamping action)The AFL-CIO is just a more subtle branch of corporate America.
The leaders claim to speak for their members, but when push comes to shove, union leadership falls over.
The whole point of unionizing is to have collective bargaining, which can't happen if a union has a handful of bosses who don't consult union membership regularly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30863424</id>
	<title>Re:Not just corporations</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264154460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So does that mean that unions in states where membership is required for certain jobs are free to spend money toward any political agenda the union leaders choose?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So does that mean that unions in states where membership is required for certain jobs are free to spend money toward any political agenda the union leaders choose ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So does that mean that unions in states where membership is required for certain jobs are free to spend money toward any political agenda the union leaders choose?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30854544</id>
	<title>Re:Corporations are Individuals</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264080360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>---"... arguably set the stage for the full-scale development of the culture of capitalism, by handing to corporations the right to use their economic power in a way they never had before."---</p><p>Ah, not exactly.  It set the stage for the full scale development of the corporation.  What we have is not capitalism.  The constitution grants a privelidge and responsibility to government to protect (among other things, but in this case) our right to do business.  Unfortunately the government has become the corporation.  And there's nothing you can do about money and campaigns that will change that.</p><p>---"I mean honestly, if I have $300 to contribute to a politician I support, how in the world is that going to compare to a $10,000,000 contribution from Big Media when they are leaning in the opposite direction on an issue?"---</p><p>You can spend millions on giving me bad ideas through the media, but if I'm smart enough you've just wasted your money.  People tend to like bad ideas, unfortunately.  It's up to us as individuals to fight bad ideas with good ones.</p><p>The mass of the message politicians have for us about themselves is very reactionary to public opinion, and through the corporate controlled media.  I have much more respect for a politician that will sell themselves to the public by taking the initiative to be completely honest about their commitment to honor the constitution first, and then second listen to the will of the people.  That can be done inexpensively with a simple website where they place their philosophy on display with good argumentation and justifications for where they stand, and not simple empty rhetoric about a commitment to 'make things better'.  They'd have to explain how.  They'd have to justify both the end AND the means.  And they could.  Inexpensively.  Why dont they?</p><p>If the government actually stayed within the bounds of its charter, we'd be free enough that we wouldn't be arguing about things like campaign finance.  Spending money is like voting with your dollar, and yes, it can be likened to speech.  A better decision by SCOTUS would be that congress lacks the authority to pass a law dealing with such subject matters as election financing in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>--- " ... arguably set the stage for the full-scale development of the culture of capitalism , by handing to corporations the right to use their economic power in a way they never had before .
" ---Ah , not exactly .
It set the stage for the full scale development of the corporation .
What we have is not capitalism .
The constitution grants a privelidge and responsibility to government to protect ( among other things , but in this case ) our right to do business .
Unfortunately the government has become the corporation .
And there 's nothing you can do about money and campaigns that will change that.--- " I mean honestly , if I have $ 300 to contribute to a politician I support , how in the world is that going to compare to a $ 10,000,000 contribution from Big Media when they are leaning in the opposite direction on an issue ?
" ---You can spend millions on giving me bad ideas through the media , but if I 'm smart enough you 've just wasted your money .
People tend to like bad ideas , unfortunately .
It 's up to us as individuals to fight bad ideas with good ones.The mass of the message politicians have for us about themselves is very reactionary to public opinion , and through the corporate controlled media .
I have much more respect for a politician that will sell themselves to the public by taking the initiative to be completely honest about their commitment to honor the constitution first , and then second listen to the will of the people .
That can be done inexpensively with a simple website where they place their philosophy on display with good argumentation and justifications for where they stand , and not simple empty rhetoric about a commitment to 'make things better' .
They 'd have to explain how .
They 'd have to justify both the end AND the means .
And they could .
Inexpensively. Why dont they ? If the government actually stayed within the bounds of its charter , we 'd be free enough that we would n't be arguing about things like campaign finance .
Spending money is like voting with your dollar , and yes , it can be likened to speech .
