<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_13_198247</id>
	<title>Obama's Space Plan &mdash;  a Conservative Argument</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1266088800000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>MarkWhittington writes <i>"The Obama space proposal, which seeks to enable a commercial space industry for transportation to and from low Earth orbit while it cancels space exploration beyond LEO, has sparked a kind of <a href="http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2698067/obamas\_space\_plan\_a\_conservative\_argument.html">civil war among conservatives</a>. Some conservatives hate the proposal because of the retreat from the high frontier and even go so far as to cast doubt on the commercial space aspects. Other conservatives like the commercial space part of the Obama policy and tend to gloss over the cancellation of space exploration or even denigrate the Constellation program as 'unworkable' or 'unsustainable.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>MarkWhittington writes " The Obama space proposal , which seeks to enable a commercial space industry for transportation to and from low Earth orbit while it cancels space exploration beyond LEO , has sparked a kind of civil war among conservatives .
Some conservatives hate the proposal because of the retreat from the high frontier and even go so far as to cast doubt on the commercial space aspects .
Other conservatives like the commercial space part of the Obama policy and tend to gloss over the cancellation of space exploration or even denigrate the Constellation program as 'unworkable ' or 'unsustainable .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MarkWhittington writes "The Obama space proposal, which seeks to enable a commercial space industry for transportation to and from low Earth orbit while it cancels space exploration beyond LEO, has sparked a kind of civil war among conservatives.
Some conservatives hate the proposal because of the retreat from the high frontier and even go so far as to cast doubt on the commercial space aspects.
Other conservatives like the commercial space part of the Obama policy and tend to gloss over the cancellation of space exploration or even denigrate the Constellation program as 'unworkable' or 'unsustainable.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131174</id>
	<title>Re:Why the sudden love for private industry?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266067140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Look, it's simple. Obama, contrary to Republican belief, does not hate America. He does not hate the free market. He does not hate private industry. He's not a drone mindlessly toeing the Democratic line. He's an intelligent person doing what he thinks is best for America based on his personal knowledge and advice from the best advisers he can find.<br>
<br>
This meant, in the economic climate at the start of his term, that he had to spend a ridiculous amount of money to avoid a depression. It means that he's going to fight for healthcare reform until he gets it or gets voted out of office. It means he supports lots of new regulations for banks, and increased taxes on some people to help pay for all this spending (and no, you're not allowed to complain about *both* debt and high taxes). It also means that when had some real engineers (with no stakes in NASA or its contractors, no responsibility to states housing major NASA-based job centers, and no lobbyists reading over their shoulders) look at Ares, they told him that it was massively over budget and behind time (even by NASA standards), that their recent test flight was little more then a sham as far as indications of progress go, and that there was little to no hope of salvaging Ares for a reasonable amount of money. Since he is, again, an intelligent person who wants what's best for the country, he knew better then to throw good money after bad.<br>
<br>
Instead, he - and this should be pointed out - *increased* NASA's overall budget. In doing so, he canceled Ares and (on recommendations from his advisers) told NASA to contract private industry instead. Remember, even by the *original* estimates, we had a 4-year gap in human space flight capability. By more recent estimates, SpaceX (possibly among others) would have LEO capabilities before NASA. This move probably pushes back even the most recent estimates of NASA's return to the moon, but it vastly increases the amount of science they'll do. It also probably improves the prognosis for American manned space flight in the medium and long term.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , it 's simple .
Obama , contrary to Republican belief , does not hate America .
He does not hate the free market .
He does not hate private industry .
He 's not a drone mindlessly toeing the Democratic line .
He 's an intelligent person doing what he thinks is best for America based on his personal knowledge and advice from the best advisers he can find .
This meant , in the economic climate at the start of his term , that he had to spend a ridiculous amount of money to avoid a depression .
It means that he 's going to fight for healthcare reform until he gets it or gets voted out of office .
It means he supports lots of new regulations for banks , and increased taxes on some people to help pay for all this spending ( and no , you 're not allowed to complain about * both * debt and high taxes ) .
It also means that when had some real engineers ( with no stakes in NASA or its contractors , no responsibility to states housing major NASA-based job centers , and no lobbyists reading over their shoulders ) look at Ares , they told him that it was massively over budget and behind time ( even by NASA standards ) , that their recent test flight was little more then a sham as far as indications of progress go , and that there was little to no hope of salvaging Ares for a reasonable amount of money .
Since he is , again , an intelligent person who wants what 's best for the country , he knew better then to throw good money after bad .
Instead , he - and this should be pointed out - * increased * NASA 's overall budget .
In doing so , he canceled Ares and ( on recommendations from his advisers ) told NASA to contract private industry instead .
Remember , even by the * original * estimates , we had a 4-year gap in human space flight capability .
By more recent estimates , SpaceX ( possibly among others ) would have LEO capabilities before NASA .
This move probably pushes back even the most recent estimates of NASA 's return to the moon , but it vastly increases the amount of science they 'll do .
It also probably improves the prognosis for American manned space flight in the medium and long term .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look, it's simple.
Obama, contrary to Republican belief, does not hate America.
He does not hate the free market.
He does not hate private industry.
He's not a drone mindlessly toeing the Democratic line.
He's an intelligent person doing what he thinks is best for America based on his personal knowledge and advice from the best advisers he can find.
This meant, in the economic climate at the start of his term, that he had to spend a ridiculous amount of money to avoid a depression.
It means that he's going to fight for healthcare reform until he gets it or gets voted out of office.
It means he supports lots of new regulations for banks, and increased taxes on some people to help pay for all this spending (and no, you're not allowed to complain about *both* debt and high taxes).
It also means that when had some real engineers (with no stakes in NASA or its contractors, no responsibility to states housing major NASA-based job centers, and no lobbyists reading over their shoulders) look at Ares, they told him that it was massively over budget and behind time (even by NASA standards), that their recent test flight was little more then a sham as far as indications of progress go, and that there was little to no hope of salvaging Ares for a reasonable amount of money.
Since he is, again, an intelligent person who wants what's best for the country, he knew better then to throw good money after bad.
Instead, he - and this should be pointed out - *increased* NASA's overall budget.
In doing so, he canceled Ares and (on recommendations from his advisers) told NASA to contract private industry instead.
Remember, even by the *original* estimates, we had a 4-year gap in human space flight capability.
By more recent estimates, SpaceX (possibly among others) would have LEO capabilities before NASA.
This move probably pushes back even the most recent estimates of NASA's return to the moon, but it vastly increases the amount of science they'll do.
It also probably improves the prognosis for American manned space flight in the medium and long term.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131082</id>
	<title>Re:Space is critical</title>
	<author>ChiRaven</author>
	<datestamp>1266066120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One of the differences, perhaps, between an Obama and a Kennedy?</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the differences , perhaps , between an Obama and a Kennedy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the differences, perhaps, between an Obama and a Kennedy?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31132656</id>
	<title>Re:Very misleading summary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266085680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is coming from the guy who's "summaries" are usually <a href="http://politics.slashdot.org/story/10/02/13/1331224/State-of-Alabama-Fighting-NASAs-New-Plan" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">blatently anti-CxP</a> [slashdot.org]...</p><p>Sucks when people only report certian aspets to make any partiuclar program look bad, doesn't it?</p><p>There is plenty good and plently bad with this "bold program".  You never seem to address the bad though...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is coming from the guy who 's " summaries " are usually blatently anti-CxP [ slashdot.org ] ...Sucks when people only report certian aspets to make any partiuclar program look bad , does n't it ? There is plenty good and plently bad with this " bold program " .
You never seem to address the bad though.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is coming from the guy who's "summaries" are usually blatently anti-CxP [slashdot.org]...Sucks when people only report certian aspets to make any partiuclar program look bad, doesn't it?There is plenty good and plently bad with this "bold program".
You never seem to address the bad though...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130380</id>
	<title>Re:Space exploration is conservative.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266059520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"new jobs bill" eh?  Are you a cool-aid drinker or a shill?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" new jobs bill " eh ?
Are you a cool-aid drinker or a shill ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"new jobs bill" eh?
Are you a cool-aid drinker or a shill?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129596</id>
	<title>Going back to the moon was a stupid idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266053340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Going back to the moon on chemical rockets was a stupid idea.  If we had a better technology that allowed, say, a permanent base with a hundred people, it might be worth doing.  But just repeating Apollo is pointless.
</p><p>
Worse, it would probably fail.  Apollo had top people, including many experienced aircraft engineers who'd designed many successful aircraft, and, of course, the best German rocket engineers.  That pool of people is gone. As Ben Rich, once head of Lockheed's "Skunk Works" (SR-71, stealth aircraft, etc.), wrote, "I worked on 22 airplanes in my career.  Today's engineer is lucky to work on one."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Going back to the moon on chemical rockets was a stupid idea .
If we had a better technology that allowed , say , a permanent base with a hundred people , it might be worth doing .
But just repeating Apollo is pointless .
Worse , it would probably fail .
Apollo had top people , including many experienced aircraft engineers who 'd designed many successful aircraft , and , of course , the best German rocket engineers .
That pool of people is gone .
As Ben Rich , once head of Lockheed 's " Skunk Works " ( SR-71 , stealth aircraft , etc .
) , wrote , " I worked on 22 airplanes in my career .
Today 's engineer is lucky to work on one .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Going back to the moon on chemical rockets was a stupid idea.
If we had a better technology that allowed, say, a permanent base with a hundred people, it might be worth doing.
But just repeating Apollo is pointless.
Worse, it would probably fail.
Apollo had top people, including many experienced aircraft engineers who'd designed many successful aircraft, and, of course, the best German rocket engineers.
That pool of people is gone.
As Ben Rich, once head of Lockheed's "Skunk Works" (SR-71, stealth aircraft, etc.
), wrote, "I worked on 22 airplanes in my career.
Today's engineer is lucky to work on one.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129490</id>
	<title>Conservatives? Who cares?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266052680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why are we even talking about what conservatives think? The GOP has amply demonstrated that it has no interest in governing the country in good faith. Their entire program is:</p><ol> <li> <b>When in power</b>: transfer as much wealth as possible to the very rich</li><li> <b>When out of power</b>: throw a wrench in the works to make the government look bad enough to vote the GOP back into power</li></ol><p>Any conservative argument needs to be critically examined in light of the question, "how does this allow the GOP to continue its looting?" Just look at Chicago economics, Reagan tax cuts, Bush's imperialism, and flagrant anti-union rhetoric. It's not made in good faith.</p><p>Conservatives have no interest in the real welfare of the country. This little spat about NASA is merely a disagreement among the foxes about whether to go through the front or the back of the hen-house. It should be an awfully strong hint that the rest of the world is governed by parties to the left of even the left here, and is going better for it.</p><p>Can we please stop wasting our time and giving attention to these right-wing lunatics and their pernicious ideas?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are we even talking about what conservatives think ?
The GOP has amply demonstrated that it has no interest in governing the country in good faith .
Their entire program is : When in power : transfer as much wealth as possible to the very rich When out of power : throw a wrench in the works to make the government look bad enough to vote the GOP back into powerAny conservative argument needs to be critically examined in light of the question , " how does this allow the GOP to continue its looting ?
" Just look at Chicago economics , Reagan tax cuts , Bush 's imperialism , and flagrant anti-union rhetoric .
It 's not made in good faith.Conservatives have no interest in the real welfare of the country .
This little spat about NASA is merely a disagreement among the foxes about whether to go through the front or the back of the hen-house .
It should be an awfully strong hint that the rest of the world is governed by parties to the left of even the left here , and is going better for it.Can we please stop wasting our time and giving attention to these right-wing lunatics and their pernicious ideas ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are we even talking about what conservatives think?
The GOP has amply demonstrated that it has no interest in governing the country in good faith.
Their entire program is:  When in power: transfer as much wealth as possible to the very rich When out of power: throw a wrench in the works to make the government look bad enough to vote the GOP back into powerAny conservative argument needs to be critically examined in light of the question, "how does this allow the GOP to continue its looting?
" Just look at Chicago economics, Reagan tax cuts, Bush's imperialism, and flagrant anti-union rhetoric.
It's not made in good faith.Conservatives have no interest in the real welfare of the country.
This little spat about NASA is merely a disagreement among the foxes about whether to go through the front or the back of the hen-house.
It should be an awfully strong hint that the rest of the world is governed by parties to the left of even the left here, and is going better for it.Can we please stop wasting our time and giving attention to these right-wing lunatics and their pernicious ideas?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129410</id>
	<title>NASA should go back to the roots</title>
	<author>Wyatt Earp</author>
	<datestamp>1266052200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Testing aviation systems and technologies, then passing on the information and systems to commercial and military applications</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Testing aviation systems and technologies , then passing on the information and systems to commercial and military applications</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Testing aviation systems and technologies, then passing on the information and systems to commercial and military applications</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130504</id>
	<title>Re:Conservatives? Who cares?</title>
	<author>ErikZ</author>
	<datestamp>1266060660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>When in power: transfer as much wealth as possible to the very rich</i></p><p>What's the visible difference between that, and transferring as much wealth to those who can get things done? Also known as "Successful people that create wealth".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When in power : transfer as much wealth as possible to the very richWhat 's the visible difference between that , and transferring as much wealth to those who can get things done ?
Also known as " Successful people that create wealth " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When in power: transfer as much wealth as possible to the very richWhat's the visible difference between that, and transferring as much wealth to those who can get things done?
Also known as "Successful people that create wealth".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130998</id>
	<title>Re:libertarian</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1266065340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>and last I looked, 54 nuclear power plants were being built, almost all in asia. the usa has one, an old mothballed tva plant being brought up.</p></div><p>Heh, even if the USA had the political/public will to build more nuclear plants, we couldn't.</p><p>Why? Because all the companies that manufacture the heavy steel reactor components are in Asia (plus one in Russia) and have their output already spoken for. To highlight the point, the largest manufacturer is planning to triple production by 2012... and all that output is spoken for too. The USA doesn't even begin to have the manufacturing or infrastructure necessary to produce/handle the enormous ingots and then forge them into one piece components (which don't have to be welded together and inspected till the end of time).</p><p>The rest of the world is advancing at full speed and the USA is getting left behind.<br>Worse, the manufacturing queue is measured in decades and we're at the end of the line.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and last I looked , 54 nuclear power plants were being built , almost all in asia .
the usa has one , an old mothballed tva plant being brought up.Heh , even if the USA had the political/public will to build more nuclear plants , we could n't.Why ?
Because all the companies that manufacture the heavy steel reactor components are in Asia ( plus one in Russia ) and have their output already spoken for .
To highlight the point , the largest manufacturer is planning to triple production by 2012... and all that output is spoken for too .
The USA does n't even begin to have the manufacturing or infrastructure necessary to produce/handle the enormous ingots and then forge them into one piece components ( which do n't have to be welded together and inspected till the end of time ) .The rest of the world is advancing at full speed and the USA is getting left behind.Worse , the manufacturing queue is measured in decades and we 're at the end of the line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and last I looked, 54 nuclear power plants were being built, almost all in asia.
the usa has one, an old mothballed tva plant being brought up.Heh, even if the USA had the political/public will to build more nuclear plants, we couldn't.Why?
Because all the companies that manufacture the heavy steel reactor components are in Asia (plus one in Russia) and have their output already spoken for.
To highlight the point, the largest manufacturer is planning to triple production by 2012... and all that output is spoken for too.
The USA doesn't even begin to have the manufacturing or infrastructure necessary to produce/handle the enormous ingots and then forge them into one piece components (which don't have to be welded together and inspected till the end of time).The rest of the world is advancing at full speed and the USA is getting left behind.Worse, the manufacturing queue is measured in decades and we're at the end of the line.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129378</id>
	<title>Re:Out source space too...</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1266051900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't confuse "putting humans in space to the deprecation or exclusion of other methods" with "exploring" it.</p><p>We need to perfect robots for terrestrial and off-world use far more than we need to send meat tourists (who still need physical barrier protection and robotic assistance to function) into space.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't confuse " putting humans in space to the deprecation or exclusion of other methods " with " exploring " it.We need to perfect robots for terrestrial and off-world use far more than we need to send meat tourists ( who still need physical barrier protection and robotic assistance to function ) into space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't confuse "putting humans in space to the deprecation or exclusion of other methods" with "exploring" it.We need to perfect robots for terrestrial and off-world use far more than we need to send meat tourists (who still need physical barrier protection and robotic assistance to function) into space.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131366</id>
	<title>Re:libertarian</title>
	<author>Diagoras</author>
	<datestamp>1266069480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, India plans to get man in orbit in 2016. They don't even have a date yet for a manned lunar landing.</p><p>Second, why do I care that India and China are doing what we did in the '60s? Good on them, let them build an unsubstainable lunar exploration program. Meanwhile, we'll be lowering the price per kg to orbit and building our domestic launch infrastructure. You know, stuff that actually matters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , India plans to get man in orbit in 2016 .
They do n't even have a date yet for a manned lunar landing.Second , why do I care that India and China are doing what we did in the '60s ?
Good on them , let them build an unsubstainable lunar exploration program .
Meanwhile , we 'll be lowering the price per kg to orbit and building our domestic launch infrastructure .
You know , stuff that actually matters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, India plans to get man in orbit in 2016.
They don't even have a date yet for a manned lunar landing.Second, why do I care that India and China are doing what we did in the '60s?
Good on them, let them build an unsubstainable lunar exploration program.
Meanwhile, we'll be lowering the price per kg to orbit and building our domestic launch infrastructure.
You know, stuff that actually matters.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129434</id>
	<title>Re:libertarian</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1266052380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I get the feeling that if instead of throwing 15-20 billion at NASA on a yearly basis, we set up a few X-prize style incentives, we'd have done a lot more than NASA has.  Set concrete goals for various prizes and only hand them out when the goal is reached.  Leave the competition open to *anyone* American, Chinese whatever with the condition that the technology used to acheive the goal is to be put in the public domain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I get the feeling that if instead of throwing 15-20 billion at NASA on a yearly basis , we set up a few X-prize style incentives , we 'd have done a lot more than NASA has .
Set concrete goals for various prizes and only hand them out when the goal is reached .
Leave the competition open to * anyone * American , Chinese whatever with the condition that the technology used to acheive the goal is to be put in the public domain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I get the feeling that if instead of throwing 15-20 billion at NASA on a yearly basis, we set up a few X-prize style incentives, we'd have done a lot more than NASA has.
Set concrete goals for various prizes and only hand them out when the goal is reached.
Leave the competition open to *anyone* American, Chinese whatever with the condition that the technology used to acheive the goal is to be put in the public domain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130254</id>
	<title>Re:Easy enough to balance the budget</title>
	<author>QuoteMstr</author>
	<datestamp>1266058680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See, the conservative mindset is that lack of success is a <i>moral</i> failure on the part of the failed. If someone is down on his luck, he must have done something wrong, and therefore must be punished. It's really a modern breed of Calvinism, the religion tenant that God has pre-destinated certain people for heaven and others for hell, and that he demonstrates His grace toward the chosen by handing them with worldly success.</p><p>It's a wicked, wicked idea. Society should be built around the idea of helping everyone succeed, not rewarding an arbitrarily-chosen lucky few while punishing everyone else for things that aren't their fault.</p><p>"<a href="http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Poetry/PopeMan.htm" title="blupete.com">Whatever is, is right</a> [blupete.com]" is an evil idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See , the conservative mindset is that lack of success is a moral failure on the part of the failed .
If someone is down on his luck , he must have done something wrong , and therefore must be punished .
It 's really a modern breed of Calvinism , the religion tenant that God has pre-destinated certain people for heaven and others for hell , and that he demonstrates His grace toward the chosen by handing them with worldly success.It 's a wicked , wicked idea .
Society should be built around the idea of helping everyone succeed , not rewarding an arbitrarily-chosen lucky few while punishing everyone else for things that are n't their fault .
" Whatever is , is right [ blupete.com ] " is an evil idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See, the conservative mindset is that lack of success is a moral failure on the part of the failed.
If someone is down on his luck, he must have done something wrong, and therefore must be punished.
It's really a modern breed of Calvinism, the religion tenant that God has pre-destinated certain people for heaven and others for hell, and that he demonstrates His grace toward the chosen by handing them with worldly success.It's a wicked, wicked idea.
Society should be built around the idea of helping everyone succeed, not rewarding an arbitrarily-chosen lucky few while punishing everyone else for things that aren't their fault.
"Whatever is, is right [blupete.com]" is an evil idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130528</id>
	<title>Re:libertarian</title>
	<author>gangien</author>
	<datestamp>1266060840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>yah, the private banks do so well at giving us a future.</i></p><p>they actually do.  own a house?  maybe some buisness loans?</p><p>the recent failures, were because, the government was giving out free money (read low interest rates).  And not all banks failed btw.  some did, and we should have let them fail.  But low interest rates are like giving a gambler free money, likely, he'll gamble bigger risks than he can afford, hardly a shock when he comes back broke.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yah , the private banks do so well at giving us a future.they actually do .
own a house ?
maybe some buisness loans ? the recent failures , were because , the government was giving out free money ( read low interest rates ) .
And not all banks failed btw .
some did , and we should have let them fail .
But low interest rates are like giving a gambler free money , likely , he 'll gamble bigger risks than he can afford , hardly a shock when he comes back broke .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yah, the private banks do so well at giving us a future.they actually do.
own a house?
maybe some buisness loans?the recent failures, were because, the government was giving out free money (read low interest rates).
And not all banks failed btw.
some did, and we should have let them fail.
But low interest rates are like giving a gambler free money, likely, he'll gamble bigger risks than he can afford, hardly a shock when he comes back broke.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129456</id>
	<title>Easy enough to balance the budget</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266052500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It's a damn shame that there just isn't enough money for NASA right now, but blaming liberals for it is just asinine.</i></p><p>I have the Federal Budget right in front of me as I'm building an application that details the number of days the average citizen has to work to fund each and every 600 odd line items, including details of entitlements.</p><p>The fact is welfare has been a persistent and chronic drain on the federal budget now, for a generation.  We've spend a trillion dollars a year to help urban centers and eradicate poverty, and what has it accomplished?  I mean nothing.</p><p>You want funding for NASA?  I'll tell you what, I got it for your right in these line items:</p><p>50 billion plus for food stamps<br>20 billion for school lunches<br>150 billion plus for unenemplyment<br>150 billion plus for SSI disability</p><p>And I haven't even started on Medicare or Social Security yet.</p><p>So, here's the deal, I'll cut 10 billion from food stamps, 5 billion from school lunches, 30 billion from disability, and 30 billion from unemployment, and in just one year I've got nearly the entire cost of the Constellation Program.</p><p>Entitlements aren't too blame.</p><p>I thought liberals knew how to add.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a damn shame that there just is n't enough money for NASA right now , but blaming liberals for it is just asinine.I have the Federal Budget right in front of me as I 'm building an application that details the number of days the average citizen has to work to fund each and every 600 odd line items , including details of entitlements.The fact is welfare has been a persistent and chronic drain on the federal budget now , for a generation .
We 've spend a trillion dollars a year to help urban centers and eradicate poverty , and what has it accomplished ?
I mean nothing.You want funding for NASA ?
I 'll tell you what , I got it for your right in these line items : 50 billion plus for food stamps20 billion for school lunches150 billion plus for unenemplyment150 billion plus for SSI disabilityAnd I have n't even started on Medicare or Social Security yet.So , here 's the deal , I 'll cut 10 billion from food stamps , 5 billion from school lunches , 30 billion from disability , and 30 billion from unemployment , and in just one year I 've got nearly the entire cost of the Constellation Program.Entitlements are n't too blame.I thought liberals knew how to add .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a damn shame that there just isn't enough money for NASA right now, but blaming liberals for it is just asinine.I have the Federal Budget right in front of me as I'm building an application that details the number of days the average citizen has to work to fund each and every 600 odd line items, including details of entitlements.The fact is welfare has been a persistent and chronic drain on the federal budget now, for a generation.
We've spend a trillion dollars a year to help urban centers and eradicate poverty, and what has it accomplished?
I mean nothing.You want funding for NASA?
I'll tell you what, I got it for your right in these line items:50 billion plus for food stamps20 billion for school lunches150 billion plus for unenemplyment150 billion plus for SSI disabilityAnd I haven't even started on Medicare or Social Security yet.So, here's the deal, I'll cut 10 billion from food stamps, 5 billion from school lunches, 30 billion from disability, and 30 billion from unemployment, and in just one year I've got nearly the entire cost of the Constellation Program.Entitlements aren't too blame.I thought liberals knew how to add.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129352</id>
	<title>Re:libertarian</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266051600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I lean libertarian, too, but NASA is one example of where government can pool together resources to achieve national objectives the private sector would not do.</p><p>Without NASA fronting the monetary costs that developed the space industrial complex, it may have taken decades longer than it did for technology to mature enough to develop orbital capabilities.   If the government didn't subsidize space R&amp;D in the 50's and 60's, it would have cost the private sector billions to develop the capabilities on their own from scratch.  Few companies have that much money laying around, and even fewer would be willing to spend it on high risk research without a profitable business plan.   What incentive would private industry have without government to develop space capabilities on their own back then? There was no profitable reason to do it in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, nor was there any market for any products that required space capabilities. NASA fronted the R&amp;D and spent the billions necessary to maintain the space industrial complex--as a result space tech has matured enough and allowed businesses to develop profitable products that revolve around space technologies--GPS, communication satellites, radar satellites, oil exploration satellites.</p><p>Besides NASA, there are things that just wouldn't happen without government funding, like the large hadron collider.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I lean libertarian , too , but NASA is one example of where government can pool together resources to achieve national objectives the private sector would not do.Without NASA fronting the monetary costs that developed the space industrial complex , it may have taken decades longer than it did for technology to mature enough to develop orbital capabilities .
If the government did n't subsidize space R&amp;D in the 50 's and 60 's , it would have cost the private sector billions to develop the capabilities on their own from scratch .
Few companies have that much money laying around , and even fewer would be willing to spend it on high risk research without a profitable business plan .
What incentive would private industry have without government to develop space capabilities on their own back then ?
There was no profitable reason to do it in the 50s , 60s , and 70s , nor was there any market for any products that required space capabilities .
NASA fronted the R&amp;D and spent the billions necessary to maintain the space industrial complex--as a result space tech has matured enough and allowed businesses to develop profitable products that revolve around space technologies--GPS , communication satellites , radar satellites , oil exploration satellites.Besides NASA , there are things that just would n't happen without government funding , like the large hadron collider .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I lean libertarian, too, but NASA is one example of where government can pool together resources to achieve national objectives the private sector would not do.Without NASA fronting the monetary costs that developed the space industrial complex, it may have taken decades longer than it did for technology to mature enough to develop orbital capabilities.
If the government didn't subsidize space R&amp;D in the 50's and 60's, it would have cost the private sector billions to develop the capabilities on their own from scratch.
Few companies have that much money laying around, and even fewer would be willing to spend it on high risk research without a profitable business plan.
What incentive would private industry have without government to develop space capabilities on their own back then?
There was no profitable reason to do it in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, nor was there any market for any products that required space capabilities.
NASA fronted the R&amp;D and spent the billions necessary to maintain the space industrial complex--as a result space tech has matured enough and allowed businesses to develop profitable products that revolve around space technologies--GPS, communication satellites, radar satellites, oil exploration satellites.Besides NASA, there are things that just wouldn't happen without government funding, like the large hadron collider.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130278</id>
	<title>Re:Obama, space plan?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266058860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everybody you've ever known is in space.  The Earth is a part of space.  It is not separate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everybody you 've ever known is in space .
The Earth is a part of space .
It is not separate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everybody you've ever known is in space.
The Earth is a part of space.
It is not separate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31134124</id>
	<title>Re:WSJ Debates the Pros and Cons of Private Space</title>
	<author>rbanffy</author>
	<datestamp>1266159060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am sure if NASA were willing to pay the horrendous amount of money a shuttle launch costs to re-suply the ISS to a private company, they would line up at their door.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am sure if NASA were willing to pay the horrendous amount of money a shuttle launch costs to re-suply the ISS to a private company , they would line up at their door .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am sure if NASA were willing to pay the horrendous amount of money a shuttle launch costs to re-suply the ISS to a private company, they would line up at their door.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131376</id>
	<title>Re:libertarian</title>
	<author>kklein</author>
	<datestamp>1266069540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been saying for 10 years or more: America is over. The image of America is really just the image of being the only large country that didn't suffer massive infrastructural damage in WWII. We were the only man standing afterward, and as a result, got to call a lot of the shots and also attract the best talent from around the world, and had a lot more money than others.

</p><p>However, that "USA! USA!" image has ultimately undone us. Americans feel they are great because they are the USA, not that they should strive to be great because they are the USA. It's a bit like the student in the honors program at an American university I taught at, who was getting a solid B in my Japanese language class. He came to my office and with a straight face told me that because he was an honors student he needed me to change his grade to an A, because if he didn't get an A, he'd be out of the honors program. I suggested to him that the honors program was for people who got As, not that getting As was for people in the honors program. He didn't like that and stormed off. Then his advisor called me and chewed me out, saying "this kid is an A student!" "Um, not in my class he's not. He's doing pretty well, but not great. That's a B." This, I think, is the same confused thinking that holds the USA back. For a few decades it was able to skid along on the momentum of that head start in 1945, but without ever getting serious about any innovation or development, we're fading into irrelevance.

</p><p>I'm pretty lefty (well, for the US--I live in Japan and here the same views make me right-of-center, as they do in most of the world--I consider myself a moderate conservative, but the US is so red-tinted that I look totally blue by comparison), so I have to point out that all of the projects you have pointed to are large-scale, publicly-funded projects. Most of the heavy R&amp;D lifting anywhere has to be done with government funds, because you never know when the thing will be able to turn a profit. But if you do it right, it ends up creating lots of opportunities for the private sector to innovate around what the people have paid for, and that benefits everyone. Americans, with their (sorry) idiotic Ayn Rand Reaganite Libertarian mindset continually pat themselves on the back for their rugged individualism and individual responsibility for things that were gifts to them by the intelligent use of collective funds. That isn't to say that the private-sector doesn't innovate and doesn't sometimes do things that the govt. heavyweights can't, but, as an academic, I can tell you that virtually all fundamental research is paid for by governments. If you dig into virtually any invention or product, you'll be hard pressed not to find some concept, technique, or technology that wasn't at least partly paid for by government funds.

</p><p>What am I saying? With the education system we have, <i>all innovation is thanks to public funding.</i>

</p><p>I read a great quote, but I don't know who first said it, about Libertarians: "A libertarian is someone who looks out from the Empire State Building and thinks he's 1600 feet tall." --He totally ignores the blood, sweat, and tears shed by a multitude of forbears that put him up there and thinks it's all about him being so great and tall.

</p><p>Unless we can get over our libertarian, anarchist fetishes, we can expect the future to be something that happens somewhere else, while we go back to just growing a bunch of corn for everyone, like we used to do.

</p><p>I don't actually, however, think we can get over that, though. Americans are just too ignorant to even know that there's a problem. They are told they are great, so they're great. Even in the face of ever-mounting evidence that the US is mediocre at best in just about anything you care to measure, it will forever be the greatest country in the world in the minds of its citizens.

