<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_27_2134204</id>
	<title>US Gov't. Ending Its Hands-Off-the-Internet Stance</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1267276620000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Taco Cowboy writes in with a report from The Register about a <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/27/internet\_3\_dot\_0\_policy/">US policy shift away from keeping hands off the Internet</a>. <i>"According to Assistant Secretary Larry Strickling, Obama's top official at the Department of Commerce, the US government's policy of leaving the Internet alone is over. Instead, an 'Internet Policy 3.0' approach will see policy discussions between government agencies, foreign governments, and key Internet constituencies, with those discussions covering issues such as privacy, child protection, cybersecurity, copyright protection, and Internet governance."</i> Here is <a href="http://www.ntia.doc.gov/presentations/2010/MediaInstitute\_02242010.html">the presentation</a> in which Strickling enunciated these changes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Taco Cowboy writes in with a report from The Register about a US policy shift away from keeping hands off the Internet .
" According to Assistant Secretary Larry Strickling , Obama 's top official at the Department of Commerce , the US government 's policy of leaving the Internet alone is over .
Instead , an 'Internet Policy 3.0 ' approach will see policy discussions between government agencies , foreign governments , and key Internet constituencies , with those discussions covering issues such as privacy , child protection , cybersecurity , copyright protection , and Internet governance .
" Here is the presentation in which Strickling enunciated these changes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Taco Cowboy writes in with a report from The Register about a US policy shift away from keeping hands off the Internet.
"According to Assistant Secretary Larry Strickling, Obama's top official at the Department of Commerce, the US government's policy of leaving the Internet alone is over.
Instead, an 'Internet Policy 3.0' approach will see policy discussions between government agencies, foreign governments, and key Internet constituencies, with those discussions covering issues such as privacy, child protection, cybersecurity, copyright protection, and Internet governance.
" Here is the presentation in which Strickling enunciated these changes.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306204</id>
	<title>Re:So</title>
	<author>MentlFlos</author>
	<datestamp>1267376220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How's that hope and change working out?</p></div><p>spectacular!  I'm still hoping for change...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How 's that hope and change working out ? spectacular !
I 'm still hoping for change.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How's that hope and change working out?spectacular!
I'm still hoping for change...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305118</id>
	<title>Obama to the rescue</title>
	<author>inthealpine</author>
	<datestamp>1267368000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Obama is here to save us from the internet!  Don't worry everyone it's not like the Obama administration has ever said anything about your electronics devices on a network as it relates to privacy...oh wait wasn't there something about cell phones and Americans having &ldquo;no reasonable expectation of privacy&rdquo; <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578\_3-10451518-38.html" title="cnet.com" rel="nofollow">http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578\_3-10451518-38.html</a> [cnet.com] <br>
<br>
I'm sure we'll be fine...hey...why does my system tray have a little icon that looks like a dude in a brownshirt??  Never mind, when I mouse over it it says 'Hope and Change' so false alarm..
<br> <br>
Let me balance this out a bit, I don't like the patriot act as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama is here to save us from the internet !
Do n't worry everyone it 's not like the Obama administration has ever said anything about your electronics devices on a network as it relates to privacy...oh wait was n't there something about cell phones and Americans having    no reasonable expectation of privacy    http : //news.cnet.com/8301-13578 \ _3-10451518-38.html [ cnet.com ] I 'm sure we 'll be fine...hey...why does my system tray have a little icon that looks like a dude in a brownshirt ? ?
Never mind , when I mouse over it it says 'Hope and Change ' so false alarm. . Let me balance this out a bit , I do n't like the patriot act as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama is here to save us from the internet!
Don't worry everyone it's not like the Obama administration has ever said anything about your electronics devices on a network as it relates to privacy...oh wait wasn't there something about cell phones and Americans having “no reasonable expectation of privacy” http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578\_3-10451518-38.html [cnet.com] 

I'm sure we'll be fine...hey...why does my system tray have a little icon that looks like a dude in a brownshirt??
Never mind, when I mouse over it it says 'Hope and Change' so false alarm..