A better decision by SCOTUS would be that congress lacks the authority to pass a law dealing with such subject matters as election financing in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>---"... arguably set the stage for the full-scale development of the culture of capitalism, by handing to corporations the right to use their economic power in a way they never had before.
"---Ah, not exactly.
It set the stage for the full scale development of the corporation.
What we have is not capitalism.
The constitution grants a privelidge and responsibility to government to protect (among other things, but in this case) our right to do business.
Unfortunately the government has become the corporation.
And there's nothing you can do about money and campaigns that will change that.---"I mean honestly, if I have $300 to contribute to a politician I support, how in the world is that going to compare to a $10,000,000 contribution from Big Media when they are leaning in the opposite direction on an issue?
"---You can spend millions on giving me bad ideas through the media, but if I'm smart enough you've just wasted your money.
People tend to like bad ideas, unfortunately.
It's up to us as individuals to fight bad ideas with good ones.The mass of the message politicians have for us about themselves is very reactionary to public opinion, and through the corporate controlled media.
I have much more respect for a politician that will sell themselves to the public by taking the initiative to be completely honest about their commitment to honor the constitution first, and then second listen to the will of the people.
That can be done inexpensively with a simple website where they place their philosophy on display with good argumentation and justifications for where they stand, and not simple empty rhetoric about a commitment to 'make things better'.
They'd have to explain how.
They'd have to justify both the end AND the means.
And they could.
Inexpensively.  Why dont they?If the government actually stayed within the bounds of its charter, we'd be free enough that we wouldn't be arguing about things like campaign finance.
Spending money is like voting with your dollar, and yes, it can be likened to speech.
A better decision by SCOTUS would be that congress lacks the authority to pass a law dealing with such subject matters as election financing in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851110</id>
	<title>Re:Not just corporations</title>
	<author>DigiShaman</author>
	<datestamp>1264067760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And I love how Corporations and Unions are now intrinsically bound! =) Together they rise, or together they fall. But one cannot be risen above the other out of political favoritism! Hahahaah, I LOVE IT!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I love how Corporations and Unions are now intrinsically bound !
= ) Together they rise , or together they fall .
But one can not be risen above the other out of political favoritism !
Hahahaah , I LOVE IT ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I love how Corporations and Unions are now intrinsically bound!
=) Together they rise, or together they fall.
But one cannot be risen above the other out of political favoritism!
Hahahaah, I LOVE IT!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850836</id>
	<title>Fair enough...</title>
	<author>Seakip18</author>
	<datestamp>1264066920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since corporations are able to possess the 1st amendment as a whole body, are they not entitled the remaining amendments?</p><p>Ok, that IS crazy. But what isn't is that, come election time, I wouldn't be surprised if pink slips get issued in order to free up some money to run messages for/against our tastycrats and fingerlick'ans.</p><blockquote><div><p>"It's going to be the Wild Wild West," said Ben Ginsberg, a Republican attorney who has represented several GOP presidential campaigns. "If corporations and unions can give unlimited amounts<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... it means that the public debate is significantly changed with a lot more voices and it means that the loudest voices are going to be corporations and unions."</p></div></blockquote><p>I have to agree.</p><p>Corporations and unions have been given the right to buy who ever they want without any back alley deals...as long as the money doesn't go directly to or is coordinated by candidate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since corporations are able to possess the 1st amendment as a whole body , are they not entitled the remaining amendments ? Ok , that IS crazy .
But what is n't is that , come election time , I would n't be surprised if pink slips get issued in order to free up some money to run messages for/against our tastycrats and fingerlick'ans .
" It 's going to be the Wild Wild West , " said Ben Ginsberg , a Republican attorney who has represented several GOP presidential campaigns .
" If corporations and unions can give unlimited amounts ... it means that the public debate is significantly changed with a lot more voices and it means that the loudest voices are going to be corporations and unions .
" I have to agree.Corporations and unions have been given the right to buy who ever they want without any back alley deals...as long as the money does n't go directly to or is coordinated by candidate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since corporations are able to possess the 1st amendment as a whole body, are they not entitled the remaining amendments?Ok, that IS crazy.