</p><p>And that's why I live in Japan.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been saying for 10 years or more : America is over .
The image of America is really just the image of being the only large country that did n't suffer massive infrastructural damage in WWII .
We were the only man standing afterward , and as a result , got to call a lot of the shots and also attract the best talent from around the world , and had a lot more money than others .
However , that " USA !
USA ! " image has ultimately undone us .
Americans feel they are great because they are the USA , not that they should strive to be great because they are the USA .
It 's a bit like the student in the honors program at an American university I taught at , who was getting a solid B in my Japanese language class .
He came to my office and with a straight face told me that because he was an honors student he needed me to change his grade to an A , because if he did n't get an A , he 'd be out of the honors program .
I suggested to him that the honors program was for people who got As , not that getting As was for people in the honors program .
He did n't like that and stormed off .
Then his advisor called me and chewed me out , saying " this kid is an A student !
" " Um , not in my class he 's not .
He 's doing pretty well , but not great .
That 's a B .
" This , I think , is the same confused thinking that holds the USA back .
For a few decades it was able to skid along on the momentum of that head start in 1945 , but without ever getting serious about any innovation or development , we 're fading into irrelevance .
I 'm pretty lefty ( well , for the US--I live in Japan and here the same views make me right-of-center , as they do in most of the world--I consider myself a moderate conservative , but the US is so red-tinted that I look totally blue by comparison ) , so I have to point out that all of the projects you have pointed to are large-scale , publicly-funded projects .
Most of the heavy R&amp;D lifting anywhere has to be done with government funds , because you never know when the thing will be able to turn a profit .
But if you do it right , it ends up creating lots of opportunities for the private sector to innovate around what the people have paid for , and that benefits everyone .
Americans , with their ( sorry ) idiotic Ayn Rand Reaganite Libertarian mindset continually pat themselves on the back for their rugged individualism and individual responsibility for things that were gifts to them by the intelligent use of collective funds .
That is n't to say that the private-sector does n't innovate and does n't sometimes do things that the govt .
heavyweights ca n't , but , as an academic , I can tell you that virtually all fundamental research is paid for by governments .
If you dig into virtually any invention or product , you 'll be hard pressed not to find some concept , technique , or technology that was n't at least partly paid for by government funds .
What am I saying ?
With the education system we have , all innovation is thanks to public funding .
I read a great quote , but I do n't know who first said it , about Libertarians : " A libertarian is someone who looks out from the Empire State Building and thinks he 's 1600 feet tall .
" --He totally ignores the blood , sweat , and tears shed by a multitude of forbears that put him up there and thinks it 's all about him being so great and tall .
Unless we can get over our libertarian , anarchist fetishes , we can expect the future to be something that happens somewhere else , while we go back to just growing a bunch of corn for everyone , like we used to do .
I do n't actually , however , think we can get over that , though .
Americans are just too ignorant to even know that there 's a problem .
They are told they are great , so they 're great .
Even in the face of ever-mounting evidence that the US is mediocre at best in just about anything you care to measure , it will forever be the greatest country in the world in the minds of its citizens .
And that 's why I live in Japan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been saying for 10 years or more: America is over.
The image of America is really just the image of being the only large country that didn't suffer massive infrastructural damage in WWII.
We were the only man standing afterward, and as a result, got to call a lot of the shots and also attract the best talent from around the world, and had a lot more money than others.
However, that "USA!
USA!" image has ultimately undone us.
Americans feel they are great because they are the USA, not that they should strive to be great because they are the USA.
It's a bit like the student in the honors program at an American university I taught at, who was getting a solid B in my Japanese language class.
He came to my office and with a straight face told me that because he was an honors student he needed me to change his grade to an A, because if he didn't get an A, he'd be out of the honors program.
I suggested to him that the honors program was for people who got As, not that getting As was for people in the honors program.
He didn't like that and stormed off.
Then his advisor called me and chewed me out, saying "this kid is an A student!
" "Um, not in my class he's not.
He's doing pretty well, but not great.
That's a B.
" This, I think, is the same confused thinking that holds the USA back.
For a few decades it was able to skid along on the momentum of that head start in 1945, but without ever getting serious about any innovation or development, we're fading into irrelevance.
I'm pretty lefty (well, for the US--I live in Japan and here the same views make me right-of-center, as they do in most of the world--I consider myself a moderate conservative, but the US is so red-tinted that I look totally blue by comparison), so I have to point out that all of the projects you have pointed to are large-scale, publicly-funded projects.
Most of the heavy R&amp;D lifting anywhere has to be done with government funds, because you never know when the thing will be able to turn a profit.
But if you do it right, it ends up creating lots of opportunities for the private sector to innovate around what the people have paid for, and that benefits everyone.
Americans, with their (sorry) idiotic Ayn Rand Reaganite Libertarian mindset continually pat themselves on the back for their rugged individualism and individual responsibility for things that were gifts to them by the intelligent use of collective funds.
That isn't to say that the private-sector doesn't innovate and doesn't sometimes do things that the govt.
heavyweights can't, but, as an academic, I can tell you that virtually all fundamental research is paid for by governments.
If you dig into virtually any invention or product, you'll be hard pressed not to find some concept, technique, or technology that wasn't at least partly paid for by government funds.
What am I saying?
With the education system we have, all innovation is thanks to public funding.
I read a great quote, but I don't know who first said it, about Libertarians: "A libertarian is someone who looks out from the Empire State Building and thinks he's 1600 feet tall.
" --He totally ignores the blood, sweat, and tears shed by a multitude of forbears that put him up there and thinks it's all about him being so great and tall.
Unless we can get over our libertarian, anarchist fetishes, we can expect the future to be something that happens somewhere else, while we go back to just growing a bunch of corn for everyone, like we used to do.
I don't actually, however, think we can get over that, though.
Americans are just too ignorant to even know that there's a problem.
They are told they are great, so they're great.
Even in the face of ever-mounting evidence that the US is mediocre at best in just about anything you care to measure, it will forever be the greatest country in the world in the minds of its citizens.
And that's why I live in Japan.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31132536</id>
	<title>Re:libertarian</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266084300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You get your info from LarouchePAC? The purveyors of the nutty card table shrines at universities dedicated to the worship of the fascistic political con artist who drove Ken Kronberg to jump off a bridge?</p><p><a href="http://publiceye.org/larouche/" title="publiceye.org" rel="nofollow">http://publiceye.org/larouche/</a> [publiceye.org]</p><p>Mod parent waaay down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You get your info from LarouchePAC ?
The purveyors of the nutty card table shrines at universities dedicated to the worship of the fascistic political con artist who drove Ken Kronberg to jump off a bridge ? http : //publiceye.org/larouche/ [ publiceye.org ] Mod parent waaay down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You get your info from LarouchePAC?
The purveyors of the nutty card table shrines at universities dedicated to the worship of the fascistic political con artist who drove Ken Kronberg to jump off a bridge?http://publiceye.org/larouche/ [publiceye.org]Mod parent waaay down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31132854</id>
	<title>Obama's Space Plan</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266088920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've read that the manned space program has resulted in not a single refereed journal article in the scientific literature. It's a big waste of money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've read that the manned space program has resulted in not a single refereed journal article in the scientific literature .
It 's a big waste of money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've read that the manned space program has resulted in not a single refereed journal article in the scientific literature.
It's a big waste of money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31133594</id>
	<title>Re:Space exploration is conservative.</title>
	<author>Boronx</author>
	<datestamp>1266148020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Conservatives are not opposed to federal spending when it is in the geo-political interest of the nation as whole."</p><p>Considering the last 16 years, the only thing that can make them oppose spending is if  a Democrat proposed it.</p><p>"Eisenhower kicked off the federal highway system."</p><p>Are you kidding?  If Eisenhower had left the Interstates for Obama, and <i>he</i> kicked it off, conservatives would call for his head.</p><p>Look at health care.  There's no fix more obvious that the government, and only  the government can do to improve the course of this country, yet it drives conservatives completely around the bend.  Even when the final bill turns out to be more conservative, more free-market, with less government than anyone could have imagined 12 months ago, conservatives are still around the bend.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Conservatives are not opposed to federal spending when it is in the geo-political interest of the nation as whole .
" Considering the last 16 years , the only thing that can make them oppose spending is if a Democrat proposed it .
" Eisenhower kicked off the federal highway system .
" Are you kidding ?
If Eisenhower had left the Interstates for Obama , and he kicked it off , conservatives would call for his head.Look at health care .
There 's no fix more obvious that the government , and only the government can do to improve the course of this country , yet it drives conservatives completely around the bend .
Even when the final bill turns out to be more conservative , more free-market , with less government than anyone could have imagined 12 months ago , conservatives are still around the bend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Conservatives are not opposed to federal spending when it is in the geo-political interest of the nation as whole.
"Considering the last 16 years, the only thing that can make them oppose spending is if  a Democrat proposed it.
"Eisenhower kicked off the federal highway system.
"Are you kidding?
If Eisenhower had left the Interstates for Obama, and he kicked it off, conservatives would call for his head.Look at health care.
There's no fix more obvious that the government, and only  the government can do to improve the course of this country, yet it drives conservatives completely around the bend.
Even when the final bill turns out to be more conservative, more free-market, with less government than anyone could have imagined 12 months ago, conservatives are still around the bend.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130218</id>
	<title>The Constellation cancellation situation</title>
	<author>Geoffrey.landis</author>
	<datestamp>1266058320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Phrasing it more succinctly:<br>The situation with Constellation cancellation is consternation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Phrasing it more succinctly : The situation with Constellation cancellation is consternation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Phrasing it more succinctly:The situation with Constellation cancellation is consternation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31132350</id>
	<title>Not a love for private industry.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266081480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Let's privatize it" is the government's way of saying, "we don't
want to do this anymore".  Or it could also be construed as, "the
companies that will take it over are our kind of people.  They have
and/or will donate to our campaigns".</p><p>See, Ahhhnold and the prisons.  Taking care of cons is just
no fun.  Nobody wants to be chief administrator of the penal system.
Dead end job.  Outsource it.  Problem solved from their PoV, at least
until we end up with Blackwater Gulags and that starts causing problems
for them again.  Then some new politico gets to come along and play
white knight, prison reformer, blah, blah... the story just goes on and on...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Let 's privatize it " is the government 's way of saying , " we do n't want to do this anymore " .
Or it could also be construed as , " the companies that will take it over are our kind of people .
They have and/or will donate to our campaigns " .See , Ahhhnold and the prisons .
Taking care of cons is just no fun .
Nobody wants to be chief administrator of the penal system .
Dead end job .
Outsource it .
Problem solved from their PoV , at least until we end up with Blackwater Gulags and that starts causing problems for them again .
Then some new politico gets to come along and play white knight , prison reformer , blah , blah... the story just goes on and on.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Let's privatize it" is the government's way of saying, "we don't
want to do this anymore".
Or it could also be construed as, "the
companies that will take it over are our kind of people.
They have
and/or will donate to our campaigns".See, Ahhhnold and the prisons.
Taking care of cons is just
no fun.
Nobody wants to be chief administrator of the penal system.
Dead end job.
Outsource it.
Problem solved from their PoV, at least
until we end up with Blackwater Gulags and that starts causing problems
for them again.
Then some new politico gets to come along and play
white knight, prison reformer, blah, blah... the story just goes on and on...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129462</id>
	<title>It Could (Have) Work(ed)</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1266052500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only real positive reconfiguration of the space program would be as a stair-step program, each step dependent on those before. As some criticisms of Obama's plans state, this would take quite a while to accomplish. But as time goes on, the program design becomes more necessary to maintain and it's continued future more assured. Twenty to thirty years is a long time? Only to those unfamiliar with planning for the future of the species in the context of the universe. Even for them, a comparison of 40 years is constructive, and that's the amount of time since people walked on the moon.</p><p>Sadly, nobody has even mentioned the possibility of planning for such a program, much less taking advantage of this opportunity to setting it up. Even when it is mentioned, such 'plans' are often ruses with no inherent intentions of carrying it out. So this rebuilding of the future is, while still possible, not yet being seriously considered.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only real positive reconfiguration of the space program would be as a stair-step program , each step dependent on those before .
As some criticisms of Obama 's plans state , this would take quite a while to accomplish .
But as time goes on , the program design becomes more necessary to maintain and it 's continued future more assured .
Twenty to thirty years is a long time ?
Only to those unfamiliar with planning for the future of the species in the context of the universe .
Even for them , a comparison of 40 years is constructive , and that 's the amount of time since people walked on the moon.Sadly , nobody has even mentioned the possibility of planning for such a program , much less taking advantage of this opportunity to setting it up .
Even when it is mentioned , such 'plans ' are often ruses with no inherent intentions of carrying it out .
So this rebuilding of the future is , while still possible , not yet being seriously considered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only real positive reconfiguration of the space program would be as a stair-step program, each step dependent on those before.
As some criticisms of Obama's plans state, this would take quite a while to accomplish.
But as time goes on, the program design becomes more necessary to maintain and it's continued future more assured.
Twenty to thirty years is a long time?
Only to those unfamiliar with planning for the future of the species in the context of the universe.
Even for them, a comparison of 40 years is constructive, and that's the amount of time since people walked on the moon.Sadly, nobody has even mentioned the possibility of planning for such a program, much less taking advantage of this opportunity to setting it up.
Even when it is mentioned, such 'plans' are often ruses with no inherent intentions of carrying it out.
So this rebuilding of the future is, while still possible, not yet being seriously considered.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130932</id>
	<title>There is only one argument.</title>
	<author>MyFirstNameIsPaul</author>
	<datestamp>1266064560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The constitution does not allow Congress to fund NASA.  This is not a conservative for liberal opinion; it is a statement of fact.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The constitution does not allow Congress to fund NASA .
This is not a conservative for liberal opinion ; it is a statement of fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The constitution does not allow Congress to fund NASA.
This is not a conservative for liberal opinion; it is a statement of fact.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131486</id>
	<title>Re:libertarian</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266070860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>yah, the private banks do so well at giving us a future.</p></div><p>The banking system should not be mistaken for a free market system. It's product (dollars) exists entirely by government decree, interest rates price controlled by a central bank (cartel) whose chairman is a government appointee, with controlled reserve requirements.</p><p>The money supply is controlled by government, that's a socialist enterprise. Supply of free market goods is constrained (apart from market forces) by reality (physics, chemistry, biology) rather than government edict. That's why you'll never have a extra trillion apples or $OTHERREALPRODUCT injected into the market to deal with recession.</p><p>Our banking system exists by government intervention. Blaming it's failures on the free market is deception.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>yah , the private banks do so well at giving us a future.The banking system should not be mistaken for a free market system .
It 's product ( dollars ) exists entirely by government decree , interest rates price controlled by a central bank ( cartel ) whose chairman is a government appointee , with controlled reserve requirements.The money supply is controlled by government , that 's a socialist enterprise .
Supply of free market goods is constrained ( apart from market forces ) by reality ( physics , chemistry , biology ) rather than government edict .
That 's why you 'll never have a extra trillion apples or $ OTHERREALPRODUCT injected into the market to deal with recession.Our banking system exists by government intervention .
Blaming it 's failures on the free market is deception .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yah, the private banks do so well at giving us a future.The banking system should not be mistaken for a free market system.
It's product (dollars) exists entirely by government decree, interest rates price controlled by a central bank (cartel) whose chairman is a government appointee, with controlled reserve requirements.The money supply is controlled by government, that's a socialist enterprise.
Supply of free market goods is constrained (apart from market forces) by reality (physics, chemistry, biology) rather than government edict.
That's why you'll never have a extra trillion apples or $OTHERREALPRODUCT injected into the market to deal with recession.Our banking system exists by government intervention.
Blaming it's failures on the free market is deception.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31132474</id>
	<title>Re:Easy enough to balance the budget</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266083220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If someone is down on his luck, he must have done something wrong, and therefore must be punished. </p></div><p>No. We just believe that the job of the government is not to subsidize someone's failure, whether it be personal or business related. You may define that as "punishment" only if you believe that someone's failure is actually someone else's fault, which, in my opinion, leads to an entitlement and "I'm a victim of society" mentality.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If someone is down on his luck , he must have done something wrong , and therefore must be punished .
No. We just believe that the job of the government is not to subsidize someone 's failure , whether it be personal or business related .
You may define that as " punishment " only if you believe that someone 's failure is actually someone else 's fault , which , in my opinion , leads to an entitlement and " I 'm a victim of society " mentality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If someone is down on his luck, he must have done something wrong, and therefore must be punished.
No. We just believe that the job of the government is not to subsidize someone's failure, whether it be personal or business related.
You may define that as "punishment" only if you believe that someone's failure is actually someone else's fault, which, in my opinion, leads to an entitlement and "I'm a victim of society" mentality.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131958</id>
	<title>Re:Space exploration is conservative.</title>
	<author>Miseph</author>
	<datestamp>1266076140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"For someone who demands such a nuanced interpretation of liberal/democrat, you sure seem ignorant of what the tea party actually is. The tea party is a group of people, some crazy and some not, who are united by a desire for a sound fiscal policy. They are not happy with the Bush era policies (the people who are happy with that are the die hard Republicans, not the tea partiers; not the same thing) They also like dressing up in costume, which, if you live in San Francisco at least, shouldn't be too foreign to a liberal. In fact, your very next quote sounds exactly like it could come from a tea party:"</p><p>HAHAHAHAHA. No, not really. We have tea partiers here, I've met some... they're just mainstream Republicans who are ashamed (with good reason) to admit it. Seriously, they supported Scott Brown... he's an empty suit Romney clone, it doesn't get any more Karl Rove Republican than that.</p><p>How about this, follow the money: the Tea Party has a lot of corporate sponsors, just where do you think the money comes from to pay the various think tanks, lobbyist groups and advertisers? Personal donations? Poke around and you'll find that, among others, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch\_Industries" title="wikipedia.org">Koch Industries</a> [wikipedia.org] has been bank-rolling quite a bit of it. They founded both <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans\_for\_Prosperity" title="wikipedia.org">Americans for Prosperity</a> [wikipedia.org] and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreedomWorks" title="wikipedia.org">FreedomWorks</a> [wikipedia.org] (via the now defunct <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens\_for\_a\_Sound\_Economy" title="wikipedia.org">Citizens For A Sound Economy</a> [wikipedia.org]), which is where you'll find most of the Tea Party talking points and hype begin and end. For bonus points, Fred Koch was a founding Bircher (yep, one of those).</p><p>"Now, I am not a tea-partier, I am just someone who enjoys observing politics, which brings me to my next point, has anyone else noticed that liberals and conservatives are sounding more and more like each other?"</p><p>Democrats and Republicans sound very much the same. The bulk of Americans are in fact "centrists" (by our standards, not the world's... many Europeans see our "center" as "far right"), and those parties both cater predominantly to them... which is really how it should be. In any event, this has been true for centuries, and has not grown any more or less true. Look into political issues through history and you'll find that they were pretty much having the same arguments 120 years ago, and in very much the same manner.</p><p>"Not just this guy, but if you ignore the partisan fighting of congress in the last year, for example, and go back to the election, both McCain and Obama (and Clinton) had healthcare plans that were very similar. Same with Bush's and Obama's stimulus plans and auto company bailouts."</p><p>Obama actually campaigned to the left on single payer... so that one not so much. The current plan is nearly identical to what McCain wanted (and indeed has pretty much every Republican idea integrated), but they don't want to bite because that would give the Democrats some political capital. Of course, the Democrats have actually allowed it to stall IN SPITE of their overwhelming majority, so I have to suspect that the powers that be in both parties don't really want it. Conceding defeat on the *threat* of a filibuster is just lame. Frankly I no longer support the current plan, it doesn't move us any closer to an actual working single payer system... I was willing to compromise and have a public option instead, but now that even that is gone I've got very little to be excited about and quite a bit to oppose (mandating that I purchase private insurance through a for-profit corporation as a condition to live is BS).</p><p>Auto bailouts and stimulus... yeah, pretty much, although I think the idea of cutting huge checks to admittedly corrupt and irresponsible financial institutions with little or no conditions attached was a monumentally stupid idea, certainly in hindsight that should have been handled better.</p><p>"I think it's also safe to say that almost everyone in the US resented being deceived about Iraq's WMD, and also that nearly everyone wants to stop terrorists from attacking the US if we can."</p><p>Until about 2006 anyone who publicly suggested that the WMDs were a lie was a far-left whackjob. I was saying that in 2001, before we even invaded (go figure, it turns out that Hans Blix and the UN inspectors DID know what they were doing and DID provide an accurate assessment.. who could have known?), so I've got some pretty good first-hand experience on when that particular stance became the opinion of all right-thinking Patriotic Americans (tm).</p><p>Anyway, I largely agree with you: which is why I am not a member of either party. I vote for whoever has the better track record of <i>actually running the country well</i>, and the bottom line is that the only success on that front in my lifetime was during the Clinton era. I may not be thrilled with all of the results (NAFTA), but they beat the shit out of the alternative (USA PATRIOT Act).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" For someone who demands such a nuanced interpretation of liberal/democrat , you sure seem ignorant of what the tea party actually is .
The tea party is a group of people , some crazy and some not , who are united by a desire for a sound fiscal policy .
They are not happy with the Bush era policies ( the people who are happy with that are the die hard Republicans , not the tea partiers ; not the same thing ) They also like dressing up in costume , which , if you live in San Francisco at least , should n't be too foreign to a liberal .
In fact , your very next quote sounds exactly like it could come from a tea party : " HAHAHAHAHA .
No , not really .
We have tea partiers here , I 've met some... they 're just mainstream Republicans who are ashamed ( with good reason ) to admit it .
Seriously , they supported Scott Brown... he 's an empty suit Romney clone , it does n't get any more Karl Rove Republican than that.How about this , follow the money : the Tea Party has a lot of corporate sponsors , just where do you think the money comes from to pay the various think tanks , lobbyist groups and advertisers ?
Personal donations ?
Poke around and you 'll find that , among others , Koch Industries [ wikipedia.org ] has been bank-rolling quite a bit of it .
They founded both Americans for Prosperity [ wikipedia.org ] and FreedomWorks [ wikipedia.org ] ( via the now defunct Citizens For A Sound Economy [ wikipedia.org ] ) , which is where you 'll find most of the Tea Party talking points and hype begin and end .
For bonus points , Fred Koch was a founding Bircher ( yep , one of those ) .
" Now , I am not a tea-partier , I am just someone who enjoys observing politics , which brings me to my next point , has anyone else noticed that liberals and conservatives are sounding more and more like each other ?
" Democrats and Republicans sound very much the same .
The bulk of Americans are in fact " centrists " ( by our standards , not the world 's... many Europeans see our " center " as " far right " ) , and those parties both cater predominantly to them... which is really how it should be .
In any event , this has been true for centuries , and has not grown any more or less true .
Look into political issues through history and you 'll find that they were pretty much having the same arguments 120 years ago , and in very much the same manner .
" Not just this guy , but if you ignore the partisan fighting of congress in the last year , for example , and go back to the election , both McCain and Obama ( and Clinton ) had healthcare plans that were very similar .
Same with Bush 's and Obama 's stimulus plans and auto company bailouts .
" Obama actually campaigned to the left on single payer... so that one not so much .
The current plan is nearly identical to what McCain wanted ( and indeed has pretty much every Republican idea integrated ) , but they do n't want to bite because that would give the Democrats some political capital .
Of course , the Democrats have actually allowed it to stall IN SPITE of their overwhelming majority , so I have to suspect that the powers that be in both parties do n't really want it .
Conceding defeat on the * threat * of a filibuster is just lame .
Frankly I no longer support the current plan , it does n't move us any closer to an actual working single payer system... I was willing to compromise and have a public option instead , but now that even that is gone I 've got very little to be excited about and quite a bit to oppose ( mandating that I purchase private insurance through a for-profit corporation as a condition to live is BS ) .Auto bailouts and stimulus... yeah , pretty much , although I think the idea of cutting huge checks to admittedly corrupt and irresponsible financial institutions with little or no conditions attached was a monumentally stupid idea , certainly in hindsight that should have been handled better .
" I think it 's also safe to say that almost everyone in the US resented being deceived about Iraq 's WMD , and also that nearly everyone wants to stop terrorists from attacking the US if we can .
" Until about 2006 anyone who publicly suggested that the WMDs were a lie was a far-left whackjob .
I was saying that in 2001 , before we even invaded ( go figure , it turns out that Hans Blix and the UN inspectors DID know what they were doing and DID provide an accurate assessment.. who could have known ?
) , so I 've got some pretty good first-hand experience on when that particular stance became the opinion of all right-thinking Patriotic Americans ( tm ) .Anyway , I largely agree with you : which is why I am not a member of either party .
I vote for whoever has the better track record of actually running the country well , and the bottom line is that the only success on that front in my lifetime was during the Clinton era .
I may not be thrilled with all of the results ( NAFTA ) , but they beat the shit out of the alternative ( USA PATRIOT Act ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"For someone who demands such a nuanced interpretation of liberal/democrat, you sure seem ignorant of what the tea party actually is.
The tea party is a group of people, some crazy and some not, who are united by a desire for a sound fiscal policy.
They are not happy with the Bush era policies (the people who are happy with that are the die hard Republicans, not the tea partiers; not the same thing) They also like dressing up in costume, which, if you live in San Francisco at least, shouldn't be too foreign to a liberal.
In fact, your very next quote sounds exactly like it could come from a tea party:"HAHAHAHAHA.
No, not really.
We have tea partiers here, I've met some... they're just mainstream Republicans who are ashamed (with good reason) to admit it.
Seriously, they supported Scott Brown... he's an empty suit Romney clone, it doesn't get any more Karl Rove Republican than that.How about this, follow the money: the Tea Party has a lot of corporate sponsors, just where do you think the money comes from to pay the various think tanks, lobbyist groups and advertisers?
Personal donations?
Poke around and you'll find that, among others, Koch Industries [wikipedia.org] has been bank-rolling quite a bit of it.
They founded both Americans for Prosperity [wikipedia.org] and FreedomWorks [wikipedia.org] (via the now defunct Citizens For A Sound Economy [wikipedia.org]), which is where you'll find most of the Tea Party talking points and hype begin and end.
For bonus points, Fred Koch was a founding Bircher (yep, one of those).
"Now, I am not a tea-partier, I am just someone who enjoys observing politics, which brings me to my next point, has anyone else noticed that liberals and conservatives are sounding more and more like each other?
"Democrats and Republicans sound very much the same.
The bulk of Americans are in fact "centrists" (by our standards, not the world's... many Europeans see our "center" as "far right"), and those parties both cater predominantly to them... which is really how it should be.
In any event, this has been true for centuries, and has not grown any more or less true.
Look into political issues through history and you'll find that they were pretty much having the same arguments 120 years ago, and in very much the same manner.
"Not just this guy, but if you ignore the partisan fighting of congress in the last year, for example, and go back to the election, both McCain and Obama (and Clinton) had healthcare plans that were very similar.
Same with Bush's and Obama's stimulus plans and auto company bailouts.
"Obama actually campaigned to the left on single payer... so that one not so much.
The current plan is nearly identical to what McCain wanted (and indeed has pretty much every Republican idea integrated), but they don't want to bite because that would give the Democrats some political capital.
Of course, the Democrats have actually allowed it to stall IN SPITE of their overwhelming majority, so I have to suspect that the powers that be in both parties don't really want it.
Conceding defeat on the *threat* of a filibuster is just lame.
Frankly I no longer support the current plan, it doesn't move us any closer to an actual working single payer system... I was willing to compromise and have a public option instead, but now that even that is gone I've got very little to be excited about and quite a bit to oppose (mandating that I purchase private insurance through a for-profit corporation as a condition to live is BS).Auto bailouts and stimulus... yeah, pretty much, although I think the idea of cutting huge checks to admittedly corrupt and irresponsible financial institutions with little or no conditions attached was a monumentally stupid idea, certainly in hindsight that should have been handled better.
"I think it's also safe to say that almost everyone in the US resented being deceived about Iraq's WMD, and also that nearly everyone wants to stop terrorists from attacking the US if we can.
"Until about 2006 anyone who publicly suggested that the WMDs were a lie was a far-left whackjob.
I was saying that in 2001, before we even invaded (go figure, it turns out that Hans Blix and the UN inspectors DID know what they were doing and DID provide an accurate assessment.. who could have known?
), so I've got some pretty good first-hand experience on when that particular stance became the opinion of all right-thinking Patriotic Americans (tm).Anyway, I largely agree with you: which is why I am not a member of either party.
I vote for whoever has the better track record of actually running the country well, and the bottom line is that the only success on that front in my lifetime was during the Clinton era.
I may not be thrilled with all of the results (NAFTA), but they beat the shit out of the alternative (USA PATRIOT Act).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131232</id>
	<title>Re:Space exploration is conservative.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266067740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly right! No conservative would stand for this new plan. That's why they all hate it.</p><p>Here's what stupid liberals think,</p><p>"the new spending plan takes NASA back to its roots of advanced technology development, experimentation and exploration. "</p><p>What a stupid statement. Typical idiot liberal Newt Gingrich.</p><p><a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/12/obamas-brave-reboot-for-nasa/" title="washingtontimes.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/12/obamas-brave-reboot-for-nasa/</a> [washingtontimes.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly right !
No conservative would stand for this new plan .
That 's why they all hate it.Here 's what stupid liberals think , " the new spending plan takes NASA back to its roots of advanced technology development , experimentation and exploration .
" What a stupid statement .
Typical idiot liberal Newt Gingrich.http : //www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/12/obamas-brave-reboot-for-nasa/ [ washingtontimes.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly right!
No conservative would stand for this new plan.
That's why they all hate it.Here's what stupid liberals think,"the new spending plan takes NASA back to its roots of advanced technology development, experimentation and exploration.
"What a stupid statement.
Typical idiot liberal Newt Gingrich.http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/12/obamas-brave-reboot-for-nasa/ [washingtontimes.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130198</id>
	<title>Re:libertarian</title>
	<author>FooAtWFU</author>
	<datestamp>1266058140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd like to hear about this purported 15\% productivity boost which high-speed passenger rail would supposedly bring us. Last I heard about those studies, it was something like this regarding California's high speed rail...<blockquote><div><p>The rail authority assumes that between 88 million and 117 million people will ride the trains each year. To put that in perspective, consider that the entire annual ridership of the Amtrak system, which includes 21,000 miles of routes and more than 500 destinations in 46 states, is less than 29 million. Amtrak's high-speed Acela Express service, which runs from Washington, D.C., to New York City to Boston, serves a larger and denser market than the planned California system and only commands a ridership of a little more than 3 million passengers a year.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
<a href="http://reason.org/news/show/california-voters-were-railroa" title="reason.org">http://reason.org/news/show/california-voters-were-railroa</a> [reason.org] </p><p>
Okay, okay, that's the Reason Foundation talking, and we know they're a bunch of libertarian loonies. But what about someone more sympathetic?</p><blockquote><div><p>Even the pro-high-speed-rail California Rail Foundation found the project lacking, with its representative telling senators, "We can't believe any of the numbers presented in the business plan."</p></div></blockquote><p> <a href="http://www.sacbee.com/politics/story/2484870.html" title="sacbee.com">http://www.sacbee.com/politics/story/2484870.html</a> [sacbee.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to hear about this purported 15 \ % productivity boost which high-speed passenger rail would supposedly bring us .
Last I heard about those studies , it was something like this regarding California 's high speed rail...The rail authority assumes that between 88 million and 117 million people will ride the trains each year .
To put that in perspective , consider that the entire annual ridership of the Amtrak system , which includes 21,000 miles of routes and more than 500 destinations in 46 states , is less than 29 million .
Amtrak 's high-speed Acela Express service , which runs from Washington , D.C. , to New York City to Boston , serves a larger and denser market than the planned California system and only commands a ridership of a little more than 3 million passengers a year .
http : //reason.org/news/show/california-voters-were-railroa [ reason.org ] Okay , okay , that 's the Reason Foundation talking , and we know they 're a bunch of libertarian loonies .
But what about someone more sympathetic ? Even the pro-high-speed-rail California Rail Foundation found the project lacking , with its representative telling senators , " We ca n't believe any of the numbers presented in the business plan .
" http : //www.sacbee.com/politics/story/2484870.html [ sacbee.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to hear about this purported 15\% productivity boost which high-speed passenger rail would supposedly bring us.
Last I heard about those studies, it was something like this regarding California's high speed rail...The rail authority assumes that between 88 million and 117 million people will ride the trains each year.
To put that in perspective, consider that the entire annual ridership of the Amtrak system, which includes 21,000 miles of routes and more than 500 destinations in 46 states, is less than 29 million.
Amtrak's high-speed Acela Express service, which runs from Washington, D.C., to New York City to Boston, serves a larger and denser market than the planned California system and only commands a ridership of a little more than 3 million passengers a year.
http://reason.org/news/show/california-voters-were-railroa [reason.org] 
Okay, okay, that's the Reason Foundation talking, and we know they're a bunch of libertarian loonies.
But what about someone more sympathetic?Even the pro-high-speed-rail California Rail Foundation found the project lacking, with its representative telling senators, "We can't believe any of the numbers presented in the business plan.
" http://www.sacbee.com/politics/story/2484870.html [sacbee.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31176646</id>
	<title>Re:Obama, space plan?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265021280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Allow me to provide you with a counterexample.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Old\_Negro\_Space\_Program" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Old\_Negro\_Space\_Program</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Allow me to provide you with a counterexample.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The \ _Old \ _Negro \ _Space \ _Program [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Allow me to provide you with a counterexample.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Old\_Negro\_Space\_Program [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129502</id>
	<title>wha?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266052740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you got rid of all the scientific bloat on NASA's budget there would be plenty of money for moon and mars, and science will follow.</p></div><p>Wha? You mean like the Hubble Space telescope, the Terrestrial Planet Finder, the New Horizons probe and the Spirit mars rover? How about all that perfectly good money wasted on expensive, can not afford to fail humans? What science has that multibillion dollar space station generated?</p><p>The US has the Titan and Atlas rockets. SpaceX will get the Falcon 9 fully tested in the next few years. Then there is the Ariane rocket series from Europe and the Russian rockets. China is developing its Long March Rockets and India will have working Rockets in a decade or so. The US does not need any more rockets.</p><p>The US should get out of manned flight, hand the science over to the NSF and turn NASA back into an airplane reserach organization.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you got rid of all the scientific bloat on NASA 's budget there would be plenty of money for moon and mars , and science will follow.Wha ?
You mean like the Hubble Space telescope , the Terrestrial Planet Finder , the New Horizons probe and the Spirit mars rover ?
How about all that perfectly good money wasted on expensive , can not afford to fail humans ?
What science has that multibillion dollar space station generated ? The US has the Titan and Atlas rockets .
SpaceX will get the Falcon 9 fully tested in the next few years .
Then there is the Ariane rocket series from Europe and the Russian rockets .
China is developing its Long March Rockets and India will have working Rockets in a decade or so .
The US does not need any more rockets.The US should get out of manned flight , hand the science over to the NSF and turn NASA back into an airplane reserach organization .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you got rid of all the scientific bloat on NASA's budget there would be plenty of money for moon and mars, and science will follow.Wha?
You mean like the Hubble Space telescope, the Terrestrial Planet Finder, the New Horizons probe and the Spirit mars rover?
How about all that perfectly good money wasted on expensive, can not afford to fail humans?
What science has that multibillion dollar space station generated?The US has the Titan and Atlas rockets.
SpaceX will get the Falcon 9 fully tested in the next few years.
Then there is the Ariane rocket series from Europe and the Russian rockets.
China is developing its Long March Rockets and India will have working Rockets in a decade or so.
The US does not need any more rockets.The US should get out of manned flight, hand the science over to the NSF and turn NASA back into an airplane reserach organization.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129842</id>
	<title>Re:libertarian</title>
	<author>DigiShaman</author>
	<datestamp>1266054960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've always envisioned NASA being the space version of the FAA. Except that's not what's happening here. NASA not only oversees the USA getting into space, but they're also in charge of making the vehicles, piloting, and booking flights/cargo into space. In its current form, how can NASA not be bureaucratic? The role of NASA needs to be changed to a more basic level to that of the FAA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've always envisioned NASA being the space version of the FAA .
Except that 's not what 's happening here .
NASA not only oversees the USA getting into space , but they 're also in charge of making the vehicles , piloting , and booking flights/cargo into space .
In its current form , how can NASA not be bureaucratic ?
The role of NASA needs to be changed to a more basic level to that of the FAA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've always envisioned NASA being the space version of the FAA.
Except that's not what's happening here.
NASA not only oversees the USA getting into space, but they're also in charge of making the vehicles, piloting, and booking flights/cargo into space.
In its current form, how can NASA not be bureaucratic?
The role of NASA needs to be changed to a more basic level to that of the FAA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129718</id>
	<title>Re:Space is critical</title>
	<author>twiddlingbits</author>
	<datestamp>1266054180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Space Station was cancelled, restarted, delayed, changed, funding cut, etc. in the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s and so on. There NEVER was a "clear vision" for WHY we neede ISS other than a place for the Shuttle to go. I worked on at least two iterations of "ISS". The moon mission was a side effect of the Cold War and somewhat a legacy of JFK. There was some really cool inventions that came out of the program and were commercialized and lots of technology invented that went on to be used for many years.