 
Let me balance this out a bit, I don't like the patriot act as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31307356</id>
	<title>Re:Well, this seems subpar.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267383780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The government doesn't *make* your food, it doesn't run airlines, it doesn't build highways nor buildings.  Regulations are important.  But in many cases, private enterprise has come up with standards to the same effect.  The government should be there to make sure someone is held accountable if private enterprise (or anyone else) makes you sick or kills someone, causes property damage, loss, etc. since its purpose used to be to defend your rights, not to arbitrarily decide which ones it's going to let you keep.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The government does n't * make * your food , it does n't run airlines , it does n't build highways nor buildings .
Regulations are important .
But in many cases , private enterprise has come up with standards to the same effect .
The government should be there to make sure someone is held accountable if private enterprise ( or anyone else ) makes you sick or kills someone , causes property damage , loss , etc .
since its purpose used to be to defend your rights , not to arbitrarily decide which ones it 's going to let you keep .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government doesn't *make* your food, it doesn't run airlines, it doesn't build highways nor buildings.
Regulations are important.
But in many cases, private enterprise has come up with standards to the same effect.
The government should be there to make sure someone is held accountable if private enterprise (or anyone else) makes you sick or kills someone, causes property damage, loss, etc.
since its purpose used to be to defend your rights, not to arbitrarily decide which ones it's going to let you keep.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31325806</id>
	<title>In many ways life was better.</title>
	<author>elucido</author>
	<datestamp>1267458840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The FDA only has to check the food because we have huge supermarkets and chemicals in the food. Maybe if we went back to growing our food locally we wouldn't need a federal agency to check the food.</p><p>Maybe we wouldn't need the government involved in worker safety if Unions weren't crushed and if Corporations weren't persons.</p><p>And come on, why compare us to countries like Haiti and Somolia? You act as if this big government actually makes us safer. We are no safer than we were 100 years ago. In fact the world is a more dangerous place than it was 100 years ago, because the government doesn't care about individuals anymore. 100 years ago the government cared about people.</p><p>If we want the best outcome for the public, the federal government should not get involved. Let state governments regulate and tax, and let states solve cultural issues. The federal government already has an NSA, it already has a military, it has DARPA, it has no reason to get more involved and police the internet. Nobody asked the government to police the internet. Do you see citizens around the country going "Please Obama, please make the internet safer!" No you don't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The FDA only has to check the food because we have huge supermarkets and chemicals in the food .
Maybe if we went back to growing our food locally we would n't need a federal agency to check the food.Maybe we would n't need the government involved in worker safety if Unions were n't crushed and if Corporations were n't persons.And come on , why compare us to countries like Haiti and Somolia ?
You act as if this big government actually makes us safer .
We are no safer than we were 100 years ago .
In fact the world is a more dangerous place than it was 100 years ago , because the government does n't care about individuals anymore .
100 years ago the government cared about people.If we want the best outcome for the public , the federal government should not get involved .
Let state governments regulate and tax , and let states solve cultural issues .
The federal government already has an NSA , it already has a military , it has DARPA , it has no reason to get more involved and police the internet .
Nobody asked the government to police the internet .
Do you see citizens around the country going " Please Obama , please make the internet safer !
" No you do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The FDA only has to check the food because we have huge supermarkets and chemicals in the food.
Maybe if we went back to growing our food locally we wouldn't need a federal agency to check the food.Maybe we wouldn't need the government involved in worker safety if Unions weren't crushed and if Corporations weren't persons.And come on, why compare us to countries like Haiti and Somolia?
You act as if this big government actually makes us safer.
We are no safer than we were 100 years ago.
In fact the world is a more dangerous place than it was 100 years ago, because the government doesn't care about individuals anymore.
100 years ago the government cared about people.If we want the best outcome for the public, the federal government should not get involved.
Let state governments regulate and tax, and let states solve cultural issues.
The federal government already has an NSA, it already has a military, it has DARPA, it has no reason to get more involved and police the internet.
Nobody asked the government to police the internet.