But what isn't is that, come election time, I wouldn't be surprised if pink slips get issued in order to free up some money to run messages for/against our tastycrats and fingerlick'ans.
"It's going to be the Wild Wild West," said Ben Ginsberg, a Republican attorney who has represented several GOP presidential campaigns.
"If corporations and unions can give unlimited amounts ... it means that the public debate is significantly changed with a lot more voices and it means that the loudest voices are going to be corporations and unions.
"I have to agree.Corporations and unions have been given the right to buy who ever they want without any back alley deals...as long as the money doesn't go directly to or is coordinated by candidate.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853272</id>
	<title>Re:Bad, bad news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264074480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Free press is in there because, before the revolution, you'd get cracked down on even for giving away leaflets for free.</p><p>If free "speech" is taken completely literally, it has too short a range to be effective. Putting free press in there automatically made it extremely hard to weasel word your way into saying text isn't speech. Free assembly is in there for similar reasons; try spreading radical ideas if you're only allowed to meet in groups of three.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Free press is in there because , before the revolution , you 'd get cracked down on even for giving away leaflets for free.If free " speech " is taken completely literally , it has too short a range to be effective .
Putting free press in there automatically made it extremely hard to weasel word your way into saying text is n't speech .
Free assembly is in there for similar reasons ; try spreading radical ideas if you 're only allowed to meet in groups of three .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Free press is in there because, before the revolution, you'd get cracked down on even for giving away leaflets for free.If free "speech" is taken completely literally, it has too short a range to be effective.
Putting free press in there automatically made it extremely hard to weasel word your way into saying text isn't speech.
Free assembly is in there for similar reasons; try spreading radical ideas if you're only allowed to meet in groups of three.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30854040</id>
	<title>Re:Corporations are Individuals</title>
	<author>Vitriol+Angst</author>
	<datestamp>1264077540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK -- fine. We treat corporations as if they were PEOPLE.</p><p>That means KBR, Haliburton, GE, and a dozen other defense contractors need to be serving 5 to 20 in a super max prison.</p><p>I'm sure that would also mean that the 65\% of the Fortune 500 companies who broke a federal law or two, would also be serving time in a Federal Prison.</p><p>&gt;&gt; Oh wait, no, they get the PRIVILEGES and RIGHTS without getting the criminal responsibilities.</p><p>I'm also waiting for more court rulings that I can't have free speech because I work for some company that might be "embarrassed" or have profits affected. I think the time will soon come that we all become a Corporation like we get a drivers license. So I'm not robbing a Quicky-mart -- I just had a policy that is going to need some review....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK -- fine .
We treat corporations as if they were PEOPLE.That means KBR , Haliburton , GE , and a dozen other defense contractors need to be serving 5 to 20 in a super max prison.I 'm sure that would also mean that the 65 \ % of the Fortune 500 companies who broke a federal law or two , would also be serving time in a Federal Prison. &gt; &gt; Oh wait , no , they get the PRIVILEGES and RIGHTS without getting the criminal responsibilities.I 'm also waiting for more court rulings that I ca n't have free speech because I work for some company that might be " embarrassed " or have profits affected .
I think the time will soon come that we all become a Corporation like we get a drivers license .
So I 'm not robbing a Quicky-mart -- I just had a policy that is going to need some review... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK -- fine.
We treat corporations as if they were PEOPLE.That means KBR, Haliburton, GE, and a dozen other defense contractors need to be serving 5 to 20 in a super max prison.I'm sure that would also mean that the 65\% of the Fortune 500 companies who broke a federal law or two, would also be serving time in a Federal Prison.&gt;&gt; Oh wait, no, they get the PRIVILEGES and RIGHTS without getting the criminal responsibilities.I'm also waiting for more court rulings that I can't have free speech because I work for some company that might be "embarrassed" or have profits affected.
I think the time will soon come that we all become a Corporation like we get a drivers license.