Right now, the leaders in invention and technology for Space is in the commercial sector, but there is not a heavy lift  MAN-RATED launch platform in the US commerical or NASA inventory at this time. There were some other alternatives that were proposed that were strictly heavy lift for manned missions but they were shot down for the Aries that was more "scalable" for many types of missions. This was a mistake as those other missions are being filled right now by commerical ventures like Atlas and Titan IV. Maybe it was a case of NASA wanted the whole launch "business" to itself like back in the 1960s. If the program was refocused on building a simple, efffective man-rated heavy lift launch vehicle (think Saturn V but modern) I think something could be ready in a few years. Granted we might have to "license" some engine technology from the Russians but it is doable. Spending more $$$ on R&amp;D isn't going to progress anything. A TON of research was done in the 1960s and 1970s that can be reused, updated and put into practice, there really isn't a lot of NEW things the R&amp;D money is going to invent. Just a different kind of "pork".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Space Station was cancelled , restarted , delayed , changed , funding cut , etc .
in the 1980s , 1990s , 2000s and so on .
There NEVER was a " clear vision " for WHY we neede ISS other than a place for the Shuttle to go .
I worked on at least two iterations of " ISS " .
The moon mission was a side effect of the Cold War and somewhat a legacy of JFK .
There was some really cool inventions that came out of the program and were commercialized and lots of technology invented that went on to be used for many years .
Right now , the leaders in invention and technology for Space is in the commercial sector , but there is not a heavy lift MAN-RATED launch platform in the US commerical or NASA inventory at this time .
There were some other alternatives that were proposed that were strictly heavy lift for manned missions but they were shot down for the Aries that was more " scalable " for many types of missions .
This was a mistake as those other missions are being filled right now by commerical ventures like Atlas and Titan IV .
Maybe it was a case of NASA wanted the whole launch " business " to itself like back in the 1960s .
If the program was refocused on building a simple , efffective man-rated heavy lift launch vehicle ( think Saturn V but modern ) I think something could be ready in a few years .
Granted we might have to " license " some engine technology from the Russians but it is doable .
Spending more $ $ $ on R&amp;D is n't going to progress anything .
A TON of research was done in the 1960s and 1970s that can be reused , updated and put into practice , there really is n't a lot of NEW things the R&amp;D money is going to invent .
Just a different kind of " pork " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Space Station was cancelled, restarted, delayed, changed, funding cut, etc.
in the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s and so on.
There NEVER was a "clear vision" for WHY we neede ISS other than a place for the Shuttle to go.
I worked on at least two iterations of "ISS".
The moon mission was a side effect of the Cold War and somewhat a legacy of JFK.
There was some really cool inventions that came out of the program and were commercialized and lots of technology invented that went on to be used for many years.
Right now, the leaders in invention and technology for Space is in the commercial sector, but there is not a heavy lift  MAN-RATED launch platform in the US commerical or NASA inventory at this time.
There were some other alternatives that were proposed that were strictly heavy lift for manned missions but they were shot down for the Aries that was more "scalable" for many types of missions.
This was a mistake as those other missions are being filled right now by commerical ventures like Atlas and Titan IV.
Maybe it was a case of NASA wanted the whole launch "business" to itself like back in the 1960s.
If the program was refocused on building a simple, efffective man-rated heavy lift launch vehicle (think Saturn V but modern) I think something could be ready in a few years.
Granted we might have to "license" some engine technology from the Russians but it is doable.
Spending more $$$ on R&amp;D isn't going to progress anything.
A TON of research was done in the 1960s and 1970s that can be reused, updated and put into practice, there really isn't a lot of NEW things the R&amp;D money is going to invent.
Just a different kind of "pork".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129704</id>
	<title>JOBS!</title>
	<author>tedpixie</author>
	<datestamp>1266054060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why don't you americans see that this is a great way to create jobs!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't you americans see that this is a great way to create jobs !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't you americans see that this is a great way to create jobs!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129278</id>
	<title>Space is critical</title>
	<author>salesgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1266094320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I always love debates on the space program.  Lots of big ideas, but what is missing is leadership.  What made NASA so successful in the 1960s and 1970s was that there was a clear objective: put a man on the moon.  Build a reusable launch system.  Put up a space station.  The problem is that there are no real national goals with space, so it is exceedingly difficult to sell, say a heavy launch vehicle.  Put some goals in, and suddenly money becomes easy because people buy into the grand plan.  Say the goal is to put a permanent colony on the moon - or to put a man on Mars. Suddenly there is context and justification for spending, inventions to invent, and what is science suddenly turns into applied science.</p><p>Our politicians need to lead, not look for the people to lead them when it comes to space.  An ambitious space program is just what is needed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I always love debates on the space program .
Lots of big ideas , but what is missing is leadership .
What made NASA so successful in the 1960s and 1970s was that there was a clear objective : put a man on the moon .
Build a reusable launch system .
Put up a space station .
The problem is that there are no real national goals with space , so it is exceedingly difficult to sell , say a heavy launch vehicle .
Put some goals in , and suddenly money becomes easy because people buy into the grand plan .
Say the goal is to put a permanent colony on the moon - or to put a man on Mars .
Suddenly there is context and justification for spending , inventions to invent , and what is science suddenly turns into applied science.Our politicians need to lead , not look for the people to lead them when it comes to space .
An ambitious space program is just what is needed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always love debates on the space program.
Lots of big ideas, but what is missing is leadership.
What made NASA so successful in the 1960s and 1970s was that there was a clear objective: put a man on the moon.
Build a reusable launch system.
Put up a space station.
The problem is that there are no real national goals with space, so it is exceedingly difficult to sell, say a heavy launch vehicle.
Put some goals in, and suddenly money becomes easy because people buy into the grand plan.
Say the goal is to put a permanent colony on the moon - or to put a man on Mars.
Suddenly there is context and justification for spending, inventions to invent, and what is science suddenly turns into applied science.Our politicians need to lead, not look for the people to lead them when it comes to space.
An ambitious space program is just what is needed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129728</id>
	<title>Re:Easy enough to balance the budget</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1266054240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was under the impression that unemployment was paid for by the "employers" (i.e. the employees don't see this part of their compensation on their paycheck), though i'll confess I don't really understand the system.</p><p>Where are you getting these savings from, though?  It's well and good to slash everything by 20\%, but since you're not proposing <em>canceling</em> those programs for idealogical reasons, you must have some reason why you believe they can accomplish the same goals with less funding.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was under the impression that unemployment was paid for by the " employers " ( i.e .
the employees do n't see this part of their compensation on their paycheck ) , though i 'll confess I do n't really understand the system.Where are you getting these savings from , though ?
It 's well and good to slash everything by 20 \ % , but since you 're not proposing canceling those programs for idealogical reasons , you must have some reason why you believe they can accomplish the same goals with less funding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was under the impression that unemployment was paid for by the "employers" (i.e.
the employees don't see this part of their compensation on their paycheck), though i'll confess I don't really understand the system.Where are you getting these savings from, though?
It's well and good to slash everything by 20\%, but since you're not proposing canceling those programs for idealogical reasons, you must have some reason why you believe they can accomplish the same goals with less funding.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130132</id>
	<title>Re:libertarian</title>
	<author>jstults</author>
	<datestamp>1266057660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Funding NASA helps fund the research and development that allows for the possibility of creating that infrastructure we so desperately need up in space in order to do any of it.</p></div><p>I'd argue funding NASA prevents the creation of infrastructure (gun / laser launch, systems of tethers / rotovators) because NASA can afford one-off rocket shots which result in <i>no</i> residual infrastructure, whereas private industry would have to be smarter (to be affordable).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Funding NASA helps fund the research and development that allows for the possibility of creating that infrastructure we so desperately need up in space in order to do any of it.I 'd argue funding NASA prevents the creation of infrastructure ( gun / laser launch , systems of tethers / rotovators ) because NASA can afford one-off rocket shots which result in no residual infrastructure , whereas private industry would have to be smarter ( to be affordable ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funding NASA helps fund the research and development that allows for the possibility of creating that infrastructure we so desperately need up in space in order to do any of it.I'd argue funding NASA prevents the creation of infrastructure (gun / laser launch, systems of tethers / rotovators) because NASA can afford one-off rocket shots which result in no residual infrastructure, whereas private industry would have to be smarter (to be affordable).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129592</id>
	<title>Re:Space is critical</title>
	<author>0123456</author>
	<datestamp>1266053340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What made NASA so successful in the 1960s and 1970s was that there was a clear objective: put a man on the moon.</p></div><p>I disagree. That 'clear objective' led to a system totally designed to meet that objective which was cancelled even before the last man walked on the Moon... the objective was achieved, but nothing lasting was left behind.</p><p>NASA's work in the aeronautical realm doesn't seem to have many 'clear objectives', but it's almost certainly been far more beneficial in the long term than anything they've done in manned spaceflight. If government has any role in manned spaceflight it should be in researching new technology that will have long-term benefits, not sending burrowcrats to Mars on a one-off spacecraft that will never fly again.</p><p>Though admittedly there are probably plenty of burrowcrats who'd be better off on Mars if we could just ensure they'd never get back.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What made NASA so successful in the 1960s and 1970s was that there was a clear objective : put a man on the moon.I disagree .
That 'clear objective ' led to a system totally designed to meet that objective which was cancelled even before the last man walked on the Moon... the objective was achieved , but nothing lasting was left behind.NASA 's work in the aeronautical realm does n't seem to have many 'clear objectives ' , but it 's almost certainly been far more beneficial in the long term than anything they 've done in manned spaceflight .
If government has any role in manned spaceflight it should be in researching new technology that will have long-term benefits , not sending burrowcrats to Mars on a one-off spacecraft that will never fly again.Though admittedly there are probably plenty of burrowcrats who 'd be better off on Mars if we could just ensure they 'd never get back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What made NASA so successful in the 1960s and 1970s was that there was a clear objective: put a man on the moon.I disagree.
That 'clear objective' led to a system totally designed to meet that objective which was cancelled even before the last man walked on the Moon... the objective was achieved, but nothing lasting was left behind.NASA's work in the aeronautical realm doesn't seem to have many 'clear objectives', but it's almost certainly been far more beneficial in the long term than anything they've done in manned spaceflight.
If government has any role in manned spaceflight it should be in researching new technology that will have long-term benefits, not sending burrowcrats to Mars on a one-off spacecraft that will never fly again.Though admittedly there are probably plenty of burrowcrats who'd be better off on Mars if we could just ensure they'd never get back.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31132594</id>
	<title>Re:Easy enough to balance the budget</title>
	<author>FranTaylor</author>
	<datestamp>1266084960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks for the great post.</p><p>I would mod you up if I could.</p><p>Very insightful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for the great post.I would mod you up if I could.Very insightful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for the great post.I would mod you up if I could.Very insightful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131986</id>
	<title>Re:Easy enough to balance the budget</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266076500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>See, the conservative mindset is that lack of success is a moral failure on the part of the failed</em></p><p>I have never met a conservative who believed that. I don't think I have ever read a conservative who believed that - not a modern one anyway.  There might be some theological odd balls out there somewhere who believe that all success is a sign of divine favor, but that is too much for even (most) Calvinists to swallow. It is like claiming God favored both Pearl Harbor and Nagasaki, or Borodino and Waterloo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See , the conservative mindset is that lack of success is a moral failure on the part of the failedI have never met a conservative who believed that .
I do n't think I have ever read a conservative who believed that - not a modern one anyway .
There might be some theological odd balls out there somewhere who believe that all success is a sign of divine favor , but that is too much for even ( most ) Calvinists to swallow .
It is like claiming God favored both Pearl Harbor and Nagasaki , or Borodino and Waterloo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See, the conservative mindset is that lack of success is a moral failure on the part of the failedI have never met a conservative who believed that.
I don't think I have ever read a conservative who believed that - not a modern one anyway.
There might be some theological odd balls out there somewhere who believe that all success is a sign of divine favor, but that is too much for even (most) Calvinists to swallow.
It is like claiming God favored both Pearl Harbor and Nagasaki, or Borodino and Waterloo.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129442</id>
	<title>It's easy to spot the *real* conservatives</title>
	<author>peacefinder</author>
	<datestamp>1266052440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're the ones cheering at the cancellation of Pork In Space.</p><p>I'd certainly like to see a viable human spaceflight program, building our way out to Luna, Mars, and beyond. Problem is, Constellation wasn't it. Constellation was treated as an excuse to pay aerospace giants megatons of money to develop a new launcher which would - at best - just barely achieve its aims. NASA appears to no longer be capable of serious launcher development, because the industry lobbyists own the politicians, and the politicians own the engineers specifying how the industry's products must perform. I am dead certain NASA engineers can do fine, fine work, but they haven't been free to do what they do best.</p><p>With the new approach, this counterproductive cycle is at least interrupted and hopefully broken.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're the ones cheering at the cancellation of Pork In Space.I 'd certainly like to see a viable human spaceflight program , building our way out to Luna , Mars , and beyond .
Problem is , Constellation was n't it .
Constellation was treated as an excuse to pay aerospace giants megatons of money to develop a new launcher which would - at best - just barely achieve its aims .
NASA appears to no longer be capable of serious launcher development , because the industry lobbyists own the politicians , and the politicians own the engineers specifying how the industry 's products must perform .
I am dead certain NASA engineers can do fine , fine work , but they have n't been free to do what they do best.With the new approach , this counterproductive cycle is at least interrupted and hopefully broken .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're the ones cheering at the cancellation of Pork In Space.I'd certainly like to see a viable human spaceflight program, building our way out to Luna, Mars, and beyond.
Problem is, Constellation wasn't it.
Constellation was treated as an excuse to pay aerospace giants megatons of money to develop a new launcher which would - at best - just barely achieve its aims.
NASA appears to no longer be capable of serious launcher development, because the industry lobbyists own the politicians, and the politicians own the engineers specifying how the industry's products must perform.
I am dead certain NASA engineers can do fine, fine work, but they haven't been free to do what they do best.With the new approach, this counterproductive cycle is at least interrupted and hopefully broken.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130050</id>
	<title>Very misleading summary</title>
	<author>FleaPlus</author>
	<datestamp>1266056880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article submitter, Mark Whittington, is pretty well known on various space blogs for  distorting the facts (to put it lightly) when it comes to space policy. Unfortunately, this submission is no exception. Here's a line-by-line of his summary:<p><div class="quote"><p>"The Obama space proposal, which seeks to enable a commercial space industry for transportation to and from low Earth orbit</p></div><p>So far true, although there are other parts of the proposal.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>while it cancels space exploration beyond LEO,</p></div><p>This is just plain incorrect. It cancels one particular program, which was widely regarded as badly mismanaged and possessing many inherent problems. The Constellation/Ares program also suppressed any research into technologies which weren't seen as immediately relevant to the specific lunar return scheme the former NASA administrator had in mind, with several perfectly good programs getting canceled to pay for the increasingly overbudget and behind schedule Constellation program. It replaces it with a plan initially focused on developing the technologies critical for sustainable exploration of Mars and the rest of the inner solar system.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>has sparked a kind of civil war among conservatives.</p></div><p>Well, it's sparked a civil war between those conservative who either have a financial interest in the status quo or are stuck in a cold war-style lust for repeating Apollo. Other conservatives though, such as former House speaker (and National Space Society board member) Newt Gringrich, and former House Science &amp; Technology committee chair Robert S. Walker, <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/12/obamas-brave-reboot-for-nasa/" title="washingtontimes.com">have enthusiastically endorsed NASA's new plan</a> [washingtontimes.com], and consider it one of the few positive things to come out of the Obama administration.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Some conservatives hate the proposal because of the retreat from the high frontier and even go so far as to cast doubt on the commercial space aspects.</p></div><p>Uh, strawman much? This isn't a "retreat from the high frontier" -- NASA's getting a significant budget increase, and the new plan is much better suited for engaging in meaningful space exploration than the old one could ever have, even if it hadn't been going drastically overbudget.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Other conservatives like the commercial space part of the Obama policy and tend to gloss over the cancellation of space exploration or even denigrate the Constellation program as 'unworkable' or 'unsustainable.'"</p></div><p>They denigrate it as 'unworkable' and 'unsustainable' because it quite simply was. It had already spent $9 billion just to try to produce yet another medium-lift rocket (the US has had at least two medium-lift rockets already in regular operation for many years now), which only passed its preliminary design review several years late through some fairly blatant bending of the readiness/safety criteria. Independent analysis by the Augustine Committee found that the current program wouldn't even produce its medium-lift booster until 2017-2019, and wouldn't produce a lunar landing until sometime in the late 2030s. At that point all you'd have is an Apollo repeat without any new technological capabilities, since the plan was specifically devised to avoid any new tech development.