Do you see citizens around the country going "Please Obama, please make the internet safer!
" No you don't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31307342</id>
	<title>Re:Well, this seems subpar.</title>
	<author>failedlogic</author>
	<datestamp>1267383720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree, but, as a general exception it depends on the importance ('how much is on the line if we fail') of the Department or Agency in question. The greater the risk, the more likely it is to deliver (so you could call it high quality if you ignore the inevitable overspending). There's always going to be spending boondoggles, errors in policy or implementation and outright failures - we're all human and even big corporations have those too.</p><p>Those departments that have little or no importance, accountability or are solely designed for policy purposes are the ones most likely to fail or offer low quality service.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , but , as a general exception it depends on the importance ( 'how much is on the line if we fail ' ) of the Department or Agency in question .
The greater the risk , the more likely it is to deliver ( so you could call it high quality if you ignore the inevitable overspending ) .
There 's always going to be spending boondoggles , errors in policy or implementation and outright failures - we 're all human and even big corporations have those too.Those departments that have little or no importance , accountability or are solely designed for policy purposes are the ones most likely to fail or offer low quality service .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, but, as a general exception it depends on the importance ('how much is on the line if we fail') of the Department or Agency in question.
The greater the risk, the more likely it is to deliver (so you could call it high quality if you ignore the inevitable overspending).
There's always going to be spending boondoggles, errors in policy or implementation and outright failures - we're all human and even big corporations have those too.Those departments that have little or no importance, accountability or are solely designed for policy purposes are the ones most likely to fail or offer low quality service.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31308596</id>
	<title>Re:Stop banging on about healthcare</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267349940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fail.  What is Medicaid, Medicare and the Office of the Township Trustee, Alex?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fail .
What is Medicaid , Medicare and the Office of the Township Trustee , Alex ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fail.
What is Medicaid, Medicare and the Office of the Township Trustee, Alex?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31325816</id>
	<title>^ someone mode him up.</title>
	<author>elucido</author>
	<datestamp>1267458900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are exactly right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are exactly right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are exactly right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31307356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305876</id>
	<title>combo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267373760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is in result of (a) the failed cyber attack readiness test, and (b) ACTA is coming down the pike...and provisions in ACTA require certain laws to be in place. It's a pre-emptive strike to make ACTA easier to swallow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is in result of ( a ) the failed cyber attack readiness test , and ( b ) ACTA is coming down the pike...and provisions in ACTA require certain laws to be in place .
It 's a pre-emptive strike to make ACTA easier to swallow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is in result of (a) the failed cyber attack readiness test, and (b) ACTA is coming down the pike...and provisions in ACTA require certain laws to be in place.
It's a pre-emptive strike to make ACTA easier to swallow.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305368</id>
	<title>Re:Well, this seems subpar.</title>
	<author>skine</author>
	<datestamp>1267370220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would argue that it's not due to the government being involved that the quality lowers, but rather that the government decides to become involved without raising taxes to fully fund the projects. The reason is that raising taxes kiss of death that is hindering new and current government industries alike.</p><p>One example is Social Security, which has not increased the number of workers since their budget was cut in the Reagan-era. Note that the baby-boomers are now at/approaching retirement age, the prominence of "ambulance chasers" (ever see a lawyer commercial saying they'll get you the cash you deserve? That's them) are both strains on the system.</p><p>Also, NASA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would argue that it 's not due to the government being involved that the quality lowers , but rather that the government decides to become involved without raising taxes to fully fund the projects .
The reason is that raising taxes kiss of death that is hindering new and current government industries alike.One example is Social Security , which has not increased the number of workers since their budget was cut in the Reagan-era .
Note that the baby-boomers are now at/approaching retirement age , the prominence of " ambulance chasers " ( ever see a lawyer commercial saying they 'll get you the cash you deserve ?
That 's them ) are both strains on the system.Also , NASA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would argue that it's not due to the government being involved that the quality lowers, but rather that the government decides to become involved without raising taxes to fully fund the projects.