So I'm not robbing a Quicky-mart -- I just had a policy that is going to need some review....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851200</id>
	<title>You think like a ReThuglican Jew</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264068060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You think like a ReThuglican Jew</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You think like a ReThuglican Jew</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You think like a ReThuglican Jew</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851880</id>
	<title>Re:Bad, bad news</title>
	<author>iceborer</author>
	<datestamp>1264070040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are correct, but the GP talked about <i>corporations</i> which are creations of law (passed by our government) and not of simple association like the simple business you describe.  These laws specifically give advantages to corporations and other legal entities which would not exist outside the law (again, passed by and enforced through our government).  The greatest of these is, of course, the limitation on pass-through liability for acts of the corporation to its shareholders/owners.  Nowhere in the Constitution is the right to create such entities explicitly given to the government, yet many folks seem to think their existence is just fine with them as is the shield from liability afforded to their owners (which is contrary to our legal notions of personhood and legal responsibility).

I'm fine with unlimited corporate contributions to political candidates so long as the government does not provide a protected status to corporations.  Feel free to form business associations. but understand that each of the members of these associations will be fully, personally liable for all actions and debts of the association.  What's that?  Without protection from liability there will be no corporations?  Fine by me.  Until that point, entities whose existence is solely a matter of law should realize that the law can constrain as well as benefit them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are correct , but the GP talked about corporations which are creations of law ( passed by our government ) and not of simple association like the simple business you describe .
These laws specifically give advantages to corporations and other legal entities which would not exist outside the law ( again , passed by and enforced through our government ) .
The greatest of these is , of course , the limitation on pass-through liability for acts of the corporation to its shareholders/owners .
Nowhere in the Constitution is the right to create such entities explicitly given to the government , yet many folks seem to think their existence is just fine with them as is the shield from liability afforded to their owners ( which is contrary to our legal notions of personhood and legal responsibility ) .
I 'm fine with unlimited corporate contributions to political candidates so long as the government does not provide a protected status to corporations .
Feel free to form business associations .
but understand that each of the members of these associations will be fully , personally liable for all actions and debts of the association .
What 's that ?
Without protection from liability there will be no corporations ?
Fine by me .
Until that point , entities whose existence is solely a matter of law should realize that the law can constrain as well as benefit them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are correct, but the GP talked about corporations which are creations of law (passed by our government) and not of simple association like the simple business you describe.
These laws specifically give advantages to corporations and other legal entities which would not exist outside the law (again, passed by and enforced through our government).
The greatest of these is, of course, the limitation on pass-through liability for acts of the corporation to its shareholders/owners.
Nowhere in the Constitution is the right to create such entities explicitly given to the government, yet many folks seem to think their existence is just fine with them as is the shield from liability afforded to their owners (which is contrary to our legal notions of personhood and legal responsibility).
I'm fine with unlimited corporate contributions to political candidates so long as the government does not provide a protected status to corporations.
Feel free to form business associations.
but understand that each of the members of these associations will be fully, personally liable for all actions and debts of the association.
What's that?
Without protection from liability there will be no corporations?
Fine by me.
Until that point, entities whose existence is solely a matter of law should realize that the law can constrain as well as benefit them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851158</id>
	<title>Re:So much for government by the people</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1264067940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now your vote really doesn't count... if it ever did after creation of the electoral college.  With unlimited spending the sheep who listen without thinking will just keep electing who they're told and never consider the consequences.  Yay...</p></div><p>So, you apparently believe that the votes of individuals have not counted in the U.S. since the ratification of the Constitution. Of course, what you don't seem to understand is that the Electoral College actually increases the weight of an individual vote. I saw an article online several years ago where someone worked through the math to show that by dividing people up to vote for the members of the Electoral College it increased the weight of each vote over a simple majority takes all system.<br>
One thing to keep in mind, the "corporation" in question was a group of people who did not like Hillary and made a movie about her. They attempted to distribute this movie as pay per view in 2008. Lower courts ruled that the movie was a long political ad and therefore should be subject to regulation under the McCain-Feingold bill.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now your vote really does n't count... if it ever did after creation of the electoral college .
With unlimited spending the sheep who listen without thinking will just keep electing who they 're told and never consider the consequences .