That seems pretty much by definition 'unworkable' and 'unsustainable.' NASA's new plan is far superior by pretty much any possible metric, with the possible exception of not delivering as much money in the short-term to Alabama.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article submitter , Mark Whittington , is pretty well known on various space blogs for distorting the facts ( to put it lightly ) when it comes to space policy .
Unfortunately , this submission is no exception .
Here 's a line-by-line of his summary : " The Obama space proposal , which seeks to enable a commercial space industry for transportation to and from low Earth orbitSo far true , although there are other parts of the proposal.while it cancels space exploration beyond LEO,This is just plain incorrect .
It cancels one particular program , which was widely regarded as badly mismanaged and possessing many inherent problems .
The Constellation/Ares program also suppressed any research into technologies which were n't seen as immediately relevant to the specific lunar return scheme the former NASA administrator had in mind , with several perfectly good programs getting canceled to pay for the increasingly overbudget and behind schedule Constellation program .
It replaces it with a plan initially focused on developing the technologies critical for sustainable exploration of Mars and the rest of the inner solar system.has sparked a kind of civil war among conservatives.Well , it 's sparked a civil war between those conservative who either have a financial interest in the status quo or are stuck in a cold war-style lust for repeating Apollo .
Other conservatives though , such as former House speaker ( and National Space Society board member ) Newt Gringrich , and former House Science &amp; Technology committee chair Robert S. Walker , have enthusiastically endorsed NASA 's new plan [ washingtontimes.com ] , and consider it one of the few positive things to come out of the Obama administration.Some conservatives hate the proposal because of the retreat from the high frontier and even go so far as to cast doubt on the commercial space aspects.Uh , strawman much ?
This is n't a " retreat from the high frontier " -- NASA 's getting a significant budget increase , and the new plan is much better suited for engaging in meaningful space exploration than the old one could ever have , even if it had n't been going drastically overbudget.Other conservatives like the commercial space part of the Obama policy and tend to gloss over the cancellation of space exploration or even denigrate the Constellation program as 'unworkable ' or 'unsustainable .
' " They denigrate it as 'unworkable ' and 'unsustainable ' because it quite simply was .
It had already spent $ 9 billion just to try to produce yet another medium-lift rocket ( the US has had at least two medium-lift rockets already in regular operation for many years now ) , which only passed its preliminary design review several years late through some fairly blatant bending of the readiness/safety criteria .
Independent analysis by the Augustine Committee found that the current program would n't even produce its medium-lift booster until 2017-2019 , and would n't produce a lunar landing until sometime in the late 2030s .
At that point all you 'd have is an Apollo repeat without any new technological capabilities , since the plan was specifically devised to avoid any new tech development .
That seems pretty much by definition 'unworkable ' and 'unsustainable .
' NASA 's new plan is far superior by pretty much any possible metric , with the possible exception of not delivering as much money in the short-term to Alabama .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article submitter, Mark Whittington, is pretty well known on various space blogs for  distorting the facts (to put it lightly) when it comes to space policy.
Unfortunately, this submission is no exception.
Here's a line-by-line of his summary:"The Obama space proposal, which seeks to enable a commercial space industry for transportation to and from low Earth orbitSo far true, although there are other parts of the proposal.while it cancels space exploration beyond LEO,This is just plain incorrect.
It cancels one particular program, which was widely regarded as badly mismanaged and possessing many inherent problems.
The Constellation/Ares program also suppressed any research into technologies which weren't seen as immediately relevant to the specific lunar return scheme the former NASA administrator had in mind, with several perfectly good programs getting canceled to pay for the increasingly overbudget and behind schedule Constellation program.
It replaces it with a plan initially focused on developing the technologies critical for sustainable exploration of Mars and the rest of the inner solar system.has sparked a kind of civil war among conservatives.Well, it's sparked a civil war between those conservative who either have a financial interest in the status quo or are stuck in a cold war-style lust for repeating Apollo.
Other conservatives though, such as former House speaker (and National Space Society board member) Newt Gringrich, and former House Science &amp; Technology committee chair Robert S. Walker, have enthusiastically endorsed NASA's new plan [washingtontimes.com], and consider it one of the few positive things to come out of the Obama administration.Some conservatives hate the proposal because of the retreat from the high frontier and even go so far as to cast doubt on the commercial space aspects.Uh, strawman much?
This isn't a "retreat from the high frontier" -- NASA's getting a significant budget increase, and the new plan is much better suited for engaging in meaningful space exploration than the old one could ever have, even if it hadn't been going drastically overbudget.Other conservatives like the commercial space part of the Obama policy and tend to gloss over the cancellation of space exploration or even denigrate the Constellation program as 'unworkable' or 'unsustainable.
'"They denigrate it as 'unworkable' and 'unsustainable' because it quite simply was.
It had already spent $9 billion just to try to produce yet another medium-lift rocket (the US has had at least two medium-lift rockets already in regular operation for many years now), which only passed its preliminary design review several years late through some fairly blatant bending of the readiness/safety criteria.
Independent analysis by the Augustine Committee found that the current program wouldn't even produce its medium-lift booster until 2017-2019, and wouldn't produce a lunar landing until sometime in the late 2030s.
At that point all you'd have is an Apollo repeat without any new technological capabilities, since the plan was specifically devised to avoid any new tech development.
That seems pretty much by definition 'unworkable' and 'unsustainable.
' NASA's new plan is far superior by pretty much any possible metric, with the possible exception of not delivering as much money in the short-term to Alabama.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129270</id>
	<title>Shorter Republicans: NONONONONONO</title>
	<author>Mix+Master+Nixon</author>
	<datestamp>1266094200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Obama was smart, he'd publicly endorse air, leading immediately to the entire Republican party boycotting it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Obama was smart , he 'd publicly endorse air , leading immediately to the entire Republican party boycotting it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Obama was smart, he'd publicly endorse air, leading immediately to the entire Republican party boycotting it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31134162</id>
	<title>Re:I'll say it again</title>
	<author>rbanffy</author>
	<datestamp>1266159720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed.</p><p>If you buy a new LCD TV, a new Bluray player or a new computer with recovery money, you are probably financing China.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed.If you buy a new LCD TV , a new Bluray player or a new computer with recovery money , you are probably financing China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed.If you buy a new LCD TV, a new Bluray player or a new computer with recovery money, you are probably financing China.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31133456</id>
	<title>Re:Space exploration is conservative.</title>
	<author>drsquare</author>
	<datestamp>1266145500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The tea party is a group of people, some crazy and some not, who are united by a desire for a sound fiscal policy. They are not happy with the Bush era policies</p></div></blockquote><p>Then where were they during the Bush era?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The tea party is a group of people , some crazy and some not , who are united by a desire for a sound fiscal policy .
They are not happy with the Bush era policiesThen where were they during the Bush era ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The tea party is a group of people, some crazy and some not, who are united by a desire for a sound fiscal policy.
They are not happy with the Bush era policiesThen where were they during the Bush era?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129476</id>
	<title>Re:Space exploration is conservative.</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1266052560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The idea that manned missions (don't call sending humans "exploration" we can do that longer, better, and more often with remotely operated systems) are what to do before perfecting machines that man will \_require\_ anyway is silly.</p><p>Let's compare space exploration to the other high-tech human pastime, which is war. It is cheaper and safer to remove humans to safe operating locations and send UAVs on air missions. UAVs have long loiter time, and no big deal if one is destroyed. Operators can swap out at home station, and if one is ill or dies it doesn't affect the mission. Likewise, bomb disposal with robots allows seeing and manipulating unfriendly devices with fewer deathy outcomes.</p><p>Space is an utterly hostile environment. Robots and remotely operated vehicles are more useful to humans NOW than is space exploration in its current state, and the better robots we build to explore space the better robots we will have on Earth. If we want to lead in tech, robots are one way to do that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea that manned missions ( do n't call sending humans " exploration " we can do that longer , better , and more often with remotely operated systems ) are what to do before perfecting machines that man will \ _require \ _ anyway is silly.Let 's compare space exploration to the other high-tech human pastime , which is war .
It is cheaper and safer to remove humans to safe operating locations and send UAVs on air missions .
UAVs have long loiter time , and no big deal if one is destroyed .
Operators can swap out at home station , and if one is ill or dies it does n't affect the mission .
Likewise , bomb disposal with robots allows seeing and manipulating unfriendly devices with fewer deathy outcomes.Space is an utterly hostile environment .
Robots and remotely operated vehicles are more useful to humans NOW than is space exploration in its current state , and the better robots we build to explore space the better robots we will have on Earth .
If we want to lead in tech , robots are one way to do that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea that manned missions (don't call sending humans "exploration" we can do that longer, better, and more often with remotely operated systems) are what to do before perfecting machines that man will \_require\_ anyway is silly.Let's compare space exploration to the other high-tech human pastime, which is war.
It is cheaper and safer to remove humans to safe operating locations and send UAVs on air missions.
UAVs have long loiter time, and no big deal if one is destroyed.
Operators can swap out at home station, and if one is ill or dies it doesn't affect the mission.
Likewise, bomb disposal with robots allows seeing and manipulating unfriendly devices with fewer deathy outcomes.Space is an utterly hostile environment.
Robots and remotely operated vehicles are more useful to humans NOW than is space exploration in its current state, and the better robots we build to explore space the better robots we will have on Earth.
If we want to lead in tech, robots are one way to do that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129210</id>
	<title>What NASA does</title>
	<author>Usually Unlucky </author>
	<datestamp>1266093840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>To me Obama's plan sounds like this<br><br>'Here is a bunch of money, more than you usually get. I want you to spend it, but I don't want you to do anything with it.'<br><br>Which is essentially how the rest of the scientific community works. But there are thousands of Universities and private labs who already do that work.<br><br>NASA is the only organization in the world that can do what it did, manned exploration of the universe.<br><br>Why don't we leave aimless R&amp;D to academia and let NASA do what it can.<br><br>If you got rid of all the scientific bloat on NASA's budget there would be plenty of money for moon and mars, and science will follow.<br><br>
&nbsp;</htmltext>
<tokenext>To me Obama 's plan sounds like this'Here is a bunch of money , more than you usually get .
I want you to spend it , but I do n't want you to do anything with it .
'Which is essentially how the rest of the scientific community works .
But there are thousands of Universities and private labs who already do that work.NASA is the only organization in the world that can do what it did , manned exploration of the universe.Why do n't we leave aimless R&amp;D to academia and let NASA do what it can.If you got rid of all the scientific bloat on NASA 's budget there would be plenty of money for moon and mars , and science will follow .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>To me Obama's plan sounds like this'Here is a bunch of money, more than you usually get.
I want you to spend it, but I don't want you to do anything with it.
'Which is essentially how the rest of the scientific community works.
But there are thousands of Universities and private labs who already do that work.NASA is the only organization in the world that can do what it did, manned exploration of the universe.Why don't we leave aimless R&amp;D to academia and let NASA do what it can.If you got rid of all the scientific bloat on NASA's budget there would be plenty of money for moon and mars, and science will follow.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130270</id>
	<title>Re:Space exploration is conservative.</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1266058800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Instead, the federal government in their eyes should not do anything until every poor person is somehow fixed.</p></div><p>Actually, I'm pretty sure that the Liberals are more on the abortion side of the issue than in the "spay and neuter" camp. In any case, those people aren't real liberals, are they? Any more than most people who call themselves "conservatives" actually are. Most Democrats <em>and</em> Republicans are actually populists.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>There's no economic benefit immediately of sending a man to explore Mars or the Moon or an Asteroid. It's a national project with payoffs in intangibles that are hard to even forsee. But it is one of those things the country must do, and keep getting better at, to get ahead.</p></div><p>To get ahead of who? Or for that matter, what? The only thing I can think of immediately is the threat of a big rock. I <em>do</em> believe that there are dividends returned from space research, but it's not clear that anything NASA is doing right now is going to lead to them. I think it's fairly clear that manned exploration of space is valuable mostly for its ability to interest people in going into astronautics, <em>at this stage</em>. And further, I think it is also fairly clear that none of our currently available means of getting into space are sustainable from any particular viewpoint. Citing military expenditures is not useful because <em>they</em> are also not sustainable. None of our military actions in many years have actually improved anyone's quality of life. Most of our military actions throughout history have been done to improve profits for the moneyed class.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>But the fact is, space exploration is dead in this administration. It just is. Democrats aren't pro-science. They are a pro-poor party these days.</p></div><p>It's called the <em>poverty industry</em> and it's a joint effort between dems and reps. Reps promote private prisons. Dems promote social welfare. Dems find new and interesting ways to stuff those prisons. Reps find new and interesting ways to cripple welfare such that it's difficult to ever get off of it. Then they each point at the other and blame them for the failure of their pet pig farms, but the pork keeps getting produced.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Exploration, as the government would do it, in the tradition of Columbus and Cook and Shepard and Armstrong,</p></div><p>Uh, what? Columbus is a total tool. He completely missed his mark and then showed up and asked the locals where the gold was. They told him to head North, and the rest is history. If he'd landed a little further North, they'd have told him South, and we'd have ended up murdering the South Americans for their land instead of the North Americans, never got any help from our neighbors to the North, and probably remained a crown colony to this day.</p><p>As for the rest, what great discoveries did we bring home from the moon? The dividend from space flight was in materials technology. We were too busy writing the book on space travel to actually write the book about space travel, and now we're studying rockets in museums to try to figure out how we did it the first time. The great achievement of putting humans in space was that it maintained interest in the space program, but that won't work today.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Once again, conservatives have to pick up the torch, because the left is so fixated on redistribution of wealth that it has forgotten how to manage a nation as a whole.</p></div><p>The right is responsible for our military spending, which is the largest expenditure. Social welfare doesn't even come close. Allowing a small percentage of the population to control the largest percentage of the wealth causes real economic problems. But neither the left nor the right is working to abolish the legal fiction of <strong>The Corporation</strong>, which is really the biggest part of how we got where we are today.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Sometimes people have to be left behind, and that's what this is about.</p></div><p>That's a fiction, too. People aren't being left behind, they're being stepped on forcibly to preserve profits for a handful. There's no trickle-down when the nation's coffers are handed out in bogus "bailouts" used largely to give massive bonuses to the already-rich, and the money is taken out of the country as fast as possible.</p><p>In actuality, in order for the technological singularity to occur (or come as close as is likely possible) we must step forward together. Poor people scratching in the dirt for food aren't effectively supporting the next phase of human evolution. Sometimes you have to stop shitting on people, and offer them a hand before they can help you. Unfortunately, our welfare system does not effectively do this, and will not as long as the majority of the effort is spent to keep people down so that they cannot threaten the established social order.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead , the federal government in their eyes should not do anything until every poor person is somehow fixed.Actually , I 'm pretty sure that the Liberals are more on the abortion side of the issue than in the " spay and neuter " camp .
In any case , those people are n't real liberals , are they ?
Any more than most people who call themselves " conservatives " actually are .
Most Democrats and Republicans are actually populists.There 's no economic benefit immediately of sending a man to explore Mars or the Moon or an Asteroid .
It 's a national project with payoffs in intangibles that are hard to even forsee .
But it is one of those things the country must do , and keep getting better at , to get ahead.To get ahead of who ?
Or for that matter , what ?
The only thing I can think of immediately is the threat of a big rock .
I do believe that there are dividends returned from space research , but it 's not clear that anything NASA is doing right now is going to lead to them .
I think it 's fairly clear that manned exploration of space is valuable mostly for its ability to interest people in going into astronautics , at this stage .
And further , I think it is also fairly clear that none of our currently available means of getting into space are sustainable from any particular viewpoint .
Citing military expenditures is not useful because they are also not sustainable .
None of our military actions in many years have actually improved anyone 's quality of life .
Most of our military actions throughout history have been done to improve profits for the moneyed class.But the fact is , space exploration is dead in this administration .
It just is .
Democrats are n't pro-science .
They are a pro-poor party these days.It 's called the poverty industry and it 's a joint effort between dems and reps. Reps promote private prisons .
Dems promote social welfare .
Dems find new and interesting ways to stuff those prisons .
Reps find new and interesting ways to cripple welfare such that it 's difficult to ever get off of it .
Then they each point at the other and blame them for the failure of their pet pig farms , but the pork keeps getting produced.Exploration , as the government would do it , in the tradition of Columbus and Cook and Shepard and Armstrong,Uh , what ?
Columbus is a total tool .
He completely missed his mark and then showed up and asked the locals where the gold was .
They told him to head North , and the rest is history .
If he 'd landed a little further North , they 'd have told him South , and we 'd have ended up murdering the South Americans for their land instead of the North Americans , never got any help from our neighbors to the North , and probably remained a crown colony to this day.As for the rest , what great discoveries did we bring home from the moon ?
The dividend from space flight was in materials technology .
We were too busy writing the book on space travel to actually write the book about space travel , and now we 're studying rockets in museums to try to figure out how we did it the first time .
The great achievement of putting humans in space was that it maintained interest in the space program , but that wo n't work today.Once again , conservatives have to pick up the torch , because the left is so fixated on redistribution of wealth that it has forgotten how to manage a nation as a whole.The right is responsible for our military spending , which is the largest expenditure .
Social welfare does n't even come close .
Allowing a small percentage of the population to control the largest percentage of the wealth causes real economic problems .
But neither the left nor the right is working to abolish the legal fiction of The Corporation , which is really the biggest part of how we got where we are today.Sometimes people have to be left behind , and that 's what this is about.That 's a fiction , too .
People are n't being left behind , they 're being stepped on forcibly to preserve profits for a handful .
There 's no trickle-down when the nation 's coffers are handed out in bogus " bailouts " used largely to give massive bonuses to the already-rich , and the money is taken out of the country as fast as possible.In actuality , in order for the technological singularity to occur ( or come as close as is likely possible ) we must step forward together .
Poor people scratching in the dirt for food are n't effectively supporting the next phase of human evolution .
Sometimes you have to stop shitting on people , and offer them a hand before they can help you .
Unfortunately , our welfare system does not effectively do this , and will not as long as the majority of the effort is spent to keep people down so that they can not threaten the established social order .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead, the federal government in their eyes should not do anything until every poor person is somehow fixed.Actually, I'm pretty sure that the Liberals are more on the abortion side of the issue than in the "spay and neuter" camp.
In any case, those people aren't real liberals, are they?
Any more than most people who call themselves "conservatives" actually are.
Most Democrats and Republicans are actually populists.There's no economic benefit immediately of sending a man to explore Mars or the Moon or an Asteroid.
It's a national project with payoffs in intangibles that are hard to even forsee.
But it is one of those things the country must do, and keep getting better at, to get ahead.To get ahead of who?
Or for that matter, what?
The only thing I can think of immediately is the threat of a big rock.
I do believe that there are dividends returned from space research, but it's not clear that anything NASA is doing right now is going to lead to them.
I think it's fairly clear that manned exploration of space is valuable mostly for its ability to interest people in going into astronautics, at this stage.
And further, I think it is also fairly clear that none of our currently available means of getting into space are sustainable from any particular viewpoint.
Citing military expenditures is not useful because they are also not sustainable.
None of our military actions in many years have actually improved anyone's quality of life.
Most of our military actions throughout history have been done to improve profits for the moneyed class.But the fact is, space exploration is dead in this administration.
It just is.
Democrats aren't pro-science.
They are a pro-poor party these days.It's called the poverty industry and it's a joint effort between dems and reps. Reps promote private prisons.
Dems promote social welfare.
Dems find new and interesting ways to stuff those prisons.
Reps find new and interesting ways to cripple welfare such that it's difficult to ever get off of it.
Then they each point at the other and blame them for the failure of their pet pig farms, but the pork keeps getting produced.Exploration, as the government would do it, in the tradition of Columbus and Cook and Shepard and Armstrong,Uh, what?
Columbus is a total tool.
He completely missed his mark and then showed up and asked the locals where the gold was.
They told him to head North, and the rest is history.
If he'd landed a little further North, they'd have told him South, and we'd have ended up murdering the South Americans for their land instead of the North Americans, never got any help from our neighbors to the North, and probably remained a crown colony to this day.As for the rest, what great discoveries did we bring home from the moon?
The dividend from space flight was in materials technology.
We were too busy writing the book on space travel to actually write the book about space travel, and now we're studying rockets in museums to try to figure out how we did it the first time.
The great achievement of putting humans in space was that it maintained interest in the space program, but that won't work today.Once again, conservatives have to pick up the torch, because the left is so fixated on redistribution of wealth that it has forgotten how to manage a nation as a whole.The right is responsible for our military spending, which is the largest expenditure.
Social welfare doesn't even come close.
Allowing a small percentage of the population to control the largest percentage of the wealth causes real economic problems.
But neither the left nor the right is working to abolish the legal fiction of The Corporation, which is really the biggest part of how we got where we are today.Sometimes people have to be left behind, and that's what this is about.That's a fiction, too.
People aren't being left behind, they're being stepped on forcibly to preserve profits for a handful.
There's no trickle-down when the nation's coffers are handed out in bogus "bailouts" used largely to give massive bonuses to the already-rich, and the money is taken out of the country as fast as possible.In actuality, in order for the technological singularity to occur (or come as close as is likely possible) we must step forward together.
Poor people scratching in the dirt for food aren't effectively supporting the next phase of human evolution.
Sometimes you have to stop shitting on people, and offer them a hand before they can help you.
Unfortunately, our welfare system does not effectively do this, and will not as long as the majority of the effort is spent to keep people down so that they cannot threaten the established social order.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31143014</id>
	<title>Re:Space is critical</title>
	<author>salesgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1266241680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Skylab.</p><p>ISS is a hot mess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Skylab.ISS is a hot mess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Skylab.ISS is a hot mess.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31132212</id>
	<title>Re:Conservatives? Who cares?</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1266079680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why are we even talking about what conservatives think? The GOP has amply demonstrated that it has no interest in governing the country in good faith.</p></div><p>The GOP has conservatives??? When did this happen?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are we even talking about what conservatives think ?
The GOP has amply demonstrated that it has no interest in governing the country in good faith.The GOP has conservatives ? ? ?
When did this happen ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are we even talking about what conservatives think?
The GOP has amply demonstrated that it has no interest in governing the country in good faith.The GOP has conservatives???
When did this happen?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129732</id>
	<title>Too late</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1266054240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As discussed when Bush wanted us to go to the moon, the whole space program is a mess and it is unclear what we ought to do.  What is clear is that the money that needed to spent 10 years ago on a new human spec launch vehicles was not spent.  Certainly when Columbia was lost in 2003 it was time to fully fund what is now called the Constellation program.  The year or two delay and lack of funding and focus was irresponsible and has really left the United States with no good option for human space flight.
<p>
I would like to see the shuttle operational for as long as possible.  I would like to contract some of the ISS work out to private launch concerns.  It may be that US astronauts have to go up to the ISS on other crafts.  I would like to see more unmanned missions to more planets, and an emphasis on micro satellites that will allow a wider range of persons, down to high school students, in the US if the US is funding it, gain experience with LEO.
</p><p>
What I think I am saying that that space exploration and LEO is no longer the exclusive domain of the privileged few.  I really do know how difficult space flight is, and that things never work the way one thinks they will, so I know it is risky.  But we have to gain a broader experience.  At this point, to some extent, we are just protecting government jobs, not doing useful work.
</p><p>
The most hypocritical things I have seen is Senator Olson, who represents the JSC area, crying because people at NASA are going to lose their jobs.  Is that the job of republicans?  To save government jobs?  If there is no shuttle program, something which as decided under a republican president, they why do we need shuttle controllers?  This is like complaining that health care reform is going to cut $500 billion out of medicare, then proposing a bill that would cut $650 billion out of medicare.  NASA cannot be a jobs factory.  They have to, and have been, doing useful things.  If we want to keep the astronaut core up, then keep and expand the ISS, and let other take us up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As discussed when Bush wanted us to go to the moon , the whole space program is a mess and it is unclear what we ought to do .
What is clear is that the money that needed to spent 10 years ago on a new human spec launch vehicles was not spent .
Certainly when Columbia was lost in 2003 it was time to fully fund what is now called the Constellation program .
The year or two delay and lack of funding and focus was irresponsible and has really left the United States with no good option for human space flight .
I would like to see the shuttle operational for as long as possible .
I would like to contract some of the ISS work out to private launch concerns .
It may be that US astronauts have to go up to the ISS on other crafts .
I would like to see more unmanned missions to more planets , and an emphasis on micro satellites that will allow a wider range of persons , down to high school students , in the US if the US is funding it , gain experience with LEO .
What I think I am saying that that space exploration and LEO is no longer the exclusive domain of the privileged few .
I really do know how difficult space flight is , and that things never work the way one thinks they will , so I know it is risky .
But we have to gain a broader experience .
At this point , to some extent , we are just protecting government jobs , not doing useful work .
The most hypocritical things I have seen is Senator Olson , who represents the JSC area , crying because people at NASA are going to lose their jobs .
Is that the job of republicans ?
To save government jobs ?
If there is no shuttle program , something which as decided under a republican president , they why do we need shuttle controllers ?
This is like complaining that health care reform is going to cut $ 500 billion out of medicare , then proposing a bill that would cut $ 650 billion out of medicare .
NASA can not be a jobs factory .
They have to , and have been , doing useful things .
If we want to keep the astronaut core up , then keep and expand the ISS , and let other take us up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As discussed when Bush wanted us to go to the moon, the whole space program is a mess and it is unclear what we ought to do.
What is clear is that the money that needed to spent 10 years ago on a new human spec launch vehicles was not spent.
Certainly when Columbia was lost in 2003 it was time to fully fund what is now called the Constellation program.
The year or two delay and lack of funding and focus was irresponsible and has really left the United States with no good option for human space flight.
I would like to see the shuttle operational for as long as possible.
I would like to contract some of the ISS work out to private launch concerns.
It may be that US astronauts have to go up to the ISS on other crafts.
I would like to see more unmanned missions to more planets, and an emphasis on micro satellites that will allow a wider range of persons, down to high school students, in the US if the US is funding it, gain experience with LEO.
What I think I am saying that that space exploration and LEO is no longer the exclusive domain of the privileged few.
I really do know how difficult space flight is, and that things never work the way one thinks they will, so I know it is risky.
But we have to gain a broader experience.
At this point, to some extent, we are just protecting government jobs, not doing useful work.
The most hypocritical things I have seen is Senator Olson, who represents the JSC area, crying because people at NASA are going to lose their jobs.
Is that the job of republicans?
To save government jobs?
If there is no shuttle program, something which as decided under a republican president, they why do we need shuttle controllers?
This is like complaining that health care reform is going to cut $500 billion out of medicare, then proposing a bill that would cut $650 billion out of medicare.
NASA cannot be a jobs factory.
They have to, and have been, doing useful things.
If we want to keep the astronaut core up, then keep and expand the ISS, and let other take us up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130306</id>
	<title>Re:Space exploration is conservative.</title>
	<author>misexistentialist</author>
	<datestamp>1266058980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Every modern Republican runs as a representative of working-class America and against the northern elite Democrats, so it is hard to see how they are supposed to be an alternative. There are no moose on Mars. It's true that all of that is bullshit and they only represent wealth, but so do the Democrats, though they tend to insist that the middle-class be brought along, while the Republicans are ready to leave the bottom 95\% of the population behind. No doubt the billionaires will need a space colony once they have destroyed every human and natural organization on this planet, so it may be true that they take exploration more seriously.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every modern Republican runs as a representative of working-class America and against the northern elite Democrats , so it is hard to see how they are supposed to be an alternative .
There are no moose on Mars .
It 's true that all of that is bullshit and they only represent wealth , but so do the Democrats , though they tend to insist that the middle-class be brought along , while the Republicans are ready to leave the bottom 95 \ % of the population behind .
No doubt the billionaires will need a space colony once they have destroyed every human and natural organization on this planet , so it may be true that they take exploration more seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every modern Republican runs as a representative of working-class America and against the northern elite Democrats, so it is hard to see how they are supposed to be an alternative.
There are no moose on Mars.
It's true that all of that is bullshit and they only represent wealth, but so do the Democrats, though they tend to insist that the middle-class be brought along, while the Republicans are ready to leave the bottom 95\% of the population behind.
No doubt the billionaires will need a space colony once they have destroyed every human and natural organization on this planet, so it may be true that they take exploration more seriously.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129834</id>
	<title>Re:Easy enough to balance the budget</title>
	<author>modmans2ndcoming</author>
	<datestamp>1266054900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>School lunches and SSI Disability... so you want kids who's parents are too poor to get food for lunch to suffer more in school than they are due to their social problems, increasing the number of poor in teh country due to lack of education and you want people that are disabled to not be able to survive?</p><p>Unemployment should be modified some... people just need to get more Entrepreneurial IMHO, as for food stamps... I think they are necessary but welfare in general needs to be redesigned to transition people off of it rather than keep them on. At the moment, they are kept at about 50K per year in benefits if someone takes full assistance. If they get a job that pays half that, they lose it all.... Not much of an incentive to get off welfare.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>School lunches and SSI Disability... so you want kids who 's parents are too poor to get food for lunch to suffer more in school than they are due to their social problems , increasing the number of poor in teh country due to lack of education and you want people that are disabled to not be able to survive ? Unemployment should be modified some... people just need to get more Entrepreneurial IMHO , as for food stamps... I think they are necessary but welfare in general needs to be redesigned to transition people off of it rather than keep them on .
At the moment , they are kept at about 50K per year in benefits if someone takes full assistance .
If they get a job that pays half that , they lose it all.... Not much of an incentive to get off welfare .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>School lunches and SSI Disability... so you want kids who's parents are too poor to get food for lunch to suffer more in school than they are due to their social problems, increasing the number of poor in teh country due to lack of education and you want people that are disabled to not be able to survive?Unemployment should be modified some... people just need to get more Entrepreneurial IMHO, as for food stamps... I think they are necessary but welfare in general needs to be redesigned to transition people off of it rather than keep them on.
At the moment, they are kept at about 50K per year in benefits if someone takes full assistance.
If they get a job that pays half that, they lose it all.... Not much of an incentive to get off welfare.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31132370</id>
	<title>Question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266081720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is Obama cancelling all missions beyond LEO or all <i>manned</i> missions beyond LEO?  In any case, we can't afford an ambitious (which for NASA translates to "aimless") space program right now or in the future.  This is the sanest action Obama has taken so far.   And that's understating it because Obama is a marxist nutcase and a disaster for the country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is Obama cancelling all missions beyond LEO or all manned missions beyond LEO ?
In any case , we ca n't afford an ambitious ( which for NASA translates to " aimless " ) space program right now or in the future .
This is the sanest action Obama has taken so far .
And that 's understating it because Obama is a marxist nutcase and a disaster for the country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is Obama cancelling all missions beyond LEO or all manned missions beyond LEO?
In any case, we can't afford an ambitious (which for NASA translates to "aimless") space program right now or in the future.
This is the sanest action Obama has taken so far.
And that's understating it because Obama is a marxist nutcase and a disaster for the country.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129102</id>
	<title>Space exploration is conservative.</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1266093060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Conservatives are not opposed to federal spending when it is in the geo-political interest of the nation as whole.   Eisenhower kicked off the federal highway system.  Republicans and conservative Democrats came through with money for Apollo.  Richard Nixon, actually, Caspar Weinburger, kept the space shuttle alive, and none other than Dan Quayle intervened to keep the Space Station and Space Shuttle going when Bush the Elder proposed cutting it.</p><p>The issue with federal spending is usually around entitlements, which are a different argument that I don't want to start here.</p><p>But...</p><p>The way I read the whole killing of manned space flight is that there has been, even dating back to Apollo, this idea in liberal camps that we should not be spending any money on things like space or defense, or even roads, for that matter. Instead, the federal government in their eyes should not do anything until every poor person is somehow fixed.  Walter Mondale made this argument in the 1960s, and Barrack Obama made this argument elliptically during his campaign.  There's not a talk of the "private sector" building into space. There's no economic benefit immediately of sending a man to explore Mars or the Moon or an Asteroid.  It's a national project with payoffs in intangibles that are hard to even forsee.  But it is one of those things the country must do, and keep getting better at, to get ahead.</p><p>But the fact is, space exploration is dead in this administration. It just is.  Democrats aren't pro-science.  They are a pro-poor party these days.   Exploration, as the government would do it, in the tradition of Columbus and Cook and Shepard and Armstrong, is now dead to Democrats.  Once again, conservatives have to pick up the torch, because the left is so fixated on redistribution of wealth that it has forgotten how to manage a nation as a whole.  You can't stop exploration to ensure that every idiot has a slice of bread.</p><p>Sometimes people have to be left behind, and that's what this is about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Conservatives are not opposed to federal spending when it is in the geo-political interest of the nation as whole .
Eisenhower kicked off the federal highway system .
Republicans and conservative Democrats came through with money for Apollo .
Richard Nixon , actually , Caspar Weinburger , kept the space shuttle alive , and none other than Dan Quayle intervened to keep the Space Station and Space Shuttle going when Bush the Elder proposed cutting it.The issue with federal spending is usually around entitlements , which are a different argument that I do n't want to start here.But...The way I read the whole killing of manned space flight is that there has been , even dating back to Apollo , this idea in liberal camps that we should not be spending any money on things like space or defense , or even roads , for that matter .
Instead , the federal government in their eyes should not do anything until every poor person is somehow fixed .
Walter Mondale made this argument in the 1960s , and Barrack Obama made this argument elliptically during his campaign .
There 's not a talk of the " private sector " building into space .
There 's no economic benefit immediately of sending a man to explore Mars or the Moon or an Asteroid .
It 's a national project with payoffs in intangibles that are hard to even forsee .
But it is one of those things the country must do , and keep getting better at , to get ahead.But the fact is , space exploration is dead in this administration .
It just is .
Democrats are n't pro-science .
They are a pro-poor party these days .
Exploration , as the government would do it , in the tradition of Columbus and Cook and Shepard and Armstrong , is now dead to Democrats .
Once again , conservatives have to pick up the torch , because the left is so fixated on redistribution of wealth that it has forgotten how to manage a nation as a whole .
You ca n't stop exploration to ensure that every idiot has a slice of bread.Sometimes people have to be left behind , and that 's what this is about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Conservatives are not opposed to federal spending when it is in the geo-political interest of the nation as whole.
Eisenhower kicked off the federal highway system.
Republicans and conservative Democrats came through with money for Apollo.
Richard Nixon, actually, Caspar Weinburger, kept the space shuttle alive, and none other than Dan Quayle intervened to keep the Space Station and Space Shuttle going when Bush the Elder proposed cutting it.The issue with federal spending is usually around entitlements, which are a different argument that I don't want to start here.But...The way I read the whole killing of manned space flight is that there has been, even dating back to Apollo, this idea in liberal camps that we should not be spending any money on things like space or defense, or even roads, for that matter.
Instead, the federal government in their eyes should not do anything until every poor person is somehow fixed.
Walter Mondale made this argument in the 1960s, and Barrack Obama made this argument elliptically during his campaign.
There's not a talk of the "private sector" building into space.
There's no economic benefit immediately of sending a man to explore Mars or the Moon or an Asteroid.
It's a national project with payoffs in intangibles that are hard to even forsee.
But it is one of those things the country must do, and keep getting better at, to get ahead.But the fact is, space exploration is dead in this administration.
It just is.
Democrats aren't pro-science.
They are a pro-poor party these days.
Exploration, as the government would do it, in the tradition of Columbus and Cook and Shepard and Armstrong, is now dead to Democrats.
Once again, conservatives have to pick up the torch, because the left is so fixated on redistribution of wealth that it has forgotten how to manage a nation as a whole.
You can't stop exploration to ensure that every idiot has a slice of bread.Sometimes people have to be left behind, and that's what this is about.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130180</id>
	<title>Re:that's not why they hate it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266057960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the best things you can say about the commercialization of space is that it's better than the militarization of space.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the best things you can say about the commercialization of space is that it 's better than the militarization of space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the best things you can say about the commercialization of space is that it's better than the militarization of space.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31132256</id>
	<title>It is NOT canceling 'space exploration beyond LEO'</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266080100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For the same cost, there can be many times the number of robotic missions that will continue to provide great amounts of information regarding space beyond LEO.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For the same cost , there can be many times the number of robotic missions that will continue to provide great amounts of information regarding space beyond LEO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the same cost, there can be many times the number of robotic missions that will continue to provide great amounts of information regarding space beyond LEO.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31135306</id>
	<title>Re:libertarian</title>
	<author>astar</author>
	<datestamp>1266171720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>figure that bush and obama figured bailing our the speculators was much more important than manufacturing capability.  So they spent 23.4? trillion dollars bailing out the banks.  I think we could have managed to get a nuclear power plant or two built somehow with that money.  and destroying people like goldman sucks helps just about everyone.</p><p>Here is an agitational document on how to start doing something useful.</p><p><a href="http://larouchepac.com/node/13385" title="larouchepac.com">http://larouchepac.com/node/13385</a> [larouchepac.com]</p><p>what is the status.  congress critters are breaking with obama over nasa.  one ex type calls for impeachment.  one current says he is open to the idea.  labor union leader types are hearing it from their members and calling in to get info.  But the real deal will be the houston dem primary in about three weeks.  we shall see.</p><p>Hmm, the right candidate is a young black lady named rogers.  give her some money.</p><p><a href="http://keshaforcongress.com/" title="keshaforcongress.com">http://keshaforcongress.com/</a> [keshaforcongress.com]</p><p>It is useful to recognize we are in a mass strike period.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>figure that bush and obama figured bailing our the speculators was much more important than manufacturing capability .
So they spent 23.4 ?
trillion dollars bailing out the banks .
I think we could have managed to get a nuclear power plant or two built somehow with that money .
and destroying people like goldman sucks helps just about everyone.Here is an agitational document on how to start doing something useful.http : //larouchepac.com/node/13385 [ larouchepac.com ] what is the status .
congress critters are breaking with obama over nasa .
one ex type calls for impeachment .
one current says he is open to the idea .
labor union leader types are hearing it from their members and calling in to get info .
But the real deal will be the houston dem primary in about three weeks .
we shall see.Hmm , the right candidate is a young black lady named rogers .
give her some money.http : //keshaforcongress.com/ [ keshaforcongress.com ] It is useful to recognize we are in a mass strike period .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>figure that bush and obama figured bailing our the speculators was much more important than manufacturing capability.
So they spent 23.4?
trillion dollars bailing out the banks.
I think we could have managed to get a nuclear power plant or two built somehow with that money.
and destroying people like goldman sucks helps just about everyone.Here is an agitational document on how to start doing something useful.http://larouchepac.com/node/13385 [larouchepac.com]what is the status.
congress critters are breaking with obama over nasa.
one ex type calls for impeachment.
one current says he is open to the idea.
labor union leader types are hearing it from their members and calling in to get info.
But the real deal will be the houston dem primary in about three weeks.
we shall see.Hmm, the right candidate is a young black lady named rogers.
give her some money.http://keshaforcongress.com/ [keshaforcongress.com]It is useful to recognize we are in a mass strike period.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129412</id>
	<title>whatever</title>
	<author>kaoshin</author>
	<datestamp>1266052200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"one that touts limited government and the empowerment of the private sector, the other that touts national security and national greatness as virtues as well."
<br> <br>
I think it is naive to suggest that Obama's space plan started this "civil war".  In case you have been living under a rock, there has been an ongoing disagreement between conservatives and the virtuous neoconservatives and their ambitions for national greatness.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" one that touts limited government and the empowerment of the private sector , the other that touts national security and national greatness as virtues as well .
" I think it is naive to suggest that Obama 's space plan started this " civil war " .
In case you have been living under a rock , there has been an ongoing disagreement between conservatives and the virtuous neoconservatives and their ambitions for national greatness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"one that touts limited government and the empowerment of the private sector, the other that touts national security and national greatness as virtues as well.
"
 