The reason is that raising taxes kiss of death that is hindering new and current government industries alike.One example is Social Security, which has not increased the number of workers since their budget was cut in the Reagan-era.
Note that the baby-boomers are now at/approaching retirement age, the prominence of "ambulance chasers" (ever see a lawyer commercial saying they'll get you the cash you deserve?
That's them) are both strains on the system.Also, NASA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305180</id>
	<title>Three Strikes and Obama Says You're Out</title>
	<author>gink1</author>
	<datestamp>1267368600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting how 3 strikes laws like those mandated in the ACTA Anti-Counterfeiting Treaty (championed by Obama) are showing up in various countries.</p><p>Now here comes Obama with a new initiative for the US to regulate the internet and two of it's goals are "copyright protection, and Internet governance".</p><p>Seems a fair guess that one of the first things that will occur is an ACTA style 3 strikes rule that must be enforced by all ISP's.<br>Will BitTorrent be banned by those ISP's? It seems likely, since in spite of the legal applications, that would make life so much easier for the ISPs.</p><p>Our Internet freedoms are slowly disappearing as governments regulate them away on behalf of the Corporations!  Internet users are allowed no voice.</p><p>Soon the Internet will be the CorporateNe" and we will have to enter Credit Card info just to log on!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting how 3 strikes laws like those mandated in the ACTA Anti-Counterfeiting Treaty ( championed by Obama ) are showing up in various countries.Now here comes Obama with a new initiative for the US to regulate the internet and two of it 's goals are " copyright protection , and Internet governance " .Seems a fair guess that one of the first things that will occur is an ACTA style 3 strikes rule that must be enforced by all ISP 's.Will BitTorrent be banned by those ISP 's ?
It seems likely , since in spite of the legal applications , that would make life so much easier for the ISPs.Our Internet freedoms are slowly disappearing as governments regulate them away on behalf of the Corporations !
Internet users are allowed no voice.Soon the Internet will be the CorporateNe " and we will have to enter Credit Card info just to log on !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting how 3 strikes laws like those mandated in the ACTA Anti-Counterfeiting Treaty (championed by Obama) are showing up in various countries.Now here comes Obama with a new initiative for the US to regulate the internet and two of it's goals are "copyright protection, and Internet governance".Seems a fair guess that one of the first things that will occur is an ACTA style 3 strikes rule that must be enforced by all ISP's.Will BitTorrent be banned by those ISP's?
It seems likely, since in spite of the legal applications, that would make life so much easier for the ISPs.Our Internet freedoms are slowly disappearing as governments regulate them away on behalf of the Corporations!
Internet users are allowed no voice.Soon the Internet will be the CorporateNe" and we will have to enter Credit Card info just to log on!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31312066</id>
	<title>CONTROL !</title>
	<author>MoeDumb</author>
	<datestamp>1267379760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's what the 0bamanation is all all about, Control. Health control. Industry control. Banking control. And now, Internet control.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's what the 0bamanation is all all about , Control .
Health control .
Industry control .
Banking control .
And now , Internet control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's what the 0bamanation is all all about, Control.
Health control.
Industry control.
Banking control.
And now, Internet control.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306686</id>
	<title>Re:Hopenchange!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267379340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, then let the Republicans filibusterer.  If the Patriot Act is so bad, which I think it is, that it needs to have privacy protections added to it, THEN LET IT EXPIRE!  Don't cave like a bunch of weak willed wimps.  I've never heard such a bunch of cry babies.  We only control the White House, The House and the Senate, how are we supposed to get anything done?  BOO HOO HOO, grow a pair.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , then let the Republicans filibusterer .
If the Patriot Act is so bad , which I think it is , that it needs to have privacy protections added to it , THEN LET IT EXPIRE !
Do n't cave like a bunch of weak willed wimps .
I 've never heard such a bunch of cry babies .
We only control the White House , The House and the Senate , how are we supposed to get anything done ?
BOO HOO HOO , grow a pair .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, then let the Republicans filibusterer.
If the Patriot Act is so bad, which I think it is, that it needs to have privacy protections added to it, THEN LET IT EXPIRE!