Yay...So , you apparently believe that the votes of individuals have not counted in the U.S. since the ratification of the Constitution .
Of course , what you do n't seem to understand is that the Electoral College actually increases the weight of an individual vote .
I saw an article online several years ago where someone worked through the math to show that by dividing people up to vote for the members of the Electoral College it increased the weight of each vote over a simple majority takes all system .
One thing to keep in mind , the " corporation " in question was a group of people who did not like Hillary and made a movie about her .
They attempted to distribute this movie as pay per view in 2008 .
Lower courts ruled that the movie was a long political ad and therefore should be subject to regulation under the McCain-Feingold bill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now your vote really doesn't count... if it ever did after creation of the electoral college.
With unlimited spending the sheep who listen without thinking will just keep electing who they're told and never consider the consequences.
Yay...So, you apparently believe that the votes of individuals have not counted in the U.S. since the ratification of the Constitution.
Of course, what you don't seem to understand is that the Electoral College actually increases the weight of an individual vote.
I saw an article online several years ago where someone worked through the math to show that by dividing people up to vote for the members of the Electoral College it increased the weight of each vote over a simple majority takes all system.
One thing to keep in mind, the "corporation" in question was a group of people who did not like Hillary and made a movie about her.
They attempted to distribute this movie as pay per view in 2008.
Lower courts ruled that the movie was a long political ad and therefore should be subject to regulation under the McCain-Feingold bill.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30857102</id>
	<title>ATU</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264191600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>as a life-long union man, i say BRAVO! at last maybe wages can rise (nationwide average 13.30, minimum is 7 bux. yuk).<br>thank us for your not having to work 6 and 1/2 days a week (remember "Labor Day"?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>as a life-long union man , i say BRAVO !
at last maybe wages can rise ( nationwide average 13.30 , minimum is 7 bux .
yuk ) .thank us for your not having to work 6 and 1/2 days a week ( remember " Labor Day " ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as a life-long union man, i say BRAVO!
at last maybe wages can rise (nationwide average 13.30, minimum is 7 bux.
yuk).thank us for your not having to work 6 and 1/2 days a week (remember "Labor Day"?
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851406</id>
	<title>Re:Bad, bad news</title>
	<author>amRadioHed</author>
	<datestamp>1264068660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'm always amazed at how many misguided people think their rights come from  the government. That explains a lot about why statists like Pelosi and Reid think they have so much more traction than they really do. Don't give it to them, now matter how much you want the government to be your Nanny.</p></div></blockquote><p>And on the other side of the aisle, it explains why almost the entire Republican party thinks our government can ignore due process when dealing with "terrorists".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm always amazed at how many misguided people think their rights come from the government .
That explains a lot about why statists like Pelosi and Reid think they have so much more traction than they really do .
Do n't give it to them , now matter how much you want the government to be your Nanny.And on the other side of the aisle , it explains why almost the entire Republican party thinks our government can ignore due process when dealing with " terrorists " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm always amazed at how many misguided people think their rights come from  the government.
That explains a lot about why statists like Pelosi and Reid think they have so much more traction than they really do.
Don't give it to them, now matter how much you want the government to be your Nanny.And on the other side of the aisle, it explains why almost the entire Republican party thinks our government can ignore due process when dealing with "terrorists".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30864506</id>
	<title>Re:I for one, welcome our Chinese Overlords</title>
	<author>Reziac</author>
	<datestamp>1264159680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It sounds like the decision has conflated "You can give me money so I can print stuff" with "You can use your money to print stuff". Note that neither addresses the content.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It sounds like the decision has conflated " You can give me money so I can print stuff " with " You can use your money to print stuff " .
Note that neither addresses the content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sounds like the decision has conflated "You can give me money so I can print stuff" with "You can use your money to print stuff".
Note that neither addresses the content.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850950</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264067340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't understand why we don't limit the amount of money a candidate can spend on an election...period. This would stop people from buying elections and present a more level playing field for the candidates. Are there any arguments as to why this is a bad idea? Of course I see why the politicians wouldn't like it, but wouldn't this be a good thing for you and me?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand why we do n't limit the amount of money a candidate can spend on an election...period .