I think it is naive to suggest that Obama's space plan started this "civil war".
In case you have been living under a rock, there has been an ongoing disagreement between conservatives and the virtuous neoconservatives and their ambitions for national greatness.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129968</id>
	<title>USA! USA!</title>
	<author>copponex</author>
	<datestamp>1266056160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, please ignore the <b> <i>hundreds of billions of dollars</i> </b> spent on the war industry.</p><p>And hey, let's throw out every social service program and see how our society looks when kids are starving in the streets. I get fucking ill every time some blowhard claims to be patriotic while they lobby to throw their countrymen in the street so they can continue to have their war toys.</p><p>How about we just return tax levels - literally 4 to 5 points higher at incomes above 90,000 a year - to the Clinton days, and balance the budget that way? Or, end the war tourism programs that are actually draining the treasury, and have been for fifty years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , please ignore the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on the war industry.And hey , let 's throw out every social service program and see how our society looks when kids are starving in the streets .
I get fucking ill every time some blowhard claims to be patriotic while they lobby to throw their countrymen in the street so they can continue to have their war toys.How about we just return tax levels - literally 4 to 5 points higher at incomes above 90,000 a year - to the Clinton days , and balance the budget that way ?
Or , end the war tourism programs that are actually draining the treasury , and have been for fifty years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, please ignore the  hundreds of billions of dollars  spent on the war industry.And hey, let's throw out every social service program and see how our society looks when kids are starving in the streets.
I get fucking ill every time some blowhard claims to be patriotic while they lobby to throw their countrymen in the street so they can continue to have their war toys.How about we just return tax levels - literally 4 to 5 points higher at incomes above 90,000 a year - to the Clinton days, and balance the budget that way?
Or, end the war tourism programs that are actually draining the treasury, and have been for fifty years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31146062</id>
	<title>Seriously: Who cares what conservatives think?</title>
	<author>Benfea</author>
	<datestamp>1266259260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who cares what conservatives think about any science-related program? Half of them believe the universe was created 10,000 years after the domestication of the dog and the other half think that global warming is a vast international conspiracy by 90\% of the world's scientists that is either run from an obscure school in the UK or Al Gore's house depending on which one you ask.</p><p>Being at all concerned with what conservatives think about science is like asking a 4 year old with Down's Syndrome what he thinks about Keynesian economics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who cares what conservatives think about any science-related program ?
Half of them believe the universe was created 10,000 years after the domestication of the dog and the other half think that global warming is a vast international conspiracy by 90 \ % of the world 's scientists that is either run from an obscure school in the UK or Al Gore 's house depending on which one you ask.Being at all concerned with what conservatives think about science is like asking a 4 year old with Down 's Syndrome what he thinks about Keynesian economics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who cares what conservatives think about any science-related program?
Half of them believe the universe was created 10,000 years after the domestication of the dog and the other half think that global warming is a vast international conspiracy by 90\% of the world's scientists that is either run from an obscure school in the UK or Al Gore's house depending on which one you ask.Being at all concerned with what conservatives think about science is like asking a 4 year old with Down's Syndrome what he thinks about Keynesian economics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31133686</id>
	<title>Re:Space exploration is conservative.</title>
	<author>Boronx</author>
	<datestamp>1266149820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Under Bush 43, the national debt increased by a bit more than a trillion dollars"</p><p>What do you mean?  The debt was 5 Trillion when Bush entered office, and it was 10 Trillion after.</p><p>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Under Bush 43 , the national debt increased by a bit more than a trillion dollars " What do you mean ?
The debt was 5 Trillion when Bush entered office , and it was 10 Trillion after. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Under Bush 43, the national debt increased by a bit more than a trillion dollars"What do you mean?
The debt was 5 Trillion when Bush entered office, and it was 10 Trillion after..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129512</id>
	<title>Re:Space exploration is conservative.</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1266052800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Our federal budget is 4.5 trillion this year.  Why is NASA's ~20 billion so hard to pay for when we seem to have little trouble finding enough to spend about 2.5 trillion on entitlements yearly?  Tell ya what; end the agricultural subsidies  and we'd free up more than enough to pay for NASA.  Maybe then we'd see more actual sugar used instead of that HFCS crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Our federal budget is 4.5 trillion this year .
Why is NASA 's ~ 20 billion so hard to pay for when we seem to have little trouble finding enough to spend about 2.5 trillion on entitlements yearly ?
Tell ya what ; end the agricultural subsidies and we 'd free up more than enough to pay for NASA .
Maybe then we 'd see more actual sugar used instead of that HFCS crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our federal budget is 4.5 trillion this year.
Why is NASA's ~20 billion so hard to pay for when we seem to have little trouble finding enough to spend about 2.5 trillion on entitlements yearly?
Tell ya what; end the agricultural subsidies  and we'd free up more than enough to pay for NASA.
Maybe then we'd see more actual sugar used instead of that HFCS crap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131644</id>
	<title>Re:libertarian</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1266072420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>we know they're a bunch of libertarian loonies</p></div><p>By that definition, anyone who opposes the government holding them upside down and shaking until every cent falls out of their pockets is a loony. California needs another 50+ billion of debt for high speed rail (which btw most people will not be able to afford to ride without subsidies and more debt) like it needs a hole in the head.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>we know they 're a bunch of libertarian looniesBy that definition , anyone who opposes the government holding them upside down and shaking until every cent falls out of their pockets is a loony .
California needs another 50 + billion of debt for high speed rail ( which btw most people will not be able to afford to ride without subsidies and more debt ) like it needs a hole in the head .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we know they're a bunch of libertarian looniesBy that definition, anyone who opposes the government holding them upside down and shaking until every cent falls out of their pockets is a loony.
California needs another 50+ billion of debt for high speed rail (which btw most people will not be able to afford to ride without subsidies and more debt) like it needs a hole in the head.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131354</id>
	<title>Re:Out source space too...</title>
	<author>Diagoras</author>
	<datestamp>1266069240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not really. Please examine the details of Obama's budget proposal before commenting on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really .
Please examine the details of Obama 's budget proposal before commenting on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really.
Please examine the details of Obama's budget proposal before commenting on it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31132018</id>
	<title>Re:USA! USA!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266077040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Yes, please ignore the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on the war industry.</i></p><p>I trade a cut in the military for a cap on entitlements.</p><p><i>And hey, let's throw out every social service program and see how our society looks when kids are starving in the streets</i></p><p>Why can't their parents have jobs.  I mean, you have people running into ERs to get IVs added, then running out, so they can mainline some smack, and the answer is to deregulate drugs?</p><p><i>How about we just return tax levels - literally 4 to 5 points higher at incomes above 90,000 a year - to the Clinton days, and balance the budget that way? Or, end the war tourism programs that are actually draining the treasury, and have been for fifty years.</i></p><p>Because entitlements spending has doubled since then.  The fact is, under George W Bush's last couple of years, revenues were -way- higher, but what broke the piggy bank is exploding entitlements spending.  If you really wanted to fix the budget and the economy, you would:</p><p>a) get the USA out of all the military alliances worldwide, except for the UK and Australia.</p><p>b) reduce the defense budget to match the reduced commitments.  Change the USAF to just be launching nukes and build more nukes, fold in tactical air support in the Army and let the Navy do strategic air power and transportation in general.</p><p>c) cap entitlements, and fund them not with an income tax, but with a national sales tax on food and energy.  The reason is that you need to cap entitlements but you can at least let the cap be tied to a consistent source of taxes that is both flat - which keeps the income consistent, and is growing somewhat to match the long term economic growth.</p><p>e) get rid of free trade.  In order to have a healthy economy, you need one that doesn't try to shoe-horn every citizen into being a computer programmer or a lab technician. Some people, a lot of people, just do stuff with their hands, can work in a structured setting like a factory, and so on, and when you yank out that rug for China or India, you've basically eliminated stable employment for an entire class of people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , please ignore the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on the war industry.I trade a cut in the military for a cap on entitlements.And hey , let 's throw out every social service program and see how our society looks when kids are starving in the streetsWhy ca n't their parents have jobs .
I mean , you have people running into ERs to get IVs added , then running out , so they can mainline some smack , and the answer is to deregulate drugs ? How about we just return tax levels - literally 4 to 5 points higher at incomes above 90,000 a year - to the Clinton days , and balance the budget that way ?
Or , end the war tourism programs that are actually draining the treasury , and have been for fifty years.Because entitlements spending has doubled since then .
The fact is , under George W Bush 's last couple of years , revenues were -way- higher , but what broke the piggy bank is exploding entitlements spending .
If you really wanted to fix the budget and the economy , you would : a ) get the USA out of all the military alliances worldwide , except for the UK and Australia.b ) reduce the defense budget to match the reduced commitments .
Change the USAF to just be launching nukes and build more nukes , fold in tactical air support in the Army and let the Navy do strategic air power and transportation in general.c ) cap entitlements , and fund them not with an income tax , but with a national sales tax on food and energy .
The reason is that you need to cap entitlements but you can at least let the cap be tied to a consistent source of taxes that is both flat - which keeps the income consistent , and is growing somewhat to match the long term economic growth.e ) get rid of free trade .
In order to have a healthy economy , you need one that does n't try to shoe-horn every citizen into being a computer programmer or a lab technician .
Some people , a lot of people , just do stuff with their hands , can work in a structured setting like a factory , and so on , and when you yank out that rug for China or India , you 've basically eliminated stable employment for an entire class of people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, please ignore the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on the war industry.I trade a cut in the military for a cap on entitlements.And hey, let's throw out every social service program and see how our society looks when kids are starving in the streetsWhy can't their parents have jobs.
I mean, you have people running into ERs to get IVs added, then running out, so they can mainline some smack, and the answer is to deregulate drugs?How about we just return tax levels - literally 4 to 5 points higher at incomes above 90,000 a year - to the Clinton days, and balance the budget that way?
Or, end the war tourism programs that are actually draining the treasury, and have been for fifty years.Because entitlements spending has doubled since then.
The fact is, under George W Bush's last couple of years, revenues were -way- higher, but what broke the piggy bank is exploding entitlements spending.
If you really wanted to fix the budget and the economy, you would:a) get the USA out of all the military alliances worldwide, except for the UK and Australia.b) reduce the defense budget to match the reduced commitments.
Change the USAF to just be launching nukes and build more nukes, fold in tactical air support in the Army and let the Navy do strategic air power and transportation in general.c) cap entitlements, and fund them not with an income tax, but with a national sales tax on food and energy.
The reason is that you need to cap entitlements but you can at least let the cap be tied to a consistent source of taxes that is both flat - which keeps the income consistent, and is growing somewhat to match the long term economic growth.e) get rid of free trade.
In order to have a healthy economy, you need one that doesn't try to shoe-horn every citizen into being a computer programmer or a lab technician.
Some people, a lot of people, just do stuff with their hands, can work in a structured setting like a factory, and so on, and when you yank out that rug for China or India, you've basically eliminated stable employment for an entire class of people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31132422</id>
	<title>well</title>
	<author>Charliemopps</author>
	<datestamp>1266082740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You guys can argue about the semantics all you want... but this will be the end of the US space program. It's done, gone... we'll likely never go into space again. If that's cool with you, fine. But if you think there's any business that's going to actually risk the kind of cash that's needed for REAL space travel, you're deluding yourself. We'll have cheap, sub-orbital tourist trips while India and China build real, legitimate space programs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You guys can argue about the semantics all you want... but this will be the end of the US space program .
It 's done , gone... we 'll likely never go into space again .
If that 's cool with you , fine .
But if you think there 's any business that 's going to actually risk the kind of cash that 's needed for REAL space travel , you 're deluding yourself .
We 'll have cheap , sub-orbital tourist trips while India and China build real , legitimate space programs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You guys can argue about the semantics all you want... but this will be the end of the US space program.
It's done, gone... we'll likely never go into space again.
If that's cool with you, fine.
But if you think there's any business that's going to actually risk the kind of cash that's needed for REAL space travel, you're deluding yourself.
We'll have cheap, sub-orbital tourist trips while India and China build real, legitimate space programs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31134416</id>
	<title>Re:libertarian</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266162720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; I've been saying for 10 years or more: America is over.<br>A broken watch is right twice, daily -- but that doesn't mean it isn't broken.</p><p>If you preach gloom and doom long enough every now and then you will be correct.</p><p>Your student sees you as a service provider, not a "grades dealer". Deal with it.</p><p>Oh you academics in your ivory towers...the real world would kick you in the nuts. We dropped 2 big bombs on Japan, and we would do it again if we had to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I 've been saying for 10 years or more : America is over.A broken watch is right twice , daily -- but that does n't mean it is n't broken.If you preach gloom and doom long enough every now and then you will be correct.Your student sees you as a service provider , not a " grades dealer " .
Deal with it.Oh you academics in your ivory towers...the real world would kick you in the nuts .
We dropped 2 big bombs on Japan , and we would do it again if we had to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; I've been saying for 10 years or more: America is over.A broken watch is right twice, daily -- but that doesn't mean it isn't broken.If you preach gloom and doom long enough every now and then you will be correct.Your student sees you as a service provider, not a "grades dealer".
Deal with it.Oh you academics in your ivory towers...the real world would kick you in the nuts.
We dropped 2 big bombs on Japan, and we would do it again if we had to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31133070</id>
	<title>Re:How to build a just society.</title>
	<author>198348726583297634</author>
	<datestamp>1266179100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>First off, <b>a lot of failure is people's fault</b>. The left has to own up to this, and it is true, <b>moral failures</b> have a lot to do with it. Too much drinking, drugging, gambling, womanizing, entertaining oneself, the whole liberal idea that if it feels good do it, is just totally wrong.</i>

[Citation needed] (emphasis mine)</htmltext>
<tokenext>First off , a lot of failure is people 's fault .
The left has to own up to this , and it is true , moral failures have a lot to do with it .
Too much drinking , drugging , gambling , womanizing , entertaining oneself , the whole liberal idea that if it feels good do it , is just totally wrong .
[ Citation needed ] ( emphasis mine )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First off, a lot of failure is people's fault.
The left has to own up to this, and it is true, moral failures have a lot to do with it.
Too much drinking, drugging, gambling, womanizing, entertaining oneself, the whole liberal idea that if it feels good do it, is just totally wrong.
[Citation needed] (emphasis mine)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31132074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31133240</id>
	<title>Re:Space is critical</title>
	<author>ajlisows</author>
	<datestamp>1266140580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is this for an objective?  Let's put a man (or woman) on Mars.  That doesn't seem like all that ambiguous of a goal.  Oh, and it isn't something that I just dreamed up in my wildly imaginative and brilliant mind...it is a goal that millions of others have already thought of.  Now that we have that problem solved, let's get to it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this for an objective ?
Let 's put a man ( or woman ) on Mars .
That does n't seem like all that ambiguous of a goal .
Oh , and it is n't something that I just dreamed up in my wildly imaginative and brilliant mind...it is a goal that millions of others have already thought of .
Now that we have that problem solved , let 's get to it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this for an objective?
Let's put a man (or woman) on Mars.
That doesn't seem like all that ambiguous of a goal.
Oh, and it isn't something that I just dreamed up in my wildly imaginative and brilliant mind...it is a goal that millions of others have already thought of.
Now that we have that problem solved, let's get to it!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130008</id>
	<title>Re:libertarian</title>
	<author>dpilot</author>
	<datestamp>1266056520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with wanting infrastructure up there.  I also agree that business doesn't do well putting its own money into infrastructure, and this IS something that government can do well.</p><p>But launching stuff to LEO ought to be Business As Usual by now.  NASA and the government shouldn't need to be in the business of developing LEO launch vehicles.  OTOH, they should be one of several customers of private enterprise LEO launch capacity.  Putting infrastructure into LEO is certainly a good thing for government to be doing with purchased launch capacity.  NASA using that infrastructure as a springboard toward deeper space, both unmanned and manned, is also a good thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with wanting infrastructure up there .
I also agree that business does n't do well putting its own money into infrastructure , and this IS something that government can do well.But launching stuff to LEO ought to be Business As Usual by now .
NASA and the government should n't need to be in the business of developing LEO launch vehicles .
OTOH , they should be one of several customers of private enterprise LEO launch capacity .
Putting infrastructure into LEO is certainly a good thing for government to be doing with purchased launch capacity .
NASA using that infrastructure as a springboard toward deeper space , both unmanned and manned , is also a good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with wanting infrastructure up there.
I also agree that business doesn't do well putting its own money into infrastructure, and this IS something that government can do well.But launching stuff to LEO ought to be Business As Usual by now.
NASA and the government shouldn't need to be in the business of developing LEO launch vehicles.
OTOH, they should be one of several customers of private enterprise LEO launch capacity.
Putting infrastructure into LEO is certainly a good thing for government to be doing with purchased launch capacity.
NASA using that infrastructure as a springboard toward deeper space, both unmanned and manned, is also a good thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31133514</id>
	<title>Re:Space exploration is conservative.</title>
	<author>LordVader717</author>
	<datestamp>1266146700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't understand why everybody is so intent on nailing to "other" party for "ruining" the space program.<br>The Republicans are in the opposition. Of course they're going to blabber on about how the government is doing everything wrong and that they ought to do this and that and send men to the moon. That's what they <b>do</b>. The administration on the other hand has to figure out what best to do with the money that's available and axe it when it's on a road to failure.<br>I have no doubt that all congressmen, democrats and republicans, would love to see NASA build an interplanetary fleet and develop sci-fi technology and stick it to the Chinese and the Russians. But as soon as any party gets into the government they realize that huge budgets are very inflexible and that as soon as funds are free people have different ideas of what to do with it ("not bulding up dept" is one of them).</p><p>From an objective viewpoint the analysis is pretty clear and there is no need for partisan bashing. After Columbia the Bush administration was under pressure to lay out the long-term future for NASA. What they came up with was probably the most ill-conceived program devised by NASA and heavily underfunded. Progress was painfully slow in the following years and when Obama took over he was left with a huge mess of a program which would only be an embarrassment if it were to continue in it's form. And because they'd never be able to sell a ten-fold increase in spending they had to adapt and see what could be done with what's available.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand why everybody is so intent on nailing to " other " party for " ruining " the space program.The Republicans are in the opposition .
Of course they 're going to blabber on about how the government is doing everything wrong and that they ought to do this and that and send men to the moon .
That 's what they do .
The administration on the other hand has to figure out what best to do with the money that 's available and axe it when it 's on a road to failure.I have no doubt that all congressmen , democrats and republicans , would love to see NASA build an interplanetary fleet and develop sci-fi technology and stick it to the Chinese and the Russians .
But as soon as any party gets into the government they realize that huge budgets are very inflexible and that as soon as funds are free people have different ideas of what to do with it ( " not bulding up dept " is one of them ) .From an objective viewpoint the analysis is pretty clear and there is no need for partisan bashing .
After Columbia the Bush administration was under pressure to lay out the long-term future for NASA .
What they came up with was probably the most ill-conceived program devised by NASA and heavily underfunded .
Progress was painfully slow in the following years and when Obama took over he was left with a huge mess of a program which would only be an embarrassment if it were to continue in it 's form .
And because they 'd never be able to sell a ten-fold increase in spending they had to adapt and see what could be done with what 's available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand why everybody is so intent on nailing to "other" party for "ruining" the space program.The Republicans are in the opposition.
Of course they're going to blabber on about how the government is doing everything wrong and that they ought to do this and that and send men to the moon.
That's what they do.
The administration on the other hand has to figure out what best to do with the money that's available and axe it when it's on a road to failure.I have no doubt that all congressmen, democrats and republicans, would love to see NASA build an interplanetary fleet and develop sci-fi technology and stick it to the Chinese and the Russians.
But as soon as any party gets into the government they realize that huge budgets are very inflexible and that as soon as funds are free people have different ideas of what to do with it ("not bulding up dept" is one of them).From an objective viewpoint the analysis is pretty clear and there is no need for partisan bashing.
After Columbia the Bush administration was under pressure to lay out the long-term future for NASA.
What they came up with was probably the most ill-conceived program devised by NASA and heavily underfunded.
Progress was painfully slow in the following years and when Obama took over he was left with a huge mess of a program which would only be an embarrassment if it were to continue in it's form.
And because they'd never be able to sell a ten-fold increase in spending they had to adapt and see what could be done with what's available.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131282</id>
	<title>Re:Space exploration is conservative.</title>
	<author>qnetter</author>
	<datestamp>1266068400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Conservatives are not opposed to federal spending when it is in the geo-political interest of the nation as whole.   Eisenhower kicked off the federal highway system.</p></div><p>Eisenhower was not a conservative -- certainly not by modern standards.  Nor was Nixon.  Both of them would be moderate-to-liberal Republicans -- to the left of the rightmost Democrats -- today. (And believers in the humane policies you damn as "income redistribution," as well.)</p><p>It's interesting how you retroactively adopt them to make a point.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Conservatives are not opposed to federal spending when it is in the geo-political interest of the nation as whole .
Eisenhower kicked off the federal highway system.Eisenhower was not a conservative -- certainly not by modern standards .
Nor was Nixon .
Both of them would be moderate-to-liberal Republicans -- to the left of the rightmost Democrats -- today .
( And believers in the humane policies you damn as " income redistribution , " as well .
) It 's interesting how you retroactively adopt them to make a point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Conservatives are not opposed to federal spending when it is in the geo-political interest of the nation as whole.
Eisenhower kicked off the federal highway system.Eisenhower was not a conservative -- certainly not by modern standards.
Nor was Nixon.
Both of them would be moderate-to-liberal Republicans -- to the left of the rightmost Democrats -- today.
(And believers in the humane policies you damn as "income redistribution," as well.
)It's interesting how you retroactively adopt them to make a point.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130444</id>
	<title>Re:Easy enough to balance the budget</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1266060120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>And veterans get an extra 57 billion. Welfare at least has a purpose to it. Have you looked at the feasibility of cutting these programs? You seem to have just cut a \% you felt was good from each program without delving into them. <br> <br>Cutting 20\% from disability when you already don't have a health care system in place sentences a lot of the disabled to death. Often times there isn't much they can do about their situation, so putting pressure on them won't be helpful. Same with many of the welfare programs.<br> <br>Cutting the school lunches one to me is the most offensive. The program is designed so that children can stay in school. That is the MINIMUM requirement to have any sort of fair equal chance at life. It is supposed to be children's responsibility to go to schoool, learn so that they may become productive memebers in society. They are not adults and if you enforce responsibility like that onto them it won't be good. Children can't often get full wage jobs, and often can't rent their own places, they are already under financial difficulty. I've known kids that essentially only ate at school because their parent's were useless.<br> <br>By cutting this program you would:<br>Be massively increasing the cost of programs for kids, now having to properly take in these kids. While increasing healthcare for these malnutritioned kids. Paying for spikes in crime since believe me that will happen (abandoned kids that are desperate and at risk of death will do what it takes if they are old enough). And lastly end up with millions more highschool dropouts that we will be paying for the rest of their lives.<br> <br>Simply cutting these will have lasting costs, unless you want to move the money to roving death squads to clean up undesirables. When you look at all that it seems obvious that liberals would prefer cutting from the 901BN dollar military budget. <br> <br>I find it laughable that you're willing to spend that much money to protect the people from foreign attack yet unwilling to spend to keep them from harm within your own border.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And veterans get an extra 57 billion .
Welfare at least has a purpose to it .
Have you looked at the feasibility of cutting these programs ?
You seem to have just cut a \ % you felt was good from each program without delving into them .
Cutting 20 \ % from disability when you already do n't have a health care system in place sentences a lot of the disabled to death .
Often times there is n't much they can do about their situation , so putting pressure on them wo n't be helpful .
Same with many of the welfare programs .
Cutting the school lunches one to me is the most offensive .
The program is designed so that children can stay in school .
That is the MINIMUM requirement to have any sort of fair equal chance at life .
It is supposed to be children 's responsibility to go to schoool , learn so that they may become productive memebers in society .
They are not adults and if you enforce responsibility like that onto them it wo n't be good .
Children ca n't often get full wage jobs , and often ca n't rent their own places , they are already under financial difficulty .
I 've known kids that essentially only ate at school because their parent 's were useless .
By cutting this program you would : Be massively increasing the cost of programs for kids , now having to properly take in these kids .
While increasing healthcare for these malnutritioned kids .
Paying for spikes in crime since believe me that will happen ( abandoned kids that are desperate and at risk of death will do what it takes if they are old enough ) .
And lastly end up with millions more highschool dropouts that we will be paying for the rest of their lives .
Simply cutting these will have lasting costs , unless you want to move the money to roving death squads to clean up undesirables .
When you look at all that it seems obvious that liberals would prefer cutting from the 901BN dollar military budget .
I find it laughable that you 're willing to spend that much money to protect the people from foreign attack yet unwilling to spend to keep them from harm within your own border .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And veterans get an extra 57 billion.
Welfare at least has a purpose to it.
Have you looked at the feasibility of cutting these programs?
You seem to have just cut a \% you felt was good from each program without delving into them.
Cutting 20\% from disability when you already don't have a health care system in place sentences a lot of the disabled to death.
Often times there isn't much they can do about their situation, so putting pressure on them won't be helpful.
Same with many of the welfare programs.
Cutting the school lunches one to me is the most offensive.
The program is designed so that children can stay in school.
That is the MINIMUM requirement to have any sort of fair equal chance at life.
It is supposed to be children's responsibility to go to schoool, learn so that they may become productive memebers in society.
They are not adults and if you enforce responsibility like that onto them it won't be good.
Children can't often get full wage jobs, and often can't rent their own places, they are already under financial difficulty.
I've known kids that essentially only ate at school because their parent's were useless.
By cutting this program you would:Be massively increasing the cost of programs for kids, now having to properly take in these kids.
While increasing healthcare for these malnutritioned kids.
Paying for spikes in crime since believe me that will happen (abandoned kids that are desperate and at risk of death will do what it takes if they are old enough).
And lastly end up with millions more highschool dropouts that we will be paying for the rest of their lives.
Simply cutting these will have lasting costs, unless you want to move the money to roving death squads to clean up undesirables.
When you look at all that it seems obvious that liberals would prefer cutting from the 901BN dollar military budget.
I find it laughable that you're willing to spend that much money to protect the people from foreign attack yet unwilling to spend to keep them from harm within your own border.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31132602</id>
	<title>Re:Conservatives? Who cares?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266084960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why discuss what conservatives think? There's still time to leave the country before our Fuhrer, Palin (or her corn-pone equivalent) and the neo-brown shirt tea-baggers come to power and decide that a replay of Krystalnacht is in order.</p><p>History doesn't repeat, but it rhymes</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why discuss what conservatives think ?
There 's still time to leave the country before our Fuhrer , Palin ( or her corn-pone equivalent ) and the neo-brown shirt tea-baggers come to power and decide that a replay of Krystalnacht is in order.History does n't repeat , but it rhymes</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why discuss what conservatives think?
There's still time to leave the country before our Fuhrer, Palin (or her corn-pone equivalent) and the neo-brown shirt tea-baggers come to power and decide that a replay of Krystalnacht is in order.History doesn't repeat, but it rhymes</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131200</id>
	<title>Re:libertarian</title>
	<author>astar</author>
	<datestamp>1266067380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>different causality here.  I see the funny money as an effect.</p><p>after the 87 crash, we went for speculative bubbles to prop up the financial system.  we quickly got the repeal of glass-stegall and the legalization of derivatives.  Yah, I know.  there were two glass-stegalls and they had been chipped away on for some time.  Larry summers was heavily involved in this.  so bubbles collapse.  new and bigger one are needed.  eventually you come  to residential real estate and so the gov puts a lot of cheap money in.  and now we have commercial real estate ready to go down immeadiately.</p><p>Not simply a USA problem.  EU is finished.</p><p>so what is the larger problem.  1.5 quadrillion dollars of derivatives, demanding your life blood.  so let us say something nice about banks, commercial banks.  if they are not gambling, but are investing in the physical economy, and thus actually involved in the generation of wealth, they are necessary and positive.  something like goldman sucks, kill it</p><p>but a lot of free enterprise types get funny ideas and start acting like currency has intrinsic value. Unless they are gold bugs or something, most of them really know better.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>different causality here .
I see the funny money as an effect.after the 87 crash , we went for speculative bubbles to prop up the financial system .
we quickly got the repeal of glass-stegall and the legalization of derivatives .
Yah , I know .
there were two glass-stegalls and they had been chipped away on for some time .
Larry summers was heavily involved in this .
so bubbles collapse .
new and bigger one are needed .
eventually you come to residential real estate and so the gov puts a lot of cheap money in .
and now we have commercial real estate ready to go down immeadiately.Not simply a USA problem .
EU is finished.so what is the larger problem .
1.5 quadrillion dollars of derivatives , demanding your life blood .
so let us say something nice about banks , commercial banks .
if they are not gambling , but are investing in the physical economy , and thus actually involved in the generation of wealth , they are necessary and positive .
something like goldman sucks , kill itbut a lot of free enterprise types get funny ideas and start acting like currency has intrinsic value .
Unless they are gold bugs or something , most of them really know better .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>different causality here.
I see the funny money as an effect.after the 87 crash, we went for speculative bubbles to prop up the financial system.
we quickly got the repeal of glass-stegall and the legalization of derivatives.
Yah, I know.
there were two glass-stegalls and they had been chipped away on for some time.
Larry summers was heavily involved in this.
so bubbles collapse.
new and bigger one are needed.
eventually you come  to residential real estate and so the gov puts a lot of cheap money in.
and now we have commercial real estate ready to go down immeadiately.Not simply a USA problem.
EU is finished.so what is the larger problem.
1.5 quadrillion dollars of derivatives, demanding your life blood.
so let us say something nice about banks, commercial banks.
if they are not gambling, but are investing in the physical economy, and thus actually involved in the generation of wealth, they are necessary and positive.
something like goldman sucks, kill itbut a lot of free enterprise types get funny ideas and start acting like currency has intrinsic value.
Unless they are gold bugs or something, most of them really know better.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31132202</id>
	<title>Re:Space exploration is conservative.</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1266079440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For someone who demands such a nuanced interpretation of liberal/democrat, you sure seem ignorant of what the tea party actually is. The tea party is a group of people, some crazy and some not, who are united by a desire for a sound fiscal policy.</p></div><p>Nonsense. They are a bunch of kooks stirred up by Fox News. The "tea party" has nothing to do with sound fiscal policy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For someone who demands such a nuanced interpretation of liberal/democrat , you sure seem ignorant of what the tea party actually is .
The tea party is a group of people , some crazy and some not , who are united by a desire for a sound fiscal policy.Nonsense .
They are a bunch of kooks stirred up by Fox News .
The " tea party " has nothing to do with sound fiscal policy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For someone who demands such a nuanced interpretation of liberal/democrat, you sure seem ignorant of what the tea party actually is.
The tea party is a group of people, some crazy and some not, who are united by a desire for a sound fiscal policy.Nonsense.
They are a bunch of kooks stirred up by Fox News.
The "tea party" has nothing to do with sound fiscal policy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129892</id>
	<title>Re:What NASA does</title>
	<author>the\_other\_chewey</author>
	<datestamp>1266055620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>NASA is the only organization in the world that can do what it did, manned exploration of the universe.</p></div><p> <i>DID</i>? The <i>universe</i>?<br>
What NASA has been doing so far was manned exploration of the front porch. And not even all of it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>NASA is the only organization in the world that can do what it did , manned exploration of the universe .
DID ? The universe ?
What NASA has been doing so far was manned exploration of the front porch .
And not even all of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NASA is the only organization in the world that can do what it did, manned exploration of the universe.
DID? The universe?
What NASA has been doing so far was manned exploration of the front porch.
And not even all of it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129166</id>
	<title>WSJ Debates the Pros and Cons of Private Space</title>
	<author>theodp</author>
	<datestamp>1266093540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Over at the WSJ, Peter Diamandis <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703382904575059350409331536.html?mod=WSJ\_Tech\_LEFTTopNews" title="wsj.com">makes a case for private space</a> [wsj.com], while naysayer Taylor Dinerman says he's seen this movie before, and argues <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703382904575059263418508030.html?mod=WSJ-Tech-LEFTTopNews" title="wsj.com">the private sector simply is not up for the job</a> [wsj.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Over at the WSJ , Peter Diamandis makes a case for private space [ wsj.com ] , while naysayer Taylor Dinerman says he 's seen this movie before , and argues the private sector simply is not up for the job [ wsj.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Over at the WSJ, Peter Diamandis makes a case for private space [wsj.com], while naysayer Taylor Dinerman says he's seen this movie before, and argues the private sector simply is not up for the job [wsj.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129290</id>
	<title>I'll say it again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266094380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Remember where your Trillions in recovery came from, the US people are now long term paying for the Chinese Space Program.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember where your Trillions in recovery came from , the US people are now long term paying for the Chinese Space Program .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember where your Trillions in recovery came from, the US people are now long term paying for the Chinese Space Program.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31134454</id>
	<title>Re:Space exploration is conservative.</title>
	<author>mattsday</author>
	<datestamp>1266163320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nixon was probably the last liberal President. Every one since then has shifted increasingly more conservative.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nixon was probably the last liberal President .
Every one since then has shifted increasingly more conservative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nixon was probably the last liberal President.
Every one since then has shifted increasingly more conservative.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31132486</id>
	<title>Re:Rational decision based on irrational constrain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266083340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cancellation of the shuttle by the last president and then cancellation of the remainder of the manned space program by the current president, along with the cancellation of so many military programs after massive investment shows that "long term research" just gets cancelled by our politicians.</p><p>It doesn't matter what the "new budget<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... redirects" the money to.  Those projects will be cancelled as well, by yet another self important politician who wants to "redirect" the money to something in his own name.  It will happen because so many "got excited" about Mars and didn't fight for the shuttle, a working system that was successfully building a major space station, and allowed Bush to cancel the entire era of learning to do construction in space.</p><p>The space shuttle / space station era, of learning to do construction and repair of large systems in orbit was important, and critical to any future planetary exploration.  In parallel, the robotic exploration of the planets could provide great science.  Things like Chandra and the James Webb telescope WERE being done at the same time.</p><p>The manned space program is over because neither our politicians nor our people are willing to follow through on anything, even when it is showing great success.</p><p>Welcome to the post-industrial society.  It means a society that used to be able to accomplish things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cancellation of the shuttle by the last president and then cancellation of the remainder of the manned space program by the current president , along with the cancellation of so many military programs after massive investment shows that " long term research " just gets cancelled by our politicians.It does n't matter what the " new budget ... redirects " the money to .
Those projects will be cancelled as well , by yet another self important politician who wants to " redirect " the money to something in his own name .
It will happen because so many " got excited " about Mars and did n't fight for the shuttle , a working system that was successfully building a major space station , and allowed Bush to cancel the entire era of learning to do construction in space.The space shuttle / space station era , of learning to do construction and repair of large systems in orbit was important , and critical to any future planetary exploration .
In parallel , the robotic exploration of the planets could provide great science .
Things like Chandra and the James Webb telescope WERE being done at the same time.The manned space program is over because neither our politicians nor our people are willing to follow through on anything , even when it is showing great success.Welcome to the post-industrial society .
It means a society that used to be able to accomplish things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cancellation of the shuttle by the last president and then cancellation of the remainder of the manned space program by the current president, along with the cancellation of so many military programs after massive investment shows that "long term research" just gets cancelled by our politicians.It doesn't matter what the "new budget ... redirects" the money to.
Those projects will be cancelled as well, by yet another self important politician who wants to "redirect" the money to something in his own name.
It will happen because so many "got excited" about Mars and didn't fight for the shuttle, a working system that was successfully building a major space station, and allowed Bush to cancel the entire era of learning to do construction in space.The space shuttle / space station era, of learning to do construction and repair of large systems in orbit was important, and critical to any future planetary exploration.
In parallel, the robotic exploration of the planets could provide great science.
Things like Chandra and the James Webb telescope WERE being done at the same time.The manned space program is over because neither our politicians nor our people are willing to follow through on anything, even when it is showing great success.Welcome to the post-industrial society.
It means a society that used to be able to accomplish things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129244</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266094080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it really that big a deal?  I'm sure it's not going to polarize conservatives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it really that big a deal ?
I 'm sure it 's not going to polarize conservatives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it really that big a deal?
I'm sure it's not going to polarize conservatives.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130316</id>
	<title>In the meanwhile, we're spending $1 TRILLION/year</title>
	<author>melted</author>
	<datestamp>1266059040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the meanwhile, we're spending $1 TRILLION a year on the military and two pointless wars. And Guantanamo is still right the way it was.</p><p>Hope and change, my ass.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the meanwhile , we 're spending $ 1 TRILLION a year on the military and two pointless wars .
And Guantanamo is still right the way it was.Hope and change , my ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the meanwhile, we're spending $1 TRILLION a year on the military and two pointless wars.
And Guantanamo is still right the way it was.Hope and change, my ass.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129310</id>
	<title>Re:libertarian</title>
	<author>simcop2387</author>
	<datestamp>1266094500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>well that's one thing where, even though I'd say I'm mostly libertarian, I'd disagree. getting infrastructure in place is one of the things that government can do easier and (if you can eliminate most of the pork and other bureaucratic shit) should be doing since it is one thing that most definitely does benefit all citizens equally, just imagine if the roads were done by private companies, there might be more that are very well maintained but something like the interstate highway system would be near impossible to create because you'd be so hard pressed to get the companies to actually cooperate in any reasonable manner. Funding NASA helps fund the research and development that allows for the possibility of creating that infrastructure we so desperately need up in space in order to do any of it.  There are so few people that seem to realize that we are so incredibly far away from being able to mine the asteroid belts and things like that.  And even so many years after the space program has started, there is not one company that can go into LEO to do the things NASA can do, simply because the returns aren't there in LEO to be profitable in the short or even medium term. Government does not have any business in morality but infrastructure is one place that it can really do a huge amount of good for the citizens and possibly the world (and our own economy if we get the infrastructure up there and charge others to use it)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>well that 's one thing where , even though I 'd say I 'm mostly libertarian , I 'd disagree .
getting infrastructure in place is one of the things that government can do easier and ( if you can eliminate most of the pork and other bureaucratic shit ) should be doing since it is one thing that most definitely does benefit all citizens equally , just imagine if the roads were done by private companies , there might be more that are very well maintained but something like the interstate highway system would be near impossible to create because you 'd be so hard pressed to get the companies to actually cooperate in any reasonable manner .
Funding NASA helps fund the research and development that allows for the possibility of creating that infrastructure we so desperately need up in space in order to do any of it .
There are so few people that seem to realize that we are so incredibly far away from being able to mine the asteroid belts and things like that .
And even so many years after the space program has started , there is not one company that can go into LEO to do the things NASA can do , simply because the returns are n't there in LEO to be profitable in the short or even medium term .
Government does not have any business in morality but infrastructure is one place that it can really do a huge amount of good for the citizens and possibly the world ( and our own economy if we get the infrastructure up there and charge others to use it )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well that's one thing where, even though I'd say I'm mostly libertarian, I'd disagree.
getting infrastructure in place is one of the things that government can do easier and (if you can eliminate most of the pork and other bureaucratic shit) should be doing since it is one thing that most definitely does benefit all citizens equally, just imagine if the roads were done by private companies, there might be more that are very well maintained but something like the interstate highway system would be near impossible to create because you'd be so hard pressed to get the companies to actually cooperate in any reasonable manner.
Funding NASA helps fund the research and development that allows for the possibility of creating that infrastructure we so desperately need up in space in order to do any of it.
There are so few people that seem to realize that we are so incredibly far away from being able to mine the asteroid belts and things like that.
And even so many years after the space program has started, there is not one company that can go into LEO to do the things NASA can do, simply because the returns aren't there in LEO to be profitable in the short or even medium term.
Government does not have any business in morality but infrastructure is one place that it can really do a huge amount of good for the citizens and possibly the world (and our own economy if we get the infrastructure up there and charge others to use it)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130644</id>
	<title>Re:libertarian</title>
	<author>jthill</author>
	<datestamp>1266061860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>just imagine if the roads were done by private companies</p></div><p>If I recall long-ago reading correctly, frustration at petty little lords demanding excessive tolls at their borders, at a time when communications were becoming easy enough that people could see the larger picture, the inherent waste, was actually a factor propelling France's shift from a gaggle of feudal states to a nation.
</p><p>These days, the barriers are at, let's call it "enterprise" boundaries.  The little tribes demanding exorbitant fees from protected positions can be found everywhere, but what protects the positions is no longer armor and horses and weapons but economic, either by government fiat as in the case of inherited copy"right" or the drug warriors or the TSA; or by <em>absence</em> of government fiat as for the myriad unrestrained monopoly cartels.
</p><p>Even against that backdrop, claiming that "NASA has always been a huge waste of money" as GP did is breathtakingly small-souled.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>just imagine if the roads were done by private companiesIf I recall long-ago reading correctly , frustration at petty little lords demanding excessive tolls at their borders , at a time when communications were becoming easy enough that people could see the larger picture , the inherent waste , was actually a factor propelling France 's shift from a gaggle of feudal states to a nation .
These days , the barriers are at , let 's call it " enterprise " boundaries .
The little tribes demanding exorbitant fees from protected positions can be found everywhere , but what protects the positions is no longer armor and horses and weapons but economic , either by government fiat as in the case of inherited copy " right " or the drug warriors or the TSA ; or by absence of government fiat as for the myriad unrestrained monopoly cartels .
Even against that backdrop , claiming that " NASA has always been a huge waste of money " as GP did is breathtakingly small-souled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just imagine if the roads were done by private companiesIf I recall long-ago reading correctly, frustration at petty little lords demanding excessive tolls at their borders, at a time when communications were becoming easy enough that people could see the larger picture, the inherent waste, was actually a factor propelling France's shift from a gaggle of feudal states to a nation.
These days, the barriers are at, let's call it "enterprise" boundaries.
The little tribes demanding exorbitant fees from protected positions can be found everywhere, but what protects the positions is no longer armor and horses and weapons but economic, either by government fiat as in the case of inherited copy"right" or the drug warriors or the TSA; or by absence of government fiat as for the myriad unrestrained monopoly cartels.
Even against that backdrop, claiming that "NASA has always been a huge waste of money" as GP did is breathtakingly small-souled.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129666</id>
	<title>Re:Space exploration is conservative.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266053880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The bottom line is that the current budget has far too many massive mandatory expenditures (read: interest on the debt accrued during the past 8 years</i></p><p>You are either lying, crazy or stupid. I suspect the first. Under Bush 43, the national debt increased by a bit more than a trillion dollars. Obama has committed to spending that much more during the first year of his new administration. Without question the Bush administration increased the debt, please don't act like all ~5$ trillion can be laid at his feet. Clearly, it can not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The bottom line is that the current budget has far too many massive mandatory expenditures ( read : interest on the debt accrued during the past 8 yearsYou are either lying , crazy or stupid .
I suspect the first .
Under Bush 43 , the national debt increased by a bit more than a trillion dollars .
Obama has committed to spending that much more during the first year of his new administration .
Without question the Bush administration increased the debt , please do n't act like all ~ 5 $ trillion can be laid at his feet .
Clearly , it can not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The bottom line is that the current budget has far too many massive mandatory expenditures (read: interest on the debt accrued during the past 8 yearsYou are either lying, crazy or stupid.
I suspect the first.
Under Bush 43, the national debt increased by a bit more than a trillion dollars.
Obama has committed to spending that much more during the first year of his new administration.
Without question the Bush administration increased the debt, please don't act like all ~5$ trillion can be laid at his feet.
Clearly, it can not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131504</id>
	<title>R.I.P. Earthlings</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266071040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>And thus we die.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And thus we die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And thus we die.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129254</id>
	<title>Rational decision based on irrational constraints</title>
	<author>robot256</author>
	<datestamp>1266094140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If conservatives want to have a civil war over the space program, then fine.  The simple fact is that the new space program is the most rational allocation of the woefully inadequate NASA funds that politicians are willing to throw at them.  Nothing more, nothing less.
</p><p>As a NASA engineer, I agree that it is a shame we are shutting down all our manned launch programs for the time being, but completing the Ares project would have meant shuttering just about every other research &amp; development effort.  NASA's most valuable resource is their innovative scientists and engineers--it really is a waste to have most of NASA's budget going to routine space flight tasks.
</p><p>The new budget cuts manned launches but redirects those funds to long-term research that will make future manned launches both more productive and less expensive.  Extensive research into propulsion, navigation, life support, and self-sustainability will be carried out using inexpensive robotic missions and the International Space Station.
</p><p>If the Republicans want someone to blame, then they should blame nearly every politician since the end of the Cold War for not pushing for more NASA funding and relevant priorities.  And no, pork barrel projects don't count, only money that can be distributed based on scientific merit and technological feasibility really makes a difference.
</p><p>The bottom line is the political climate makes it impossible to properly fund anything, including space travel.  If you want to change that, tell your congresspeople to increase funding and support the scientific priorities--not pork projects--we need to make real and tangible progress in the quest to explore the universe</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If conservatives want to have a civil war over the space program , then fine .
The simple fact is that the new space program is the most rational allocation of the woefully inadequate NASA funds that politicians are willing to throw at them .
Nothing more , nothing less .
As a NASA engineer , I agree that it is a shame we are shutting down all our manned launch programs for the time being , but completing the Ares project would have meant shuttering just about every other research &amp; development effort .
NASA 's most valuable resource is their innovative scientists and engineers--it really is a waste to have most of NASA 's budget going to routine space flight tasks .
The new budget cuts manned launches but redirects those funds to long-term research that will make future manned launches both more productive and less expensive .
Extensive research into propulsion , navigation , life support , and self-sustainability will be carried out using inexpensive robotic missions and the International Space Station .
If the Republicans want someone to blame , then they should blame nearly every politician since the end of the Cold War for not pushing for more NASA funding and relevant priorities .
And no , pork barrel projects do n't count , only money that can be distributed based on scientific merit and technological feasibility really makes a difference .
The bottom line is the political climate makes it impossible to properly fund anything , including space travel .
If you want to change that , tell your congresspeople to increase funding and support the scientific priorities--not pork projects--we need to make real and tangible progress in the quest to explore the universe</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If conservatives want to have a civil war over the space program, then fine.
The simple fact is that the new space program is the most rational allocation of the woefully inadequate NASA funds that politicians are willing to throw at them.
Nothing more, nothing less.
As a NASA engineer, I agree that it is a shame we are shutting down all our manned launch programs for the time being, but completing the Ares project would have meant shuttering just about every other research &amp; development effort.
NASA's most valuable resource is their innovative scientists and engineers--it really is a waste to have most of NASA's budget going to routine space flight tasks.
The new budget cuts manned launches but redirects those funds to long-term research that will make future manned launches both more productive and less expensive.
Extensive research into propulsion, navigation, life support, and self-sustainability will be carried out using inexpensive robotic missions and the International Space Station.
If the Republicans want someone to blame, then they should blame nearly every politician since the end of the Cold War for not pushing for more NASA funding and relevant priorities.
And no, pork barrel projects don't count, only money that can be distributed based on scientific merit and technological feasibility really makes a difference.
The bottom line is the political climate makes it impossible to properly fund anything, including space travel.
If you want to change that, tell your congresspeople to increase funding and support the scientific priorities--not pork projects--we need to make real and tangible progress in the quest to explore the universe</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129528</id>
	<title>Why the sudden love for private industry?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266052920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obama's been hard at work for the last year growing the size and scope of government.  Why the sudden love for private industry?  My theory is that he realizes that we can't pay for both space travel AND expanding the welfare state, so he's chosen the path of most votes.</p><p>I have my doubts that private manned space travel will ever succeed in the US.  We are far more pussified than we used to be.  The safety and regulatory hurdles are astronomical.  We treat every space death as if it should be the last time we ever send a person into space.  We're strapping a person to a giant rocket and launching them into space.  Guess what?  IT'S VERY DANGEROUS!  Now get over it!  No one is being jettisoned into space against their will, although sometimes I wish all of Congress were.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama 's been hard at work for the last year growing the size and scope of government .
Why the sudden love for private industry ?
My theory is that he realizes that we ca n't pay for both space travel AND expanding the welfare state , so he 's chosen the path of most votes.I have my doubts that private manned space travel will ever succeed in the US .
We are far more pussified than we used to be .
The safety and regulatory hurdles are astronomical .
We treat every space death as if it should be the last time we ever send a person into space .
We 're strapping a person to a giant rocket and launching them into space .
Guess what ?
IT 'S VERY DANGEROUS !
Now get over it !
No one is being jettisoned into space against their will , although sometimes I wish all of Congress were .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama's been hard at work for the last year growing the size and scope of government.
Why the sudden love for private industry?
My theory is that he realizes that we can't pay for both space travel AND expanding the welfare state, so he's chosen the path of most votes.I have my doubts that private manned space travel will ever succeed in the US.
We are far more pussified than we used to be.
The safety and regulatory hurdles are astronomical.
We treat every space death as if it should be the last time we ever send a person into space.
We're strapping a person to a giant rocket and launching them into space.
Guess what?
IT'S VERY DANGEROUS!
Now get over it!
No one is being jettisoned into space against their will, although sometimes I wish all of Congress were.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31133300</id>
	<title>Re:Space exploration is conservative.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266141960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Tea Party says it's about fiscal responsibility when in reality they are just a bunch of pawns being used to try and drag the conservatives out of the cess pool they created with the Bush Administration. It's incredible that more people don't see just how manipulated they are by the media/Faux News.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Tea Party says it 's about fiscal responsibility when in reality they are just a bunch of pawns being used to try and drag the conservatives out of the cess pool they created with the Bush Administration .
It 's incredible that more people do n't see just how manipulated they are by the media/Faux News .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Tea Party says it's about fiscal responsibility when in reality they are just a bunch of pawns being used to try and drag the conservatives out of the cess pool they created with the Bush Administration.
It's incredible that more people don't see just how manipulated they are by the media/Faux News.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131816</id>
	<title>Re:Very misleading summary</title>
	<author>captn ecks</author>
	<datestamp>1266074400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree. The Obama plan actually increases the NASA budget and refocuses it on the things NASA does best with the resources it has, like the continued and expanded deep space exploration of the moon and solar system by robotic probes such as the ongoing and currently very successful Mars program and Saturn orbiter. These are the appropriate areas to spend government money to do non-commercial explorations that will lead to actionable knowledge in the future. Support to bring commercial manned LEO space access to reality is also forward looking. At first glance I was disappointed in the new plan but with a little thought I've come to see that this may be the best long range plan we can actually afford to carry out and  keep our options open. The Constellation programs were a slow motion disaster.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
The Obama plan actually increases the NASA budget and refocuses it on the things NASA does best with the resources it has , like the continued and expanded deep space exploration of the moon and solar system by robotic probes such as the ongoing and currently very successful Mars program and Saturn orbiter .
These are the appropriate areas to spend government money to do non-commercial explorations that will lead to actionable knowledge in the future .
Support to bring commercial manned LEO space access to reality is also forward looking .
At first glance I was disappointed in the new plan but with a little thought I 've come to see that this may be the best long range plan we can actually afford to carry out and keep our options open .
The Constellation programs were a slow motion disaster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
The Obama plan actually increases the NASA budget and refocuses it on the things NASA does best with the resources it has, like the continued and expanded deep space exploration of the moon and solar system by robotic probes such as the ongoing and currently very successful Mars program and Saturn orbiter.
These are the appropriate areas to spend government money to do non-commercial explorations that will lead to actionable knowledge in the future.
Support to bring commercial manned LEO space access to reality is also forward looking.
At first glance I was disappointed in the new plan but with a little thought I've come to see that this may be the best long range plan we can actually afford to carry out and  keep our options open.
The Constellation programs were a slow motion disaster.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129686</id>
	<title>The choice?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266053940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From what I understand, the choice is that we can either keep flying the Space Shuttle, past its design lifetime and with its two fatal crashes in its history, or we can use someone else's rocket and work on developing a superior replacement.  Is this even a choice?  Who in their right mind would choose the former?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From what I understand , the choice is that we can either keep flying the Space Shuttle , past its design lifetime and with its two fatal crashes in its history , or we can use someone else 's rocket and work on developing a superior replacement .
Is this even a choice ?
Who in their right mind would choose the former ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From what I understand, the choice is that we can either keep flying the Space Shuttle, past its design lifetime and with its two fatal crashes in its history, or we can use someone else's rocket and work on developing a superior replacement.
Is this even a choice?
Who in their right mind would choose the former?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129594</id>
	<title>Two things about any OBAMA idea.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266053340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One, he didn't come up with it.<br>Two, it's bad for America.</p><p>If you like America oppose anything he supports, if you don't, support it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One , he did n't come up with it.Two , it 's bad for America.If you like America oppose anything he supports , if you do n't , support it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One, he didn't come up with it.Two, it's bad for America.If you like America oppose anything he supports, if you don't, support it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130574</id>
	<title>Re:Obama, space plan?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266061140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least we have one conservative who's not afraid to say what's <i>really</i> motivating his opinion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least we have one conservative who 's not afraid to say what 's really motivating his opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least we have one conservative who's not afraid to say what's really motivating his opinion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129422</id>
	<title>Re:Space exploration is conservative.</title>
	<author>Ed Avis</author>
	<datestamp>1266052260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Any story or statement beginning 'conservatives are X' or 'conservatives think that Y' is a bit pointless since it devolves into an argument about who the true conservatives are.  In addition, it tends to obscure the detail of who, exactly, did what: it's only a small step away from the classic weasel-word formula 'Some people think that...'.  If you mean Republicans, say that; membership of a political party is a question of fact and doesn't provoke argument.