Don't cave like a bunch of weak willed wimps.
I've never heard such a bunch of cry babies.
We only control the White House, The House and the Senate, how are we supposed to get anything done?
BOO HOO HOO, grow a pair.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305216</id>
	<title>Re:Hopenchange! - Corporate Health Care Coming</title>
	<author>gink1</author>
	<datestamp>1267368960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually the new bosses are turning health care over to a Monopoly with a long history of patient abuse for undisclosed sums.</p><p>I wish your version was true! We would be better off even in Government hands.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually the new bosses are turning health care over to a Monopoly with a long history of patient abuse for undisclosed sums.I wish your version was true !
We would be better off even in Government hands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually the new bosses are turning health care over to a Monopoly with a long history of patient abuse for undisclosed sums.I wish your version was true!
We would be better off even in Government hands.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31308250</id>
	<title>Re:3,2,1 until internet breakaway under Eu control</title>
	<author>mjwalshe</author>
	<datestamp>1267390380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>pity that talian Judge ignored the EU law in convicting the Google Managers</htmltext>
<tokenext>pity that talian Judge ignored the EU law in convicting the Google Managers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>pity that talian Judge ignored the EU law in convicting the Google Managers</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305432</id>
	<title>Re:Well, this seems subpar.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267370580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As far as I've noticed, the more the U.S. government gets involved with something, the lower the quality that something ends up being. This is pretty much the opposite of what the Internet needs to proliferate.</p></div><p>Then you either haven't been looking very hard or have no fucking clue of what life was like 100 years ago.</p><p>The government "gets involved" with the quality of your food (FDA), worker safety (OSHA), air travel (NTSB), highway safety (NHTSA), building codes (varies by State), law enforcement and an endless number of other sectors of society.</p><p>Guess what: the end result has been a net positive for society. Thanks to the government, we no longer have the food quality, building standards, security situation, or worker protections (just to list a few examples) of countries like Haiti and Somalia.</p><p>Whenever I hear "the government ruins everything" I know that I'm hearing <i>ideology, not reality</i>.<br>The people saying such things take so many of the regulations, which make this country run smoothly, for granted.</p><p>If you believe that the government <i>not getting involved</i> is going to lead to an optimal outcome for the public, I'd love to hear why.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As far as I 've noticed , the more the U.S. government gets involved with something , the lower the quality that something ends up being .
This is pretty much the opposite of what the Internet needs to proliferate.Then you either have n't been looking very hard or have no fucking clue of what life was like 100 years ago.The government " gets involved " with the quality of your food ( FDA ) , worker safety ( OSHA ) , air travel ( NTSB ) , highway safety ( NHTSA ) , building codes ( varies by State ) , law enforcement and an endless number of other sectors of society.Guess what : the end result has been a net positive for society .
Thanks to the government , we no longer have the food quality , building standards , security situation , or worker protections ( just to list a few examples ) of countries like Haiti and Somalia.Whenever I hear " the government ruins everything " I know that I 'm hearing ideology , not reality.The people saying such things take so many of the regulations , which make this country run smoothly , for granted.If you believe that the government not getting involved is going to lead to an optimal outcome for the public , I 'd love to hear why .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As far as I've noticed, the more the U.S. government gets involved with something, the lower the quality that something ends up being.
This is pretty much the opposite of what the Internet needs to proliferate.Then you either haven't been looking very hard or have no fucking clue of what life was like 100 years ago.The government "gets involved" with the quality of your food (FDA), worker safety (OSHA), air travel (NTSB), highway safety (NHTSA), building codes (varies by State), law enforcement and an endless number of other sectors of society.Guess what: the end result has been a net positive for society.
Thanks to the government, we no longer have the food quality, building standards, security situation, or worker protections (just to list a few examples) of countries like Haiti and Somalia.Whenever I hear "the government ruins everything" I know that I'm hearing ideology, not reality.The people saying such things take so many of the regulations, which make this country run smoothly, for granted.If you believe that the government not getting involved is going to lead to an optimal outcome for the public, I'd love to hear why.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306062</id>
	<title>Re:Well, this seems subpar.</title>
	<author>wwphx</author>
	<datestamp>1267375140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You deserve (Score: 6, Say It Like It Is, Brother!)