This would stop people from buying elections and present a more level playing field for the candidates .
Are there any arguments as to why this is a bad idea ?
Of course I see why the politicians would n't like it , but would n't this be a good thing for you and me ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand why we don't limit the amount of money a candidate can spend on an election...period.
This would stop people from buying elections and present a more level playing field for the candidates.
Are there any arguments as to why this is a bad idea?
Of course I see why the politicians wouldn't like it, but wouldn't this be a good thing for you and me?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851416</id>
	<title>Re:Welcome to Fascism</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1264068660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right, so corporate money hasn't been involved in politics in the past 20 years.</p><p>You have a choice between it being out in the open or behind closed doors.  Choose wisely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right , so corporate money has n't been involved in politics in the past 20 years.You have a choice between it being out in the open or behind closed doors .
Choose wisely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right, so corporate money hasn't been involved in politics in the past 20 years.You have a choice between it being out in the open or behind closed doors.
Choose wisely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851650</id>
	<title>Re:Bad, bad news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264069380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The constitution doesn't give you, or a business formed by you and a friend, any rights. The constitution is there to limit the government's ability to take those rights away. Being able to buy a newspaper advertisement or broadcast an advertisement isn't something that the goverment should be able to prevent you (or the company you've formed) from doing. Likewise for labor unions, advocacy groups, churches, scouting troops, bowling leagues, open source code projects, or anyone else.</p></div><p>If money = speech, that means I'm at the back of the hall shouting to be heard while the guy with the bucks is up on stage with the sound system from Disaster Area drowning me out.</p><p>Saying that a mutli-billion dollar corporation should have full access to those resources in shaping public opinion and that I'm perfectly free to shout back and that this is all fair, that's like saying 30-something me has the right to put my fence five feet into my 70-something neighbor's yard and if he has a problem with that he can challenge me to a fight. That's completely inequitable. This is just formalizing the inequality we already have in the legal system where a corporation may be completely in the wrong on a given topic but it will take me five years of lawsuits to prove it out in court and I'll go broke in the process. That may be legal but it's not fucking right!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The constitution does n't give you , or a business formed by you and a friend , any rights .
The constitution is there to limit the government 's ability to take those rights away .
Being able to buy a newspaper advertisement or broadcast an advertisement is n't something that the goverment should be able to prevent you ( or the company you 've formed ) from doing .
Likewise for labor unions , advocacy groups , churches , scouting troops , bowling leagues , open source code projects , or anyone else.If money = speech , that means I 'm at the back of the hall shouting to be heard while the guy with the bucks is up on stage with the sound system from Disaster Area drowning me out.Saying that a mutli-billion dollar corporation should have full access to those resources in shaping public opinion and that I 'm perfectly free to shout back and that this is all fair , that 's like saying 30-something me has the right to put my fence five feet into my 70-something neighbor 's yard and if he has a problem with that he can challenge me to a fight .
That 's completely inequitable .
This is just formalizing the inequality we already have in the legal system where a corporation may be completely in the wrong on a given topic but it will take me five years of lawsuits to prove it out in court and I 'll go broke in the process .
That may be legal but it 's not fucking right !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The constitution doesn't give you, or a business formed by you and a friend, any rights.
The constitution is there to limit the government's ability to take those rights away.
Being able to buy a newspaper advertisement or broadcast an advertisement isn't something that the goverment should be able to prevent you (or the company you've formed) from doing.
Likewise for labor unions, advocacy groups, churches, scouting troops, bowling leagues, open source code projects, or anyone else.If money = speech, that means I'm at the back of the hall shouting to be heard while the guy with the bucks is up on stage with the sound system from Disaster Area drowning me out.Saying that a mutli-billion dollar corporation should have full access to those resources in shaping public opinion and that I'm perfectly free to shout back and that this is all fair, that's like saying 30-something me has the right to put my fence five feet into my 70-something neighbor's yard and if he has a problem with that he can challenge me to a fight.