This doesn't apply in countries where 'Conservative' is the name of a well-known political party, or to 'conservative bloggers' if treated as an amorphous mass.  But the opinions of a mass of self-defined 'conservative' loudmouths don't make a news story; only named people or particular events do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any story or statement beginning 'conservatives are X ' or 'conservatives think that Y ' is a bit pointless since it devolves into an argument about who the true conservatives are .
In addition , it tends to obscure the detail of who , exactly , did what : it 's only a small step away from the classic weasel-word formula 'Some people think that...' .
If you mean Republicans , say that ; membership of a political party is a question of fact and does n't provoke argument .
This does n't apply in countries where 'Conservative ' is the name of a well-known political party , or to 'conservative bloggers ' if treated as an amorphous mass .
But the opinions of a mass of self-defined 'conservative ' loudmouths do n't make a news story ; only named people or particular events do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any story or statement beginning 'conservatives are X' or 'conservatives think that Y' is a bit pointless since it devolves into an argument about who the true conservatives are.
In addition, it tends to obscure the detail of who, exactly, did what: it's only a small step away from the classic weasel-word formula 'Some people think that...'.
If you mean Republicans, say that; membership of a political party is a question of fact and doesn't provoke argument.
This doesn't apply in countries where 'Conservative' is the name of a well-known political party, or to 'conservative bloggers' if treated as an amorphous mass.
But the opinions of a mass of self-defined 'conservative' loudmouths don't make a news story; only named people or particular events do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129940</id>
	<title>Re:Space exploration is conservative.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266055860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>this idea in liberal camps that we should not be spending any money on things like space or defense, or even roads, for that matter. Instead, the federal government in their eyes should not do anything until every poor person is somehow fixed</p></div></blockquote><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtBy\_ppG4hY" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtBy\_ppG4hY</a> [youtube.com]<br>This is really all you need to know.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>this idea in liberal camps that we should not be spending any money on things like space or defense , or even roads , for that matter .
Instead , the federal government in their eyes should not do anything until every poor person is somehow fixedhttp : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = PtBy \ _ppG4hY [ youtube.com ] This is really all you need to know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this idea in liberal camps that we should not be spending any money on things like space or defense, or even roads, for that matter.
Instead, the federal government in their eyes should not do anything until every poor person is somehow fixedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtBy\_ppG4hY [youtube.com]This is really all you need to know.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31132074</id>
	<title>How to build a just society.</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1266077820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It's a wicked, wicked idea. Society should be built around the idea of helping everyone succeed, not rewarding an arbitrarily-chosen lucky few while punishing everyone else for things that aren't their fault.</i></p><p>First off, a lot of failure is people's fault.  The left has to own up to this, and it is true, moral failures have a lot to do with it.  Too much drinking, drugging, gambling, womanizing, entertaining oneself, the whole liberal idea that if it feels good do it, is just totally wrong.</p><p>Now, with that said, I'm all on board with the idea of having some wiggle room so that people can make some mistakes and not get ruined by them.  I've made some tremendously bad decisions but was fortunate to be in computers at the right time and recovered from it somewhat with a lot of hard work.</p><p>The answer is, free trade has to go.  The only way all Americans can succeed in a society where 100 million workers have to compete against 5 billion workers for jobs for their own market is if they are absolutely perfect, supremely educated, and even then, the whole idea that the USA will somehow "win" an economic competition against the whole world is the stupidist possible jingoism.  We cannot possibly win that competition.  Chinese people are smart. Indians are smart.  Mexicans are smart, and everyone around the world works hard. There is nothing the American worker can do to better himself or herself that one in ten counterparts around the world cannot do.</p><p>So, free trade has to go.  You can't just say "oh, this job in the factory is something no one in the USA wants... there's plenty of people out there that would do anything just to have a 9-5 in the factory droning on and making cars.  You can't do that with any skill.  It's enormously disrepectful, its just arrogantly headed, and wrong.  Free trade, its just got to go.  It's not worth throwing away the lives of millions of people with every flow of capital or consumer fancy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a wicked , wicked idea .
Society should be built around the idea of helping everyone succeed , not rewarding an arbitrarily-chosen lucky few while punishing everyone else for things that are n't their fault.First off , a lot of failure is people 's fault .
The left has to own up to this , and it is true , moral failures have a lot to do with it .
Too much drinking , drugging , gambling , womanizing , entertaining oneself , the whole liberal idea that if it feels good do it , is just totally wrong.Now , with that said , I 'm all on board with the idea of having some wiggle room so that people can make some mistakes and not get ruined by them .
I 've made some tremendously bad decisions but was fortunate to be in computers at the right time and recovered from it somewhat with a lot of hard work.The answer is , free trade has to go .
The only way all Americans can succeed in a society where 100 million workers have to compete against 5 billion workers for jobs for their own market is if they are absolutely perfect , supremely educated , and even then , the whole idea that the USA will somehow " win " an economic competition against the whole world is the stupidist possible jingoism .
We can not possibly win that competition .
Chinese people are smart .
Indians are smart .
Mexicans are smart , and everyone around the world works hard .
There is nothing the American worker can do to better himself or herself that one in ten counterparts around the world can not do.So , free trade has to go .
You ca n't just say " oh , this job in the factory is something no one in the USA wants... there 's plenty of people out there that would do anything just to have a 9-5 in the factory droning on and making cars .
You ca n't do that with any skill .
It 's enormously disrepectful , its just arrogantly headed , and wrong .
Free trade , its just got to go .
It 's not worth throwing away the lives of millions of people with every flow of capital or consumer fancy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a wicked, wicked idea.
Society should be built around the idea of helping everyone succeed, not rewarding an arbitrarily-chosen lucky few while punishing everyone else for things that aren't their fault.First off, a lot of failure is people's fault.
The left has to own up to this, and it is true, moral failures have a lot to do with it.
Too much drinking, drugging, gambling, womanizing, entertaining oneself, the whole liberal idea that if it feels good do it, is just totally wrong.Now, with that said, I'm all on board with the idea of having some wiggle room so that people can make some mistakes and not get ruined by them.
I've made some tremendously bad decisions but was fortunate to be in computers at the right time and recovered from it somewhat with a lot of hard work.The answer is, free trade has to go.
The only way all Americans can succeed in a society where 100 million workers have to compete against 5 billion workers for jobs for their own market is if they are absolutely perfect, supremely educated, and even then, the whole idea that the USA will somehow "win" an economic competition against the whole world is the stupidist possible jingoism.
We cannot possibly win that competition.
Chinese people are smart.
Indians are smart.
Mexicans are smart, and everyone around the world works hard.
There is nothing the American worker can do to better himself or herself that one in ten counterparts around the world cannot do.So, free trade has to go.
You can't just say "oh, this job in the factory is something no one in the USA wants... there's plenty of people out there that would do anything just to have a 9-5 in the factory droning on and making cars.
You can't do that with any skill.
It's enormously disrepectful, its just arrogantly headed, and wrong.
Free trade, its just got to go.
It's not worth throwing away the lives of millions of people with every flow of capital or consumer fancy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130144</id>
	<title>Re:Out source space too...</title>
	<author>FleaPlus</author>
	<datestamp>1266057780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I guess the US will be exporting space exploration to China now as well.</p></div><p>What's funny is that China announced lunar exploration plans which would involve them having to build new rockets with the same capabilities as the US's already-existing medium-lift commercial EELVs. What's particularly funny is that much of the supposed rationale for the now-cancelled Constellation program  is that lunar exploration was supposed to be impossible with such rockets; this was total BS of course, but it was the primary validation for why NASA apparently had to develop brand-new rockets instead of using the already-existing commercial rockets.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess the US will be exporting space exploration to China now as well.What 's funny is that China announced lunar exploration plans which would involve them having to build new rockets with the same capabilities as the US 's already-existing medium-lift commercial EELVs .
What 's particularly funny is that much of the supposed rationale for the now-cancelled Constellation program is that lunar exploration was supposed to be impossible with such rockets ; this was total BS of course , but it was the primary validation for why NASA apparently had to develop brand-new rockets instead of using the already-existing commercial rockets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess the US will be exporting space exploration to China now as well.What's funny is that China announced lunar exploration plans which would involve them having to build new rockets with the same capabilities as the US's already-existing medium-lift commercial EELVs.
What's particularly funny is that much of the supposed rationale for the now-cancelled Constellation program  is that lunar exploration was supposed to be impossible with such rockets; this was total BS of course, but it was the primary validation for why NASA apparently had to develop brand-new rockets instead of using the already-existing commercial rockets.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129194</id>
	<title>that's not why they hate it</title>
	<author>SuperBanana</author>
	<datestamp>1266093780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Some conservatives hate the proposal because of the retreat from the high frontier and even go so far as to cast doubt on the commercial space aspects.</i>

</p><p>Uh, no- all congresscritters hate it because NASA is giant cash-cow for the defense industry- companies like Lockheed-Martin and Boeing.  Hell hath no fury like a congresscritter who wants to stand on a platform in front of a defense factory in his or her district, come election time, and talk about how important the makers of the A43 Latrine Servicing Truck are to the defense and security of our great nation.

</p><p>All those probes, satellites, etc?  Built by defense contractors, carried up on rockets built by defense contractors, and very often launched from launch facilities owned by defense contractors.

</p><p>The shuttle costs <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle\_faq.html" title="nasa.gov">half a billion dollars per launch</a> [nasa.gov], for example...and almost everything NASA does is outsourced to government contractors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some conservatives hate the proposal because of the retreat from the high frontier and even go so far as to cast doubt on the commercial space aspects .
Uh , no- all congresscritters hate it because NASA is giant cash-cow for the defense industry- companies like Lockheed-Martin and Boeing .
Hell hath no fury like a congresscritter who wants to stand on a platform in front of a defense factory in his or her district , come election time , and talk about how important the makers of the A43 Latrine Servicing Truck are to the defense and security of our great nation .
All those probes , satellites , etc ?
Built by defense contractors , carried up on rockets built by defense contractors , and very often launched from launch facilities owned by defense contractors .
The shuttle costs half a billion dollars per launch [ nasa.gov ] , for example...and almost everything NASA does is outsourced to government contractors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Some conservatives hate the proposal because of the retreat from the high frontier and even go so far as to cast doubt on the commercial space aspects.
Uh, no- all congresscritters hate it because NASA is giant cash-cow for the defense industry- companies like Lockheed-Martin and Boeing.
Hell hath no fury like a congresscritter who wants to stand on a platform in front of a defense factory in his or her district, come election time, and talk about how important the makers of the A43 Latrine Servicing Truck are to the defense and security of our great nation.
All those probes, satellites, etc?
Built by defense contractors, carried up on rockets built by defense contractors, and very often launched from launch facilities owned by defense contractors.
The shuttle costs half a billion dollars per launch [nasa.gov], for example...and almost everything NASA does is outsourced to government contractors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130598</id>
	<title>fartintine's day</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266061380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i guess i don't know why if there can be a valentine day every february 15th why can't there be a day when ppl can fart in public? it could be on the 16th or w/e. anyway we work pretty hard every day holding them in, lol. it would be nice if there were a day when it could be considered polite to do it at work or church or w/e. write back and let me know what you think</p><p>-vlad</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i guess i do n't know why if there can be a valentine day every february 15th why ca n't there be a day when ppl can fart in public ?
it could be on the 16th or w/e .
anyway we work pretty hard every day holding them in , lol .
it would be nice if there were a day when it could be considered polite to do it at work or church or w/e .
write back and let me know what you think-vlad</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i guess i don't know why if there can be a valentine day every february 15th why can't there be a day when ppl can fart in public?
it could be on the 16th or w/e.
anyway we work pretty hard every day holding them in, lol.
it would be nice if there were a day when it could be considered polite to do it at work or church or w/e.
write back and let me know what you think-vlad</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130502</id>
	<title>Re:Space exploration is conservative.</title>
	<author>dachshund</author>
	<datestamp>1266060600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Why is NASA's ~20 billion so hard to pay for when we seem to have little trouble finding enough to spend about 2.5** trillion on entitlements yearly?</i> </p><p>Because much of those entitlements are financed through dedicated taxes (FICA) that come directly out of your paycheck.  For whatever reason people seem to think those taxes are worth the benefit.  I imagine you could fund NASA's budget in the same way if you could convince working Americans to pay an similar NASA tax.</p><p>Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of fully funding NASA, but thirty years of mostly conservative rule have essentially <a href="http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html#delta-deficit" title="adelphi.edu">destroyed</a> [adelphi.edu] our finances.</p><p>Matt</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is NASA 's ~ 20 billion so hard to pay for when we seem to have little trouble finding enough to spend about 2.5 * * trillion on entitlements yearly ?
Because much of those entitlements are financed through dedicated taxes ( FICA ) that come directly out of your paycheck .
For whatever reason people seem to think those taxes are worth the benefit .
I imagine you could fund NASA 's budget in the same way if you could convince working Americans to pay an similar NASA tax.Do n't get me wrong , I 'm all in favor of fully funding NASA , but thirty years of mostly conservative rule have essentially destroyed [ adelphi.edu ] our finances.Matt</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is NASA's ~20 billion so hard to pay for when we seem to have little trouble finding enough to spend about 2.5** trillion on entitlements yearly?
Because much of those entitlements are financed through dedicated taxes (FICA) that come directly out of your paycheck.
For whatever reason people seem to think those taxes are worth the benefit.
I imagine you could fund NASA's budget in the same way if you could convince working Americans to pay an similar NASA tax.Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of fully funding NASA, but thirty years of mostly conservative rule have essentially destroyed [adelphi.edu] our finances.Matt</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31134800</id>
	<title>Re:libertarian</title>
	<author>astar</author>
	<datestamp>1266166740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>why i live in Japan</p><p>there is a certain personal fallacy therein.</p><p>I figure that Japan being Japan, they will never really accept a foreigner, or maybe it is a white guy.  so like the hermit, you define yourself for all time by what you spend your time rejecting.  there is at least some unpleasant irony there.</p><p>as far as beating up on libertarians and anarchists, I figure their economic behavior would still be pretty good if they had a high enough cultural level.  But then, would they be libertarians?  Personally, I would rather spend my time crushing empires then beating up on what are largely patriots.</p><p>Like most everyone, I am sure you are clueless about usa history.  since you are in Japan, you might talk to someone about, hmm, Matthew Carey, Lincoln's economist.  Everyone reads him when they decide to industrialize.  If you are a well-read leftie, look at his correspondence with Marx and figure out who was right when they disagreed.  So where did carey come from?</p><p>On the usa, I am an exceptionalist.  And on a practical matter, you might compare birmingham 63 to usa august 2009. and pull in dvr october 89.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>why i live in Japanthere is a certain personal fallacy therein.I figure that Japan being Japan , they will never really accept a foreigner , or maybe it is a white guy .
so like the hermit , you define yourself for all time by what you spend your time rejecting .
there is at least some unpleasant irony there.as far as beating up on libertarians and anarchists , I figure their economic behavior would still be pretty good if they had a high enough cultural level .
But then , would they be libertarians ?
Personally , I would rather spend my time crushing empires then beating up on what are largely patriots.Like most everyone , I am sure you are clueless about usa history .
since you are in Japan , you might talk to someone about , hmm , Matthew Carey , Lincoln 's economist .
Everyone reads him when they decide to industrialize .
If you are a well-read leftie , look at his correspondence with Marx and figure out who was right when they disagreed .
So where did carey come from ? On the usa , I am an exceptionalist .
And on a practical matter , you might compare birmingham 63 to usa august 2009. and pull in dvr october 89 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why i live in Japanthere is a certain personal fallacy therein.I figure that Japan being Japan, they will never really accept a foreigner, or maybe it is a white guy.
so like the hermit, you define yourself for all time by what you spend your time rejecting.
there is at least some unpleasant irony there.as far as beating up on libertarians and anarchists, I figure their economic behavior would still be pretty good if they had a high enough cultural level.
But then, would they be libertarians?
Personally, I would rather spend my time crushing empires then beating up on what are largely patriots.Like most everyone, I am sure you are clueless about usa history.
since you are in Japan, you might talk to someone about, hmm, Matthew Carey, Lincoln's economist.
Everyone reads him when they decide to industrialize.
If you are a well-read leftie, look at his correspondence with Marx and figure out who was right when they disagreed.
So where did carey come from?On the usa, I am an exceptionalist.
And on a practical matter, you might compare birmingham 63 to usa august 2009. and pull in dvr october 89.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31135326</id>
	<title>Re:libertarian</title>
	<author>DavidTC</author>
	<datestamp>1266171900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason that Amtrak has such low ridership is a few things, all things where it <b>should</b> have the advantages over air, but we've managed to break it:</p><p>
Amtrak has to inexplicably wait for freight to get out of the way, resulting in random delays. Freight often has priority thanks to idiotic railway agreements. With planes, passenger planes have priority, and there actually isn't that much air freight.</p><p>
They've managed to turn it into airport style security and hassle, resulting in you having to get there early. The entire point of train travel is that you didn't have to do that, and hence you could actually get places faster than a plane. Can't anymore. As you cannot hijack a train, and if you wanted to blow one up, blowing up a packed subway car in the middle of the city would make a hell of a lot more sense than blowing up a half empty train in the middle of nowhere.</p><p>
As these two problems are so stupid, I am forced to conclude that they are almost certainly <b>deliberate</b> attempts to break passenger rail. Laws could trivially fix them and cause no problems whatsoever.</p><p>
And there are a few infrastructure problems that would be more work to fix:</p><p>
They refuse to build the system in any sane way, requiring people to get into a town to get on the train. For example, if I want to get on Amtrak, I have to go to downtown Atlanta. Trains need to <b>end</b> in large cities, but you need to be able to enter the system on the <b>outsides</b> of said cities, so you don't have to deal with the fucking traffic of the town <b>you're trying to leave</b>.Yet again, another thing that should be an advantage of rail, totally ignored.</p><p>
<b>Sane</b> setups would pick up additional car as they leave a town or assemble trains out of cars from suburbs,  but heaven forbid Amtrak be designed with any sort of sanity.</p><p>
Likewise, at least here, getting from the subway to the train is not as easy as you'd think. A sane system would have the two trains pull up parallel to each other, and you just walk across. Perhaps you could even purchase train tickets on the subway, or at least once you get across.</p><p>
Here, you lug your bags up to a whole nother floor, stand in line to buy tickets, go through a security screening (Which I already mentioned is nonsensical.), file into the train as they check said ticket, and then take a seat. Instead of a 60 second process, it's at least ten minutes. (Granted, it'd be a while anyway, as you'd have to wait for the train schedule, but ten minutes gets added to each trip, on average. And running around trying to buy tickets is much more annoying than just sitting on the train.)</p><p>
Buying tickets probably deserves a special mention. For some reason, we've gotten rid of the tried and true method of handing tickets, which was that you could buy your ticket on the train, usually before it got underway, but occasionally people would make it on without tickets and couldn't or wouldn't pay, and hence got ejected at the next stop. It was actually <b>less</b> work than getting on the subway. You just walk on, sit down, and a guy would come around and ask to see your ticket. You didn't have it, you paid cash then and there, or got off the train. It was a perfectly workable and reasonable system, and even better now that everyone has credit cards and can actually pay $70 randomly.</p><p>
But suddenly, gasp, terrorism was all over the place, and now we have to fucking ID check and security screen everyone because they might decided to blow up a train by riding on it. (As opposed to, you know, driving a car into a passing train at a crossing. That would just make too much sense.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason that Amtrak has such low ridership is a few things , all things where it should have the advantages over air , but we 've managed to break it : Amtrak has to inexplicably wait for freight to get out of the way , resulting in random delays .
Freight often has priority thanks to idiotic railway agreements .
With planes , passenger planes have priority , and there actually is n't that much air freight .
They 've managed to turn it into airport style security and hassle , resulting in you having to get there early .
The entire point of train travel is that you did n't have to do that , and hence you could actually get places faster than a plane .
Ca n't anymore .
As you can not hijack a train , and if you wanted to blow one up , blowing up a packed subway car in the middle of the city would make a hell of a lot more sense than blowing up a half empty train in the middle of nowhere .
As these two problems are so stupid , I am forced to conclude that they are almost certainly deliberate attempts to break passenger rail .
Laws could trivially fix them and cause no problems whatsoever .
And there are a few infrastructure problems that would be more work to fix : They refuse to build the system in any sane way , requiring people to get into a town to get on the train .
For example , if I want to get on Amtrak , I have to go to downtown Atlanta .
Trains need to end in large cities , but you need to be able to enter the system on the outsides of said cities , so you do n't have to deal with the fucking traffic of the town you 're trying to leave.Yet again , another thing that should be an advantage of rail , totally ignored .
Sane setups would pick up additional car as they leave a town or assemble trains out of cars from suburbs , but heaven forbid Amtrak be designed with any sort of sanity .
Likewise , at least here , getting from the subway to the train is not as easy as you 'd think .
A sane system would have the two trains pull up parallel to each other , and you just walk across .
Perhaps you could even purchase train tickets on the subway , or at least once you get across .
Here , you lug your bags up to a whole nother floor , stand in line to buy tickets , go through a security screening ( Which I already mentioned is nonsensical .
) , file into the train as they check said ticket , and then take a seat .
Instead of a 60 second process , it 's at least ten minutes .
( Granted , it 'd be a while anyway , as you 'd have to wait for the train schedule , but ten minutes gets added to each trip , on average .
And running around trying to buy tickets is much more annoying than just sitting on the train .
) Buying tickets probably deserves a special mention .
For some reason , we 've gotten rid of the tried and true method of handing tickets , which was that you could buy your ticket on the train , usually before it got underway , but occasionally people would make it on without tickets and could n't or would n't pay , and hence got ejected at the next stop .
It was actually less work than getting on the subway .
You just walk on , sit down , and a guy would come around and ask to see your ticket .
You did n't have it , you paid cash then and there , or got off the train .
It was a perfectly workable and reasonable system , and even better now that everyone has credit cards and can actually pay $ 70 randomly .
But suddenly , gasp , terrorism was all over the place , and now we have to fucking ID check and security screen everyone because they might decided to blow up a train by riding on it .
( As opposed to , you know , driving a car into a passing train at a crossing .
That would just make too much sense .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason that Amtrak has such low ridership is a few things, all things where it should have the advantages over air, but we've managed to break it:
Amtrak has to inexplicably wait for freight to get out of the way, resulting in random delays.
Freight often has priority thanks to idiotic railway agreements.
With planes, passenger planes have priority, and there actually isn't that much air freight.
They've managed to turn it into airport style security and hassle, resulting in you having to get there early.
The entire point of train travel is that you didn't have to do that, and hence you could actually get places faster than a plane.
Can't anymore.
As you cannot hijack a train, and if you wanted to blow one up, blowing up a packed subway car in the middle of the city would make a hell of a lot more sense than blowing up a half empty train in the middle of nowhere.
As these two problems are so stupid, I am forced to conclude that they are almost certainly deliberate attempts to break passenger rail.
Laws could trivially fix them and cause no problems whatsoever.
And there are a few infrastructure problems that would be more work to fix:
They refuse to build the system in any sane way, requiring people to get into a town to get on the train.
For example, if I want to get on Amtrak, I have to go to downtown Atlanta.
Trains need to end in large cities, but you need to be able to enter the system on the outsides of said cities, so you don't have to deal with the fucking traffic of the town you're trying to leave.Yet again, another thing that should be an advantage of rail, totally ignored.
Sane setups would pick up additional car as they leave a town or assemble trains out of cars from suburbs,  but heaven forbid Amtrak be designed with any sort of sanity.
Likewise, at least here, getting from the subway to the train is not as easy as you'd think.
A sane system would have the two trains pull up parallel to each other, and you just walk across.
Perhaps you could even purchase train tickets on the subway, or at least once you get across.
Here, you lug your bags up to a whole nother floor, stand in line to buy tickets, go through a security screening (Which I already mentioned is nonsensical.
), file into the train as they check said ticket, and then take a seat.
Instead of a 60 second process, it's at least ten minutes.
(Granted, it'd be a while anyway, as you'd have to wait for the train schedule, but ten minutes gets added to each trip, on average.
And running around trying to buy tickets is much more annoying than just sitting on the train.
)
Buying tickets probably deserves a special mention.
For some reason, we've gotten rid of the tried and true method of handing tickets, which was that you could buy your ticket on the train, usually before it got underway, but occasionally people would make it on without tickets and couldn't or wouldn't pay, and hence got ejected at the next stop.
It was actually less work than getting on the subway.
You just walk on, sit down, and a guy would come around and ask to see your ticket.
You didn't have it, you paid cash then and there, or got off the train.
It was a perfectly workable and reasonable system, and even better now that everyone has credit cards and can actually pay $70 randomly.
But suddenly, gasp, terrorism was all over the place, and now we have to fucking ID check and security screen everyone because they might decided to blow up a train by riding on it.
(As opposed to, you know, driving a car into a passing train at a crossing.
That would just make too much sense.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129468</id>
	<title>Many arguments have nothing to do with space</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266052560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's not be so naive as to think these objections are based on what is best for humanity. Most are based on what will strengthen the political (or financial) position of the speaker, and weaken his opposition. Part of doing that is making arguments that sound vaguely plausible to the audience (that's you). But please, don't be a sucker.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's not be so naive as to think these objections are based on what is best for humanity .
Most are based on what will strengthen the political ( or financial ) position of the speaker , and weaken his opposition .
Part of doing that is making arguments that sound vaguely plausible to the audience ( that 's you ) .
But please , do n't be a sucker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's not be so naive as to think these objections are based on what is best for humanity.
Most are based on what will strengthen the political (or financial) position of the speaker, and weaken his opposition.
Part of doing that is making arguments that sound vaguely plausible to the audience (that's you).
But please, don't be a sucker.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129204</id>
	<title>You are now paying for the Chinese space program</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266093840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember where your Trillions in in recovery came from, the US people are now paying long term for the Chinese Space Program.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember where your Trillions in in recovery came from , the US people are now paying long term for the Chinese Space Program .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember where your Trillions in in recovery came from, the US people are now paying long term for the Chinese Space Program.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129532</id>
	<title>They complain about spending</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266052980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i> Some conservatives hate the proposal because of the retreat from the high frontier and even go so far as to cast doubt on the commercial space aspects.</i>

</p><p>They complain one day about out of control government spending, so when Obama cuts an expensive program that isn't working, they complain about that.  Those fiscal conservatives in the Alabama congressional delegation are having a collective heart attack trying to hang on to their pork projects.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some conservatives hate the proposal because of the retreat from the high frontier and even go so far as to cast doubt on the commercial space aspects .
They complain one day about out of control government spending , so when Obama cuts an expensive program that is n't working , they complain about that .
Those fiscal conservatives in the Alabama congressional delegation are having a collective heart attack trying to hang on to their pork projects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  Some conservatives hate the proposal because of the retreat from the high frontier and even go so far as to cast doubt on the commercial space aspects.
They complain one day about out of control government spending, so when Obama cuts an expensive program that isn't working, they complain about that.
Those fiscal conservatives in the Alabama congressional delegation are having a collective heart attack trying to hang on to their pork projects.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130086</id>
	<title>No plan = never get there</title>
	<author>Danathar</author>
	<datestamp>1266057240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love the idea of doing research that needs to be done for deep space exploration, but having NO plan except "do more research until we think we can get there cheaper and faster" with no specific timeline, no specific goals and no inspiration will NOT get us into deep space. What it WILL do is make NASA a big bloated funding agency with no direct expertise in putting people into space.</p><p>Also, let's not forget that you can make plans and test all you want but if you really want to go someplace in space you need people with experience and you need the experience of being in space to test the results of research. I smell something fishy and it sounds like the opponents of ANY American manned space exploration have crafted a plan knowing full well that without any specific goals and dismantling what we have now we will practically ENSURE that America's involvement as a primary player in space will end.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love the idea of doing research that needs to be done for deep space exploration , but having NO plan except " do more research until we think we can get there cheaper and faster " with no specific timeline , no specific goals and no inspiration will NOT get us into deep space .
What it WILL do is make NASA a big bloated funding agency with no direct expertise in putting people into space.Also , let 's not forget that you can make plans and test all you want but if you really want to go someplace in space you need people with experience and you need the experience of being in space to test the results of research .
I smell something fishy and it sounds like the opponents of ANY American manned space exploration have crafted a plan knowing full well that without any specific goals and dismantling what we have now we will practically ENSURE that America 's involvement as a primary player in space will end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love the idea of doing research that needs to be done for deep space exploration, but having NO plan except "do more research until we think we can get there cheaper and faster" with no specific timeline, no specific goals and no inspiration will NOT get us into deep space.
What it WILL do is make NASA a big bloated funding agency with no direct expertise in putting people into space.Also, let's not forget that you can make plans and test all you want but if you really want to go someplace in space you need people with experience and you need the experience of being in space to test the results of research.
I smell something fishy and it sounds like the opponents of ANY American manned space exploration have crafted a plan knowing full well that without any specific goals and dismantling what we have now we will practically ENSURE that America's involvement as a primary player in space will end.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129826</id>
	<title>Re:Easy enough to balance the budget</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266054840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>150 billion plus for SSI disability</p><p>Entitlements aren't too blame.</p></div><p>What the fuck do you think Social Security disability insurance is?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>150 billion plus for SSI disabilityEntitlements are n't too blame.What the fuck do you think Social Security disability insurance is ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>150 billion plus for SSI disabilityEntitlements aren't too blame.What the fuck do you think Social Security disability insurance is?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31135528</id>
	<title>Re:libertarian</title>
	<author>Z8</author>
	<datestamp>1266173580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>America is over?  What does that even mean, that all Americans are going to die tomorrow?  Is Britain/China/&lt;other once-leading country&gt; over?</p><p>It's also ironic that you were teaching in an American university complaining about how all Americans are libertarians.  I'm sure a large portion of your salary was paid for by taxpayers.  The university system is a good example of government-funded basic research where American still has an edge on other countries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>America is over ?
What does that even mean , that all Americans are going to die tomorrow ?
Is Britain/China/ over ? It 's also ironic that you were teaching in an American university complaining about how all Americans are libertarians .
I 'm sure a large portion of your salary was paid for by taxpayers .
The university system is a good example of government-funded basic research where American still has an edge on other countries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>America is over?
What does that even mean, that all Americans are going to die tomorrow?
Is Britain/China/ over?It's also ironic that you were teaching in an American university complaining about how all Americans are libertarians.
I'm sure a large portion of your salary was paid for by taxpayers.
The university system is a good example of government-funded basic research where American still has an edge on other countries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31136040</id>
	<title>Re:Very misleading summary</title>
	<author>FleaPlus</author>
	<datestamp>1266178380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is coming from the guy who's "summaries" are usually blatently anti-CxP</p></div><p>Can you point out any part of my summary where I distorted the truth? I guess one could argue that reality has an anti-CxP bias...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is coming from the guy who 's " summaries " are usually blatently anti-CxPCan you point out any part of my summary where I distorted the truth ?
I guess one could argue that reality has an anti-CxP bias.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is coming from the guy who's "summaries" are usually blatently anti-CxPCan you point out any part of my summary where I distorted the truth?
I guess one could argue that reality has an anti-CxP bias...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31132656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131210</id>
	<title>Private yes, but...</title>
	<author>wd5gnr</author>
	<datestamp>1266067500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am all for the government helping "pave the road to space" like they helped the transcontinental railroad (which was a success in its day). BUT, the two things that bother me is that Constellation has already made a sizable investment that will be lost  (just like the investment in the original station) AND it is going to decimate many, many high tech jobs. I am all for transition to private industry but to just fire literally thousands of scientists and engineers. They want to make jobs, not destroy them but I hear estimates of over 5,000 jobs in Houston alone and probably more than that in Huntsville.
<br> <br>
 NASA and its contractors do a TERRIBLE job of promoting success and good work to the public. Instead all you hear is bad news. The press helped when it was fun but they've left. Don't believe me? How many of you can draw a reasonably accurate diagram of Apollo? Now how many of you can sketch a reasonably accurate floor plan for ISS? How many modules are in it? Does it have one truss, two, or none?
<br> <br>
If you want to see what they have <b>REALLY</b> been up to: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2IQVZmHnJQ" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2IQVZmHnJQ</a> [youtube.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am all for the government helping " pave the road to space " like they helped the transcontinental railroad ( which was a success in its day ) .
BUT , the two things that bother me is that Constellation has already made a sizable investment that will be lost ( just like the investment in the original station ) AND it is going to decimate many , many high tech jobs .
I am all for transition to private industry but to just fire literally thousands of scientists and engineers .
They want to make jobs , not destroy them but I hear estimates of over 5,000 jobs in Houston alone and probably more than that in Huntsville .
NASA and its contractors do a TERRIBLE job of promoting success and good work to the public .
Instead all you hear is bad news .
The press helped when it was fun but they 've left .
Do n't believe me ?
How many of you can draw a reasonably accurate diagram of Apollo ?
Now how many of you can sketch a reasonably accurate floor plan for ISS ?
How many modules are in it ?
Does it have one truss , two , or none ?
If you want to see what they have REALLY been up to : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = a2IQVZmHnJQ [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am all for the government helping "pave the road to space" like they helped the transcontinental railroad (which was a success in its day).
BUT, the two things that bother me is that Constellation has already made a sizable investment that will be lost  (just like the investment in the original station) AND it is going to decimate many, many high tech jobs.
I am all for transition to private industry but to just fire literally thousands of scientists and engineers.
They want to make jobs, not destroy them but I hear estimates of over 5,000 jobs in Houston alone and probably more than that in Huntsville.
NASA and its contractors do a TERRIBLE job of promoting success and good work to the public.
Instead all you hear is bad news.
The press helped when it was fun but they've left.
Don't believe me?
How many of you can draw a reasonably accurate diagram of Apollo?
Now how many of you can sketch a reasonably accurate floor plan for ISS?
How many modules are in it?
Does it have one truss, two, or none?
If you want to see what they have REALLY been up to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2IQVZmHnJQ [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129248</id>
	<title>Strawmen</title>
	<author>tgrigsby</author>
	<datestamp>1266094080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hear strawmen in the article description.  "<b>Some conservatives</b> hate the proposal because of the retreat from the high frontier and even go so far as to cast doubt on the commercial space aspects. <b>Other conservatives</b> like the commercial space part of the Obama policy and tend to gloss over the cancellation of space exploration or even denigrate the Constellation program as 'unworkable' or 'unsustainable.'"</p><p>Like who?  <i>Which</i> conservatives?  All the conservatives I've talked to think that unless there's a corporation somewhere profiting from our activities in space, it's not worth spending money on.  I have no doubt that Obama's plan to focus on profitable LEO projects pleases the typical conservative, while launching RC cars to Mars plays as a complete waste of money in their minds.</p><p>I'd like to see a fiscal conservative support sending ice drilling autonomous subs to Europa to search for possible signs of life.  I think their heads would spontaneously explode....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hear strawmen in the article description .
" Some conservatives hate the proposal because of the retreat from the high frontier and even go so far as to cast doubt on the commercial space aspects .
Other conservatives like the commercial space part of the Obama policy and tend to gloss over the cancellation of space exploration or even denigrate the Constellation program as 'unworkable ' or 'unsustainable .
' " Like who ?
Which conservatives ?
All the conservatives I 've talked to think that unless there 's a corporation somewhere profiting from our activities in space , it 's not worth spending money on .
I have no doubt that Obama 's plan to focus on profitable LEO projects pleases the typical conservative , while launching RC cars to Mars plays as a complete waste of money in their minds.I 'd like to see a fiscal conservative support sending ice drilling autonomous subs to Europa to search for possible signs of life .
I think their heads would spontaneously explode... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hear strawmen in the article description.
"Some conservatives hate the proposal because of the retreat from the high frontier and even go so far as to cast doubt on the commercial space aspects.
Other conservatives like the commercial space part of the Obama policy and tend to gloss over the cancellation of space exploration or even denigrate the Constellation program as 'unworkable' or 'unsustainable.
'"Like who?
Which conservatives?
All the conservatives I've talked to think that unless there's a corporation somewhere profiting from our activities in space, it's not worth spending money on.
I have no doubt that Obama's plan to focus on profitable LEO projects pleases the typical conservative, while launching RC cars to Mars plays as a complete waste of money in their minds.I'd like to see a fiscal conservative support sending ice drilling autonomous subs to Europa to search for possible signs of life.
I think their heads would spontaneously explode....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131552</id>
	<title>Re:Space exploration is conservative.</title>
	<author>HungWeiLo</author>
	<datestamp>1266071460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I have a theory that both parties have a strong motivation to emphasize our differences and divide us (they have to, why would you vote for one if you can't see any difference between him and the other), but in reality there is more similarity between Americans than there are differences between liberals and conservatives.</i> <br> <br>
That's the whole point. The elite classes have been playing their divide-and-conquer game on the peons throughout history. It explains why the guy who makes $12/hr assembling pumps really gets riled up and blood-boiling about increasing taxes by 0.5\% on someone who makes over $500,000.<br> <br>While people fight over the small potatoes in everyday politics and economics, <a href="http://www.thinkbigworksmall.com/mypage/player/tbws/23088/848139" title="thinkbigworksmall.com">the big boys go for the big grab.</a> [thinkbigworksmall.com] (Warning 5-minute Flash-based video)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a theory that both parties have a strong motivation to emphasize our differences and divide us ( they have to , why would you vote for one if you ca n't see any difference between him and the other ) , but in reality there is more similarity between Americans than there are differences between liberals and conservatives .
That 's the whole point .
The elite classes have been playing their divide-and-conquer game on the peons throughout history .
It explains why the guy who makes $ 12/hr assembling pumps really gets riled up and blood-boiling about increasing taxes by 0.5 \ % on someone who makes over $ 500,000 .
While people fight over the small potatoes in everyday politics and economics , the big boys go for the big grab .
[ thinkbigworksmall.com ] ( Warning 5-minute Flash-based video )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a theory that both parties have a strong motivation to emphasize our differences and divide us (they have to, why would you vote for one if you can't see any difference between him and the other), but in reality there is more similarity between Americans than there are differences between liberals and conservatives.
That's the whole point.
The elite classes have been playing their divide-and-conquer game on the peons throughout history.
It explains why the guy who makes $12/hr assembling pumps really gets riled up and blood-boiling about increasing taxes by 0.5\% on someone who makes over $500,000.
While people fight over the small potatoes in everyday politics and economics, the big boys go for the big grab.
[thinkbigworksmall.com] (Warning 5-minute Flash-based video)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130010</id>
	<title>Re:Conservatives? Who cares?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266056520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Can we please stop wasting our time and giving attention to these right-wing lunatics and their pernicious ideas?"</p><p>You mean, conservatives like this man? <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas\_Jefferson" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas\_Jefferson</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>If you don't place a premium on things like individual liberty, limited government, fiscal responsibility, etc., then as you mentioned, there are plenty of places on this earth where you can move.  Making the criticism that the GOP doesn't stand for these things is fair.  Making the claim that conservatives don't stand for these things is bullshit.  You shouldn't confuse big-R Republicans with little-r republicans.  This country was established as a democratic republic, with most of the power spread across regional governments, and if you don't like it, you are free to leave.  If you can't see the wisdom of a weak central government and most power concentrated at the local level, then you clearly slept through the 20th century.  If you want to give all of your money away to the poor, you're also free to do that, but I rarely see liberals putting their money where their mouth is.  It's called "charity."  As for me, I feel that doing all of my charitable giving through the U.S. Government is an extremely inefficient way to get money into the hands of the people who need it most.</p><p>The Founding Fathers warned us about things like crippling public debt and getting involved in foreign adventures.  We ignored them, and now look where we are.  We can't even get serious about staying dominant in manned low-earth orbit spaceflight.  I personally would rather see my money go towards expanding our knowledge of the universe and humanity's dreams than continually showered upon those in society who contribute the least.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Can we please stop wasting our time and giving attention to these right-wing lunatics and their pernicious ideas ?
" You mean , conservatives like this man ?
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas \ _Jefferson [ wikipedia.org ] If you do n't place a premium on things like individual liberty , limited government , fiscal responsibility , etc. , then as you mentioned , there are plenty of places on this earth where you can move .
Making the criticism that the GOP does n't stand for these things is fair .
Making the claim that conservatives do n't stand for these things is bullshit .
You should n't confuse big-R Republicans with little-r republicans .
This country was established as a democratic republic , with most of the power spread across regional governments , and if you do n't like it , you are free to leave .
If you ca n't see the wisdom of a weak central government and most power concentrated at the local level , then you clearly slept through the 20th century .
If you want to give all of your money away to the poor , you 're also free to do that , but I rarely see liberals putting their money where their mouth is .
It 's called " charity .
" As for me , I feel that doing all of my charitable giving through the U.S. Government is an extremely inefficient way to get money into the hands of the people who need it most.The Founding Fathers warned us about things like crippling public debt and getting involved in foreign adventures .
We ignored them , and now look where we are .
We ca n't even get serious about staying dominant in manned low-earth orbit spaceflight .
I personally would rather see my money go towards expanding our knowledge of the universe and humanity 's dreams than continually showered upon those in society who contribute the least .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Can we please stop wasting our time and giving attention to these right-wing lunatics and their pernicious ideas?
"You mean, conservatives like this man?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas\_Jefferson [wikipedia.org]If you don't place a premium on things like individual liberty, limited government, fiscal responsibility, etc., then as you mentioned, there are plenty of places on this earth where you can move.
Making the criticism that the GOP doesn't stand for these things is fair.
Making the claim that conservatives don't stand for these things is bullshit.
You shouldn't confuse big-R Republicans with little-r republicans.
This country was established as a democratic republic, with most of the power spread across regional governments, and if you don't like it, you are free to leave.
If you can't see the wisdom of a weak central government and most power concentrated at the local level, then you clearly slept through the 20th century.
If you want to give all of your money away to the poor, you're also free to do that, but I rarely see liberals putting their money where their mouth is.
It's called "charity.
"  As for me, I feel that doing all of my charitable giving through the U.S. Government is an extremely inefficient way to get money into the hands of the people who need it most.The Founding Fathers warned us about things like crippling public debt and getting involved in foreign adventures.
We ignored them, and now look where we are.
We can't even get serious about staying dominant in manned low-earth orbit spaceflight.
I personally would rather see my money go towards expanding our knowledge of the universe and humanity's dreams than continually showered upon those in society who contribute the least.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31136676</id>
	<title>Red Tape</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266139740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The thing that will really make a difference as to whether or not this will work will be removal of all of the red tape around private launches.  If you listen to some of the talk from the smaller launch groups it sounds like half of the cost/difficulty is jumping through all of the legal, regulatory, and insurance hoops.  I doubt we'd be flying anything more than flying 2 seat, single prop "Piper Cubs" today if the Wright brothers and later flight pioneers had been forced to put up with similar restrictions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing that will really make a difference as to whether or not this will work will be removal of all of the red tape around private launches .
If you listen to some of the talk from the smaller launch groups it sounds like half of the cost/difficulty is jumping through all of the legal , regulatory , and insurance hoops .
I doubt we 'd be flying anything more than flying 2 seat , single prop " Piper Cubs " today if the Wright brothers and later flight pioneers had been forced to put up with similar restrictions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing that will really make a difference as to whether or not this will work will be removal of all of the red tape around private launches.
If you listen to some of the talk from the smaller launch groups it sounds like half of the cost/difficulty is jumping through all of the legal, regulatory, and insurance hoops.
I doubt we'd be flying anything more than flying 2 seat, single prop "Piper Cubs" today if the Wright brothers and later flight pioneers had been forced to put up with similar restrictions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131004</id>
	<title>Re:Space is critical</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1266065340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I absolutely agree, and would take it farther: NASA needs three things.<br> <br>
1) They need a clear objective.<br>
2) They need to be able to explain that the objective is possible (deep space exploration?), and at least be able to outline the next step towards that objective (better if they can outline the entire path towards reaching the goal and how much each step will cost, but this is not always possible).<br>
3) They need to be able to explain why the objective is a good idea (no one will want to fund something they don't understand)<br> <br>

If they can get these three things, the funding will come <i>almost automatically</i>, and if they can't, no one will want to fund them.  If they can't do this, then their budget will get smaller and smaller over time as missing any of these will prevent people from seeing it as a realistic program.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I absolutely agree , and would take it farther : NASA needs three things .
1 ) They need a clear objective .
2 ) They need to be able to explain that the objective is possible ( deep space exploration ?
) , and at least be able to outline the next step towards that objective ( better if they can outline the entire path towards reaching the goal and how much each step will cost , but this is not always possible ) .
3 ) They need to be able to explain why the objective is a good idea ( no one will want to fund something they do n't understand ) If they can get these three things , the funding will come almost automatically , and if they ca n't , no one will want to fund them .
If they ca n't do this , then their budget will get smaller and smaller over time as missing any of these will prevent people from seeing it as a realistic program .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I absolutely agree, and would take it farther: NASA needs three things.
1) They need a clear objective.
2) They need to be able to explain that the objective is possible (deep space exploration?
), and at least be able to outline the next step towards that objective (better if they can outline the entire path towards reaching the goal and how much each step will cost, but this is not always possible).
3) They need to be able to explain why the objective is a good idea (no one will want to fund something they don't understand) 