That's completely inequitable.
This is just formalizing the inequality we already have in the legal system where a corporation may be completely in the wrong on a given topic but it will take me five years of lawsuits to prove it out in court and I'll go broke in the process.
That may be legal but it's not fucking right!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851596</id>
	<title>This decision is horrible</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264069200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>...as in "end of the Republic" horrible.  We just greased the slide to a complete fall into Fascism.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...as in " end of the Republic " horrible .
We just greased the slide to a complete fall into Fascism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...as in "end of the Republic" horrible.
We just greased the slide to a complete fall into Fascism.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851230</id>
	<title>Re:Welcome to Fascism</title>
	<author>V50</author>
	<datestamp>1264068120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Over the top use of words and phrases likes that not only makes you look panicked and ridiculous, but weakens it for when a case might actually be applicable. I assume you are probably referring to the corporate state idea, but even then, a simple ruling is just a ruling. IBM does not yet appoint the president, Microsoft does not have a veto on laws. One must wait until time has actually passed to see if your zealous "END OF AMERICA" prediction actually happens. My guess: it won't. Corporations will spend more money during elections, maybe (or possibly not, we'll see) but your country will pretty much remain the same.</p><p>Reminds me of when Stephen Harper was elected in my country four years ago. Some people made up mock tombstones with "Canada 1867-2006". Four years later, despite what one may think of him, Canada certainly did not end in 2006, and that stuff just served to make the creators look like political chicken littles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Over the top use of words and phrases likes that not only makes you look panicked and ridiculous , but weakens it for when a case might actually be applicable .
I assume you are probably referring to the corporate state idea , but even then , a simple ruling is just a ruling .
IBM does not yet appoint the president , Microsoft does not have a veto on laws .
One must wait until time has actually passed to see if your zealous " END OF AMERICA " prediction actually happens .
My guess : it wo n't .
Corporations will spend more money during elections , maybe ( or possibly not , we 'll see ) but your country will pretty much remain the same.Reminds me of when Stephen Harper was elected in my country four years ago .
Some people made up mock tombstones with " Canada 1867-2006 " .
Four years later , despite what one may think of him , Canada certainly did not end in 2006 , and that stuff just served to make the creators look like political chicken littles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Over the top use of words and phrases likes that not only makes you look panicked and ridiculous, but weakens it for when a case might actually be applicable.
I assume you are probably referring to the corporate state idea, but even then, a simple ruling is just a ruling.
IBM does not yet appoint the president, Microsoft does not have a veto on laws.
One must wait until time has actually passed to see if your zealous "END OF AMERICA" prediction actually happens.
My guess: it won't.
Corporations will spend more money during elections, maybe (or possibly not, we'll see) but your country will pretty much remain the same.Reminds me of when Stephen Harper was elected in my country four years ago.
Some people made up mock tombstones with "Canada 1867-2006".
Four years later, despite what one may think of him, Canada certainly did not end in 2006, and that stuff just served to make the creators look like political chicken littles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853636</id>
	<title>Re:Good explanation, great ruling</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1264075920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>People seem to go on and on about 1886. Corporations are certainly not people strictly speaking, they are just groups of people. Those people have individual rights, and by extension, a group of people also has the same set of rights.</p></div><p>Groups of people get special rights when they are in a corporation. They lose those rights when they are not part of a corporation - i.e., when they go home after work. Furthermore, groups of people have access to resources as part of a corporation that they do not have as private citizens. It is ludicrous to argue that merely by being part of the right group of people, some people can wield far more influence over the electoral process than others.</p><p>Lastly, you completely underestimate how much government meddling is benefiting you. If you want to see a place with minimal government, go see Somalia. You'll understand that your fantasy of a small government is exactly that - a fantasy completely detached from reality.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People seem to go on and on about 1886 .
Corporations are certainly not people strictly speaking , they are just groups of people .
Those people have individual rights , and by extension , a group of people also has the same set of rights.Groups of people get special rights when they are in a corporation .
They lose those rights when they are not part of a corporation - i.e. , when they go home after work .