If they can get these three things, the funding will come almost automatically, and if they can't, no one will want to fund them.
If they can't do this, then their budget will get smaller and smaller over time as missing any of these will prevent people from seeing it as a realistic program.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129108</id>
	<title>Out source space too...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266093060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess the US will be exporting space exploration to China now as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess the US will be exporting space exploration to China now as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess the US will be exporting space exploration to China now as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31132564</id>
	<title>That can't work.</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1266084540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can't transition a town full of machinists into some sort of data entry clerks.  I mean, the answer is, you need to keep a manufacturing society and have all the elements of an income ladder in place for a diverse population, and the only way to do that is to get rid of free trade.</p><p>If you got rid of free trade, you'd have a stabler society, more jobs for more different kinds of people, and you wouldn't have to have nearly the welfare state that you do today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't transition a town full of machinists into some sort of data entry clerks .
I mean , the answer is , you need to keep a manufacturing society and have all the elements of an income ladder in place for a diverse population , and the only way to do that is to get rid of free trade.If you got rid of free trade , you 'd have a stabler society , more jobs for more different kinds of people , and you would n't have to have nearly the welfare state that you do today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't transition a town full of machinists into some sort of data entry clerks.
I mean, the answer is, you need to keep a manufacturing society and have all the elements of an income ladder in place for a diverse population, and the only way to do that is to get rid of free trade.If you got rid of free trade, you'd have a stabler society, more jobs for more different kinds of people, and you wouldn't have to have nearly the welfare state that you do today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130488</id>
	<title>remember that USA is not the World empire it was</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266060540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>  Recall that in the near future USA will be the third economy of the world,<br>just after China and India, the two Asian Giants.  So it will be very natural<br>that expensive efforts to improve our life in every matter will be<br>performed there. I like Americans very much, in spite and because their naiveness,<br>but they should be prepared to move back in their rank.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; MIchael</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Recall that in the near future USA will be the third economy of the world,just after China and India , the two Asian Giants .
So it will be very naturalthat expensive efforts to improve our life in every matter will beperformed there .
I like Americans very much , in spite and because their naiveness,but they should be prepared to move back in their rank .
    MIchael</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  Recall that in the near future USA will be the third economy of the world,just after China and India, the two Asian Giants.
So it will be very naturalthat expensive efforts to improve our life in every matter will beperformed there.
I like Americans very much, in spite and because their naiveness,but they should be prepared to move back in their rank.
    MIchael</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129494</id>
	<title>Re:Space is critical</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266052740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We need an orbital earth asteroid defense grid.  we'll need to bring in real asteroids to test the system of course</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We need an orbital earth asteroid defense grid .
we 'll need to bring in real asteroids to test the system of course</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need an orbital earth asteroid defense grid.
we'll need to bring in real asteroids to test the system of course</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129070</id>
	<title>libertarian</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266092700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Coming from a different point than conservative or liberal - NASA has always been a huge waste of money and ought to be deprecated.  Getting private industry into the act is a good thing, in my opinion, although I'm not so sanguine about government subsidies.  Also, while low Earth orbit may not be as grand a vision as going to the Moon, or Mars, or the asteroid belt, it's a good starting place of all of the above; let's get some infrastructure up there and we'll be able to go wherever we want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Coming from a different point than conservative or liberal - NASA has always been a huge waste of money and ought to be deprecated .
Getting private industry into the act is a good thing , in my opinion , although I 'm not so sanguine about government subsidies .
Also , while low Earth orbit may not be as grand a vision as going to the Moon , or Mars , or the asteroid belt , it 's a good starting place of all of the above ; let 's get some infrastructure up there and we 'll be able to go wherever we want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Coming from a different point than conservative or liberal - NASA has always been a huge waste of money and ought to be deprecated.
Getting private industry into the act is a good thing, in my opinion, although I'm not so sanguine about government subsidies.
Also, while low Earth orbit may not be as grand a vision as going to the Moon, or Mars, or the asteroid belt, it's a good starting place of all of the above; let's get some infrastructure up there and we'll be able to go wherever we want.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129348</id>
	<title>Re:libertarian</title>
	<author>tomhath</author>
	<datestamp>1266051600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Private industry will continue to be in, not get into, space related projects when there's money to be made. Communication satellites are a good example, <a href="http://news.cnet.com/The-age-of-the-satellite/2009-1033\_3-6210986.html" title="cnet.com">billions of dollars in private investment</a> [cnet.com] are being spent on building and launching them. Of course that industry wouldn't have ever been possible if the USA and other governments hadn't developed the technology first.</p><p>But exploration and development of new technology are risky with too little chance of ever recovering the investment for private industry.  The Obama plan is nothing more than an excuse to shift federal dollars to companies that are friendly to Hope and Change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Private industry will continue to be in , not get into , space related projects when there 's money to be made .
Communication satellites are a good example , billions of dollars in private investment [ cnet.com ] are being spent on building and launching them .
Of course that industry would n't have ever been possible if the USA and other governments had n't developed the technology first.But exploration and development of new technology are risky with too little chance of ever recovering the investment for private industry .
The Obama plan is nothing more than an excuse to shift federal dollars to companies that are friendly to Hope and Change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Private industry will continue to be in, not get into, space related projects when there's money to be made.
Communication satellites are a good example, billions of dollars in private investment [cnet.com] are being spent on building and launching them.
Of course that industry wouldn't have ever been possible if the USA and other governments hadn't developed the technology first.But exploration and development of new technology are risky with too little chance of ever recovering the investment for private industry.
The Obama plan is nothing more than an excuse to shift federal dollars to companies that are friendly to Hope and Change.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129240</id>
	<title>Re:Space exploration is conservative.</title>
	<author>Miseph</author>
	<datestamp>1266094080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh please.</p><p>Eisenhower was a centrist, and for that matter so was Nixon. If either of them were alive today running for office, they'd have teabaggers screaming "you lie" at every event and fabricating evidence that they are actually communist spies born in foreign countries who hate "the troops" almost as much as they hate apple pie.</p><p>Furthermore, liberals and the Democrats (NOT the same thing) are all for building and maintaining roads... perhaps you've noticed that a huge chunk of the previous stimulus package went into just that, and that a huge chunk of the new jobs bill does more still.</p><p>The bottom line is that the current budget has far too many massive mandatory expenditures (read: interest on the debt accrued during the past 8 years, Medicare [especially Part D], Social Security), two very expensive foreign wars (which just this past year went onto the books rather than being funded with supplementals... we're a lot more in debt because now we're actually counting ALL of the money we spend, not just half of it), and an enormous revenue shortfall. And guess who's crying the loudest about it and pointing the finger at the other guys (hint: they were in charge when most of these expenses experienced astronomical growth in the '00s)?</p><p>It's a damn shame that there just isn't enough money for NASA right now, but blaming liberals for it is just asinine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh please.Eisenhower was a centrist , and for that matter so was Nixon .
If either of them were alive today running for office , they 'd have teabaggers screaming " you lie " at every event and fabricating evidence that they are actually communist spies born in foreign countries who hate " the troops " almost as much as they hate apple pie.Furthermore , liberals and the Democrats ( NOT the same thing ) are all for building and maintaining roads... perhaps you 've noticed that a huge chunk of the previous stimulus package went into just that , and that a huge chunk of the new jobs bill does more still.The bottom line is that the current budget has far too many massive mandatory expenditures ( read : interest on the debt accrued during the past 8 years , Medicare [ especially Part D ] , Social Security ) , two very expensive foreign wars ( which just this past year went onto the books rather than being funded with supplementals... we 're a lot more in debt because now we 're actually counting ALL of the money we spend , not just half of it ) , and an enormous revenue shortfall .
And guess who 's crying the loudest about it and pointing the finger at the other guys ( hint : they were in charge when most of these expenses experienced astronomical growth in the '00s ) ? It 's a damn shame that there just is n't enough money for NASA right now , but blaming liberals for it is just asinine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh please.Eisenhower was a centrist, and for that matter so was Nixon.
If either of them were alive today running for office, they'd have teabaggers screaming "you lie" at every event and fabricating evidence that they are actually communist spies born in foreign countries who hate "the troops" almost as much as they hate apple pie.Furthermore, liberals and the Democrats (NOT the same thing) are all for building and maintaining roads... perhaps you've noticed that a huge chunk of the previous stimulus package went into just that, and that a huge chunk of the new jobs bill does more still.The bottom line is that the current budget has far too many massive mandatory expenditures (read: interest on the debt accrued during the past 8 years, Medicare [especially Part D], Social Security), two very expensive foreign wars (which just this past year went onto the books rather than being funded with supplementals... we're a lot more in debt because now we're actually counting ALL of the money we spend, not just half of it), and an enormous revenue shortfall.
And guess who's crying the loudest about it and pointing the finger at the other guys (hint: they were in charge when most of these expenses experienced astronomical growth in the '00s)?It's a damn shame that there just isn't enough money for NASA right now, but blaming liberals for it is just asinine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129332</id>
	<title>American Manned Space Program is dead, dead, dead</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266094680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No two ways about it.  The shuttle is on its last legs, Orion/Ares is mis-begotten, and anyone who thinks that private enterprise can deliver a man-rated system in the near future is delusional.</p><p>Give it up...we're in this position because of lack of intelligent investment over the Clinton and Bush administrations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No two ways about it .
The shuttle is on its last legs , Orion/Ares is mis-begotten , and anyone who thinks that private enterprise can deliver a man-rated system in the near future is delusional.Give it up...we 're in this position because of lack of intelligent investment over the Clinton and Bush administrations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No two ways about it.
The shuttle is on its last legs, Orion/Ares is mis-begotten, and anyone who thinks that private enterprise can deliver a man-rated system in the near future is delusional.Give it up...we're in this position because of lack of intelligent investment over the Clinton and Bush administrations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129500</id>
	<title>Re:libertarian</title>
	<author>astar</author>
	<datestamp>1266052740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yah, the private banks do so well at giving us a future.</p><p>to go where ever we want, we need high-energy "rockets".  Otherwise serious colonization does not work.  In the 70s we were ready to go with nuclear drives.  Now the russians are going to finally do it.  I do not see a lot of private investment in anything really different.  Pooh, we now all hear about the virtues of innovation, and as far as I can tell, this is something marketing is especially good at.</p><p>if you are a conservative type, something to consider is that India will be in LEO with men in 2012 and on rhe moon, with people, in 2020.  oh, India is involved deeply with the russians on the nuclear drive.</p><p>on a more earthly thing, China currently has 64 high speed rail projects. 1000's of miles.  The usa has 64 miles of medium high speed rail.  Some people talk about high speed rail in the usa as capable of causing a 15\% overall productivity increase.</p><p>and last I looked, 54 nuclear power plants were being built, almost all in asia.  the usa has one, an old mothballed tva plant being brought up.</p><p>so who has the potential for a future?</p><p>anyway, here is a video entitled "the destruction of nasa" which is supposed to be very good</p><p><a href="http://larouchepac.com/lpactv?nid=13392" title="larouchepac.com">http://larouchepac.com/lpactv?nid=13392</a> [larouchepac.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yah , the private banks do so well at giving us a future.to go where ever we want , we need high-energy " rockets " .
Otherwise serious colonization does not work .
In the 70s we were ready to go with nuclear drives .
Now the russians are going to finally do it .
I do not see a lot of private investment in anything really different .
Pooh , we now all hear about the virtues of innovation , and as far as I can tell , this is something marketing is especially good at.if you are a conservative type , something to consider is that India will be in LEO with men in 2012 and on rhe moon , with people , in 2020. oh , India is involved deeply with the russians on the nuclear drive.on a more earthly thing , China currently has 64 high speed rail projects .
1000 's of miles .
The usa has 64 miles of medium high speed rail .
Some people talk about high speed rail in the usa as capable of causing a 15 \ % overall productivity increase.and last I looked , 54 nuclear power plants were being built , almost all in asia .
the usa has one , an old mothballed tva plant being brought up.so who has the potential for a future ? anyway , here is a video entitled " the destruction of nasa " which is supposed to be very goodhttp : //larouchepac.com/lpactv ? nid = 13392 [ larouchepac.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yah, the private banks do so well at giving us a future.to go where ever we want, we need high-energy "rockets".
Otherwise serious colonization does not work.
In the 70s we were ready to go with nuclear drives.
Now the russians are going to finally do it.
I do not see a lot of private investment in anything really different.
Pooh, we now all hear about the virtues of innovation, and as far as I can tell, this is something marketing is especially good at.if you are a conservative type, something to consider is that India will be in LEO with men in 2012 and on rhe moon, with people, in 2020.  oh, India is involved deeply with the russians on the nuclear drive.on a more earthly thing, China currently has 64 high speed rail projects.
1000's of miles.
The usa has 64 miles of medium high speed rail.
Some people talk about high speed rail in the usa as capable of causing a 15\% overall productivity increase.and last I looked, 54 nuclear power plants were being built, almost all in asia.
the usa has one, an old mothballed tva plant being brought up.so who has the potential for a future?anyway, here is a video entitled "the destruction of nasa" which is supposed to be very goodhttp://larouchepac.com/lpactv?nid=13392 [larouchepac.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131034</id>
	<title>Re:libertarian</title>
	<author>Dausha</author>
	<datestamp>1266065580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"[J]ust imagine if the roads were done by private companies, there might be more that are very well maintained but something like the interstate highway system would be near impossible to create because you'd be so hard pressed to get the companies to actually cooperate in any reasonable manner."</p><p>We don't have to imagine. The U.S. railroads were an amalgam of private companies when the industry first emerged in the 19th Century. Early paved roads were also done by private companies as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" [ J ] ust imagine if the roads were done by private companies , there might be more that are very well maintained but something like the interstate highway system would be near impossible to create because you 'd be so hard pressed to get the companies to actually cooperate in any reasonable manner .
" We do n't have to imagine .
The U.S. railroads were an amalgam of private companies when the industry first emerged in the 19th Century .
Early paved roads were also done by private companies as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"[J]ust imagine if the roads were done by private companies, there might be more that are very well maintained but something like the interstate highway system would be near impossible to create because you'd be so hard pressed to get the companies to actually cooperate in any reasonable manner.
"We don't have to imagine.
The U.S. railroads were an amalgam of private companies when the industry first emerged in the 19th Century.
Early paved roads were also done by private companies as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31132650</id>
	<title>Re:American Manned Space Program is dead, dead, de</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266085560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Give it up...we're in this position because of lack of intelligent investment over the Clinton and Bush administrations.</p></div><p>Lack of intelligent investment? Ha. Haha. Hahahahaha.  That's funny.  $8,800,000,000 just up and <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.audit/" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">disappears</a> [cnn.com] in the desert under the Bush administration and nobody bats an eye. That's not poor investment. That's the result of letting criminals like Clinton, Bush, and Obama "lead" the country. Fox. Henhouse.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Give it up...we 're in this position because of lack of intelligent investment over the Clinton and Bush administrations.Lack of intelligent investment ?
Ha. Haha .
Hahahahaha. That 's funny .
$ 8,800,000,000 just up and disappears [ cnn.com ] in the desert under the Bush administration and nobody bats an eye .
That 's not poor investment .
That 's the result of letting criminals like Clinton , Bush , and Obama " lead " the country .
Fox. Henhouse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Give it up...we're in this position because of lack of intelligent investment over the Clinton and Bush administrations.Lack of intelligent investment?
Ha. Haha.
Hahahahaha.  That's funny.
$8,800,000,000 just up and disappears [cnn.com] in the desert under the Bush administration and nobody bats an eye.
That's not poor investment.
That's the result of letting criminals like Clinton, Bush, and Obama "lead" the country.
Fox. Henhouse.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129590</id>
	<title>Re:Out source space too...</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1266053340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>China benefitted from US and European tech in its rise to power.</p><p>Should the US not do the same thing? It did during the Industrial Revolution.</p><p>We don't need to be ahead of China in everything, because we don't need to fight China now that EUSian colonialism in Asia is dead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>China benefitted from US and European tech in its rise to power.Should the US not do the same thing ?
It did during the Industrial Revolution.We do n't need to be ahead of China in everything , because we do n't need to fight China now that EUSian colonialism in Asia is dead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China benefitted from US and European tech in its rise to power.Should the US not do the same thing?
It did during the Industrial Revolution.We don't need to be ahead of China in everything, because we don't need to fight China now that EUSian colonialism in Asia is dead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129052</id>
	<title>Obama, space plan?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266092580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As we all know, there are no niggers in space.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As we all know , there are no niggers in space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As we all know, there are no niggers in space.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129984</id>
	<title>Re:Easy enough to balance the budget</title>
	<author>debrisslider</author>
	<datestamp>1266056340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nothing, really, nothing has been accomplished in the attempt to help out the poor? What sort of metrics are you basing that on, and philosophically why do you think 'nothing' is accomplished? What is your standard of success? <br> <br>

I'd like to see NASA funded as much as anyone, but don't you think that it'd be just a little unfair to quite literally take the food off of childrens' plates and cut insurance that we all fairly pay for, so that government contractors, aerospace engineers, tech magnates, global communications corporations, etc, can get richer? Who is going to see the most profit from NASA anyway? Sure, we all know Tang, velcro, and pens that can write in zero-gravity were cool space inventions, but most of the derived benefits took years, decades to trickle down to the lowest levels of economic status, while trillions of dollars were made over the same amount of time by those who were already in place to capitalize on the inventions (takes money to make money, etc). I realize that harsh taxes will discourage investment, but don't you think it'd be fairer if those reaping the lion's share of the benefits be the ones to invest the most? Why don't we raise taxes on them, if they're so eager to get the benefit, or rather, cut some of their government benefits. What say we cut some school lunch programs, and then cut 20\% of naval patrols in areas containing known pirates, or maybe just not deliver mail every third monday, all of which could save some money towards NASA? Infrastructure, law, military defense, why don't you see these as literal 'entitlements' as well? The people who benefit most from NASA aren't the ones who have to worry about their children's dinner or losing everything because of a few months unemployment.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing , really , nothing has been accomplished in the attempt to help out the poor ?
What sort of metrics are you basing that on , and philosophically why do you think 'nothing ' is accomplished ?
What is your standard of success ?
I 'd like to see NASA funded as much as anyone , but do n't you think that it 'd be just a little unfair to quite literally take the food off of childrens ' plates and cut insurance that we all fairly pay for , so that government contractors , aerospace engineers , tech magnates , global communications corporations , etc , can get richer ?
Who is going to see the most profit from NASA anyway ?
Sure , we all know Tang , velcro , and pens that can write in zero-gravity were cool space inventions , but most of the derived benefits took years , decades to trickle down to the lowest levels of economic status , while trillions of dollars were made over the same amount of time by those who were already in place to capitalize on the inventions ( takes money to make money , etc ) .
I realize that harsh taxes will discourage investment , but do n't you think it 'd be fairer if those reaping the lion 's share of the benefits be the ones to invest the most ?
Why do n't we raise taxes on them , if they 're so eager to get the benefit , or rather , cut some of their government benefits .
What say we cut some school lunch programs , and then cut 20 \ % of naval patrols in areas containing known pirates , or maybe just not deliver mail every third monday , all of which could save some money towards NASA ?
Infrastructure , law , military defense , why do n't you see these as literal 'entitlements ' as well ?
The people who benefit most from NASA are n't the ones who have to worry about their children 's dinner or losing everything because of a few months unemployment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing, really, nothing has been accomplished in the attempt to help out the poor?
What sort of metrics are you basing that on, and philosophically why do you think 'nothing' is accomplished?
What is your standard of success?
I'd like to see NASA funded as much as anyone, but don't you think that it'd be just a little unfair to quite literally take the food off of childrens' plates and cut insurance that we all fairly pay for, so that government contractors, aerospace engineers, tech magnates, global communications corporations, etc, can get richer?
Who is going to see the most profit from NASA anyway?
Sure, we all know Tang, velcro, and pens that can write in zero-gravity were cool space inventions, but most of the derived benefits took years, decades to trickle down to the lowest levels of economic status, while trillions of dollars were made over the same amount of time by those who were already in place to capitalize on the inventions (takes money to make money, etc).
I realize that harsh taxes will discourage investment, but don't you think it'd be fairer if those reaping the lion's share of the benefits be the ones to invest the most?
Why don't we raise taxes on them, if they're so eager to get the benefit, or rather, cut some of their government benefits.
What say we cut some school lunch programs, and then cut 20\% of naval patrols in areas containing known pirates, or maybe just not deliver mail every third monday, all of which could save some money towards NASA?
Infrastructure, law, military defense, why don't you see these as literal 'entitlements' as well?
The people who benefit most from NASA aren't the ones who have to worry about their children's dinner or losing everything because of a few months unemployment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131304</id>
	<title>Re:libertarian</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266068700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"yah, the private banks do so well at giving us a future."</p><p>As opposed to what, the government?  People's good will?</p><p>Given how bad our immediate future sucked back in 1998-1999 when several large private "banks" were fubar'd, when they don't operate right, things go quickly to cluster *uck status.</p><p>I'm not sure the general basis of your criticism anyways, since you are ambiguous and aren't specify what you are actually commenting on.  But for decades, private banks have been instrumental, esp. in the post World War II era.  The internet boom was financed by private banks, many software and tech companies got many from banks to start their companies, so I have no phrackin idea what the hell you get saying banks haven't created a good future.</p><p>Or, are you some sort of institutional bigot, where some bad banks/companies go unethical, and that paints the whole lot of apples as wormy?</p><p>Also, were you in favor of the bailout or not?  If you were, then you backed banks.  If not, then you backed government non-intervention.  Take your pick, as you seem to be picking both, when they are rather inseparable issues.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" yah , the private banks do so well at giving us a future .
" As opposed to what , the government ?
People 's good will ? Given how bad our immediate future sucked back in 1998-1999 when several large private " banks " were fubar 'd , when they do n't operate right , things go quickly to cluster * uck status.I 'm not sure the general basis of your criticism anyways , since you are ambiguous and are n't specify what you are actually commenting on .
But for decades , private banks have been instrumental , esp .
in the post World War II era .
The internet boom was financed by private banks , many software and tech companies got many from banks to start their companies , so I have no phrackin idea what the hell you get saying banks have n't created a good future.Or , are you some sort of institutional bigot , where some bad banks/companies go unethical , and that paints the whole lot of apples as wormy ? Also , were you in favor of the bailout or not ?
If you were , then you backed banks .
If not , then you backed government non-intervention .
Take your pick , as you seem to be picking both , when they are rather inseparable issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"yah, the private banks do so well at giving us a future.
"As opposed to what, the government?
People's good will?Given how bad our immediate future sucked back in 1998-1999 when several large private "banks" were fubar'd, when they don't operate right, things go quickly to cluster *uck status.I'm not sure the general basis of your criticism anyways, since you are ambiguous and aren't specify what you are actually commenting on.
But for decades, private banks have been instrumental, esp.
in the post World War II era.
The internet boom was financed by private banks, many software and tech companies got many from banks to start their companies, so I have no phrackin idea what the hell you get saying banks haven't created a good future.Or, are you some sort of institutional bigot, where some bad banks/companies go unethical, and that paints the whole lot of apples as wormy?Also, were you in favor of the bailout or not?
If you were, then you backed banks.
If not, then you backed government non-intervention.
Take your pick, as you seem to be picking both, when they are rather inseparable issues.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130546</id>
	<title>Re:Conservatives? Who cares?</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1266060960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Amusing thought, It'd be interesting if it were planned to reduce trust in government generally by repeatedly failing OR making the dems look horrible/dragging them to failure. That way people with their short memories and only two parties to choose from will vote for the party arguing for 'less government'. They don't need to follow through with it, they know that they were voted in by people that pay little attention to specific actions in politics due to decades of plummeting trust and hope. And merely listen to emotional grandstanding. Hell, if they screw up badly enough it will only increase their chances in future after the dems get a chance to fix things.<br> <br>http://www.thefreespeechzone.net/images/charts/bush\_deficit\_graphic.gif now makes sense<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but the world seems too much like a sequel to Idiocracy, when is Brawndo going to become the GOP's official party drink.<br> <br>Disclaimer: I don't believe that the GOP's incompetence is intentional.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Amusing thought , It 'd be interesting if it were planned to reduce trust in government generally by repeatedly failing OR making the dems look horrible/dragging them to failure .
That way people with their short memories and only two parties to choose from will vote for the party arguing for 'less government' .
They do n't need to follow through with it , they know that they were voted in by people that pay little attention to specific actions in politics due to decades of plummeting trust and hope .
And merely listen to emotional grandstanding .
Hell , if they screw up badly enough it will only increase their chances in future after the dems get a chance to fix things .
http : //www.thefreespeechzone.net/images/charts/bush \ _deficit \ _graphic.gif now makes sense ... but the world seems too much like a sequel to Idiocracy , when is Brawndo going to become the GOP 's official party drink .
Disclaimer : I do n't believe that the GOP 's incompetence is intentional .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amusing thought, It'd be interesting if it were planned to reduce trust in government generally by repeatedly failing OR making the dems look horrible/dragging them to failure.
That way people with their short memories and only two parties to choose from will vote for the party arguing for 'less government'.
They don't need to follow through with it, they know that they were voted in by people that pay little attention to specific actions in politics due to decades of plummeting trust and hope.
And merely listen to emotional grandstanding.
Hell, if they screw up badly enough it will only increase their chances in future after the dems get a chance to fix things.
http://www.thefreespeechzone.net/images/charts/bush\_deficit\_graphic.gif now makes sense ... but the world seems too much like a sequel to Idiocracy, when is Brawndo going to become the GOP's official party drink.
Disclaimer: I don't believe that the GOP's incompetence is intentional.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129578</id>
	<title>Privitazation revisited</title>
	<author>Airborne-ng</author>
	<datestamp>1266053220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While privatization in the past has led to corruption , site <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California\_electricity\_crisis" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Enron</a> [wikipedia.org] .  NASA has indeed peeked in its performance and space exploration should be delegated to private companies to reignite competition and improve efficiency, I hope a cold war citation is not needed.
<p> - Liberal till death</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While privatization in the past has led to corruption , site Enron [ wikipedia.org ] .
NASA has indeed peeked in its performance and space exploration should be delegated to private companies to reignite competition and improve efficiency , I hope a cold war citation is not needed .
- Liberal till death</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While privatization in the past has led to corruption , site Enron [wikipedia.org] .
NASA has indeed peeked in its performance and space exploration should be delegated to private companies to reignite competition and improve efficiency, I hope a cold war citation is not needed.
- Liberal till death</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31133478</id>
	<title>Re:libertarian</title>
	<author>Boronx</author>
	<datestamp>1266146160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not every American that knows how to make steel or build a nuke plant is dead, but it won't be much longer now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not every American that knows how to make steel or build a nuke plant is dead , but it wo n't be much longer now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not every American that knows how to make steel or build a nuke plant is dead, but it won't be much longer now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130212</id>
	<title>Save Money</title>
	<author>terraplane</author>
	<datestamp>1266058260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not shut down the space program altogether? It's not good for anything anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not shut down the space program altogether ?
It 's not good for anything anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not shut down the space program altogether?
It's not good for anything anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130292</id>
	<title>Re:Easy enough to balance the budget</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1266058920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Entitlements aren't too blame.</p></div><p>No, they're just a little blame. Wait, what? You're writing this application and you haven't noticed the disparity between social welfare and military spending?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I thought liberals knew how to add.</p></div><p>I thought conservatives knew how to spell. And also, compare numbers and see which is greater.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Entitlements are n't too blame.No , they 're just a little blame .
Wait , what ?
You 're writing this application and you have n't noticed the disparity between social welfare and military spending ? I thought liberals knew how to add.I thought conservatives knew how to spell .
And also , compare numbers and see which is greater .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Entitlements aren't too blame.No, they're just a little blame.
Wait, what?
You're writing this application and you haven't noticed the disparity between social welfare and military spending?I thought liberals knew how to add.I thought conservatives knew how to spell.
And also, compare numbers and see which is greater.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129506</id>
	<title>Unsustainable</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1266052800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Take enough time, and without going to space humanity is unsustainable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Take enough time , and without going to space humanity is unsustainable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take enough time, and without going to space humanity is unsustainable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129846</id>
	<title>Re:Space exploration is conservative.</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1266054960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Furthermore, liberals and the Democrats (NOT the same thing)</p></div><p>For someone who demands such a nuanced interpretation of liberal/democrat, you sure seem ignorant of what the tea party actually is.  The tea party is a group of people, some crazy and some not, who are united by a desire for a sound fiscal policy.  They are not happy with the Bush era policies (the people who are happy with that are the die hard Republicans, not the tea partiers; not the same thing)  They also like dressing up in costume, which, if you live in San Francisco at least, shouldn't be too foreign to a liberal.  In fact, your very next quote sounds exactly like it could come from a tea party:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The bottom line is that the current budget has far too many massive mandatory expenditures (read: interest on the debt accrued during the past 8 years, Medicare [especially Part D], Social Security), two very expensive foreign wars (which just this past year went onto the books rather than being funded with supplementals... we're a lot more in debt because now we're actually counting ALL of the money we spend, not just half of it), and an enormous revenue shortfall.</p></div><p>Now, I am not a tea-partier, I am just someone who enjoys observing politics, which brings me to my next point, has anyone else noticed that liberals and conservatives are sounding more and more like each other?  Not just this guy, but if you ignore the partisan fighting of congress in the last year, for example, and go back to the election, both McCain and Obama (and Clinton) had healthcare plans that were very similar.  Same with Bush's and Obama's stimulus plans and auto company bailouts.  I think it's also safe to say that almost everyone in the US resented being deceived about Iraq's WMD, and also that nearly everyone wants to stop terrorists from attacking the US if we can.<br> <br>
I have a theory that both parties have a strong motivation to emphasize our differences and divide us (they have to, why would you vote for one if you can't see any difference between him and the other), but in reality there is more similarity between Americans than there are differences between liberals and conservatives.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Furthermore , liberals and the Democrats ( NOT the same thing ) For someone who demands such a nuanced interpretation of liberal/democrat , you sure seem ignorant of what the tea party actually is .
The tea party is a group of people , some crazy and some not , who are united by a desire for a sound fiscal policy .
They are not happy with the Bush era policies ( the people who are happy with that are the die hard Republicans , not the tea partiers ; not the same thing ) They also like dressing up in costume , which , if you live in San Francisco at least , should n't be too foreign to a liberal .
In fact , your very next quote sounds exactly like it could come from a tea party : The bottom line is that the current budget has far too many massive mandatory expenditures ( read : interest on the debt accrued during the past 8 years , Medicare [ especially Part D ] , Social Security ) , two very expensive foreign wars ( which just this past year went onto the books rather than being funded with supplementals... we 're a lot more in debt because now we 're actually counting ALL of the money we spend , not just half of it ) , and an enormous revenue shortfall.Now , I am not a tea-partier , I am just someone who enjoys observing politics , which brings me to my next point , has anyone else noticed that liberals and conservatives are sounding more and more like each other ?
Not just this guy , but if you ignore the partisan fighting of congress in the last year , for example , and go back to the election , both McCain and Obama ( and Clinton ) had healthcare plans that were very similar .
Same with Bush 's and Obama 's stimulus plans and auto company bailouts .
I think it 's also safe to say that almost everyone in the US resented being deceived about Iraq 's WMD , and also that nearly everyone wants to stop terrorists from attacking the US if we can .
I have a theory that both parties have a strong motivation to emphasize our differences and divide us ( they have to , why would you vote for one if you ca n't see any difference between him and the other ) , but in reality there is more similarity between Americans than there are differences between liberals and conservatives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Furthermore, liberals and the Democrats (NOT the same thing)For someone who demands such a nuanced interpretation of liberal/democrat, you sure seem ignorant of what the tea party actually is.
The tea party is a group of people, some crazy and some not, who are united by a desire for a sound fiscal policy.
They are not happy with the Bush era policies (the people who are happy with that are the die hard Republicans, not the tea partiers; not the same thing)  They also like dressing up in costume, which, if you live in San Francisco at least, shouldn't be too foreign to a liberal.
In fact, your very next quote sounds exactly like it could come from a tea party:The bottom line is that the current budget has far too many massive mandatory expenditures (read: interest on the debt accrued during the past 8 years, Medicare [especially Part D], Social Security), two very expensive foreign wars (which just this past year went onto the books rather than being funded with supplementals... we're a lot more in debt because now we're actually counting ALL of the money we spend, not just half of it), and an enormous revenue shortfall.Now, I am not a tea-partier, I am just someone who enjoys observing politics, which brings me to my next point, has anyone else noticed that liberals and conservatives are sounding more and more like each other?
Not just this guy, but if you ignore the partisan fighting of congress in the last year, for example, and go back to the election, both McCain and Obama (and Clinton) had healthcare plans that were very similar.
Same with Bush's and Obama's stimulus plans and auto company bailouts.
I think it's also safe to say that almost everyone in the US resented being deceived about Iraq's WMD, and also that nearly everyone wants to stop terrorists from attacking the US if we can.
I have a theory that both parties have a strong motivation to emphasize our differences and divide us (they have to, why would you vote for one if you can't see any difference between him and the other), but in reality there is more similarity between Americans than there are differences between liberals and conservatives.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129240</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31132536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31135528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31134416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31132602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31134162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31134454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31133686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31143014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31134124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31176646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31135326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31134800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31133478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31132202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31133514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31132212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31132564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31132350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31133456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31132594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31132650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31132474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31135306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31132656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31136040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31133594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31133240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31133300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31132486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31132018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_198247_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31132074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31133070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_198247.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129594
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_198247.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31176646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130574
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_198247.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31132486
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_198247.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31134162
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_198247.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129686
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_198247.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129500
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130998
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31135306
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31133478
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131366
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130528
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131200
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31132536
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131486
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130198
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31135326
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131644
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131304
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131376
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31134416
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31135528
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31134800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129310
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130008
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131034
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129842
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130132
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130644
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_198247.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129892
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_198247.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131354
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_198247.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129578
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_198247.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129204
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_198247.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31132650
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_198247.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31132350
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_198247.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130316
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_198247.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130932
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_198247.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31133240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129718
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31143014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129494
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_198247.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31132656
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31136040
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_198247.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129704
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_198247.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31134124
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_198247.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31132212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31132602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130504
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_198247.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129248
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_198247.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130180
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_198247.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129532
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_198247.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129442
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_198247.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31133594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129240
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130380
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129846
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131958
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31133456
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131552
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31133300
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31132202
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129512
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130502
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129666
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31133686
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129456
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130444
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129834
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31132564
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129968
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31132018
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129826
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130254
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31132594
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131986
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31132074
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31133070
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31132474
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130292
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129728
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129984
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31134454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31130270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31131282
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31133514
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_198247.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_198247.31129596
</commentlist>
</conversation>