Furthermore , groups of people have access to resources as part of a corporation that they do not have as private citizens .
It is ludicrous to argue that merely by being part of the right group of people , some people can wield far more influence over the electoral process than others.Lastly , you completely underestimate how much government meddling is benefiting you .
If you want to see a place with minimal government , go see Somalia .
You 'll understand that your fantasy of a small government is exactly that - a fantasy completely detached from reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People seem to go on and on about 1886.
Corporations are certainly not people strictly speaking, they are just groups of people.
Those people have individual rights, and by extension, a group of people also has the same set of rights.Groups of people get special rights when they are in a corporation.
They lose those rights when they are not part of a corporation - i.e., when they go home after work.
Furthermore, groups of people have access to resources as part of a corporation that they do not have as private citizens.
It is ludicrous to argue that merely by being part of the right group of people, some people can wield far more influence over the electoral process than others.Lastly, you completely underestimate how much government meddling is benefiting you.
If you want to see a place with minimal government, go see Somalia.
You'll understand that your fantasy of a small government is exactly that - a fantasy completely detached from reality.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851936</id>
	<title>Re:Free sppech?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264070160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You \_are\_ aware that we tax corporations, yes? Are you suggesting that corporations should be taxed in the exact same manner as individual persons? If so, I look forward to the nuptials of, say, Exxon and Kraft Foods. They want the marriage tax breaks, of course.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You \ _are \ _ aware that we tax corporations , yes ?
Are you suggesting that corporations should be taxed in the exact same manner as individual persons ?
If so , I look forward to the nuptials of , say , Exxon and Kraft Foods .
They want the marriage tax breaks , of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You \_are\_ aware that we tax corporations, yes?
Are you suggesting that corporations should be taxed in the exact same manner as individual persons?
If so, I look forward to the nuptials of, say, Exxon and Kraft Foods.
They want the marriage tax breaks, of course.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851020</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30854040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30864506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30899834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30854094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30854248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30855536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30854780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30857372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30900676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30855172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30864580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30854172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30855242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30866896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30855798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30855656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_118</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30855518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30860652
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30870752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30867490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30854374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30854544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30861690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30856698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30860782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30856940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30854506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30858872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30856782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30857724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30855462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30867662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30854480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30856106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30854886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30865368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_117</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_119</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30863424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30860738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30894112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30854014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_116</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30862432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30856662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_115</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30856342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2014204_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30856124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_2014204.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30864580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852034
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852640
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30855656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853962
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_2014204.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852596
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_2014204.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850880
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_2014204.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850972
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850982
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30863424
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_2014204.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853106
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_2014204.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30870752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30855462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30861690
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_2014204.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853702
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_2014204.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850950
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_2014204.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851038
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_2014204.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851574
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30860652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851060
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_2014204.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851158
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30854374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851738
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_2014204.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30860738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30854506
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_2014204.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850854
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851880
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853358
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851350
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851604
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852082
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852438
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853862
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852440
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853814
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853468
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851826
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851650
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30855518
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851142
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30855536
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853628
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30854886
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851176
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30856124
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852624
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853350
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852504
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851442
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851200
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852084
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853636
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853638
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850828
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852258
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850800
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850884
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850738
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_2014204.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852146
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30854094
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30856662
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30856106
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30854780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30855798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30862432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30854248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852482
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30855242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30854480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30865368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851936
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_2014204.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30894112
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_2014204.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30856342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30854544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30854040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852300
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30858872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852340
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_2014204.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30858560
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_2014204.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30854552
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_2014204.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850866
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_2014204.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850692
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_2014204.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851288
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30855172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30864506
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_2014204.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30850802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851268
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30854014
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30857724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852068
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30900676
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30854172
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30866896
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30867662
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30860782
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30856698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851150
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_2014204.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852586
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_2014204.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851742
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_2014204.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30855148
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_2014204.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851012
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_2014204.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30856940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853452
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30856782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30857372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30867490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851628
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30899834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851438
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30852718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30853650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2014204.30851532
</commentlist>
</conversation>