<br> <br>
Look at what happens in former Soviet Block countries when they get hit with earthquakes, much less the quality of their nuclear reactors (not that ours are much better at the moment).
<br> <br>
My fav Slashdot sig, and I'm sure I'm misquoting it, is: "I like paying taxes.  With them I buy civilization."</htmltext>
<tokenext>You deserve ( Score : 6 , Say It Like It Is , Brother !
) Look at what happens in former Soviet Block countries when they get hit with earthquakes , much less the quality of their nuclear reactors ( not that ours are much better at the moment ) .
My fav Slashdot sig , and I 'm sure I 'm misquoting it , is : " I like paying taxes .
With them I buy civilization .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You deserve (Score: 6, Say It Like It Is, Brother!
)
 
Look at what happens in former Soviet Block countries when they get hit with earthquakes, much less the quality of their nuclear reactors (not that ours are much better at the moment).
My fav Slashdot sig, and I'm sure I'm misquoting it, is: "I like paying taxes.
With them I buy civilization.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306716</id>
	<title>Re:Well, government "oversight"...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267379520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you noticed, all of them regulations you are talking about were put in place years ago, before the current group of rabble took over and seeked to systematically destroy as much as they could to line their own pockets while consolidating power.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you noticed , all of them regulations you are talking about were put in place years ago , before the current group of rabble took over and seeked to systematically destroy as much as they could to line their own pockets while consolidating power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you noticed, all of them regulations you are talking about were put in place years ago, before the current group of rabble took over and seeked to systematically destroy as much as they could to line their own pockets while consolidating power.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31308284</id>
	<title>Re:Obama gets a 'B' for keeping promises</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267390680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting link there. Good to have something pointing out that, yes, it's not perfect, but at least there's <em>something</em> much better than the previous eight years going on.</p><p>PS: As a citizen of a country that is not the USA, he's also doing wonders for your international image. We don't think he's some perfect messiah, but we're a damn sight less afraid (yes, <em>afraid</em>) of him than your last president/vice president.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting link there .
Good to have something pointing out that , yes , it 's not perfect , but at least there 's something much better than the previous eight years going on.PS : As a citizen of a country that is not the USA , he 's also doing wonders for your international image .
We do n't think he 's some perfect messiah , but we 're a damn sight less afraid ( yes , afraid ) of him than your last president/vice president .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting link there.
Good to have something pointing out that, yes, it's not perfect, but at least there's something much better than the previous eight years going on.PS: As a citizen of a country that is not the USA, he's also doing wonders for your international image.
We don't think he's some perfect messiah, but we're a damn sight less afraid (yes, afraid) of him than your last president/vice president.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31304994</id>
	<title>Nervous reactions</title>
	<author>N3tRunner</author>
	<datestamp>1267366860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is all because of their recent failed security simulation where they couldn't repel a cyber attack. Now that they feel vulnerable they have what they think is adequate motivation to screw the rest of us. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how this plays out...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is all because of their recent failed security simulation where they could n't repel a cyber attack .
Now that they feel vulnerable they have what they think is adequate motivation to screw the rest of us .
I guess we 'll just have to wait and see how this plays out.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is all because of their recent failed security simulation where they couldn't repel a cyber attack.
Now that they feel vulnerable they have what they think is adequate motivation to screw the rest of us.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see how this plays out...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305052</id>
	<title>Re:Internet to Powerful, for governments</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267367400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... their* populous*...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... their * populous * .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... their* populous*...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305248</id>
	<title>Hopefully this will be the end of ......</title>
	<author>3seas</author>
	<datestamp>1267369080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Spam,<br>Paypal.<br>low bandwidth due spam congestion.</p><p>But it will most likely bring about addition taxation for you usage time. (so much for constant connection value)<br>And it seems very clear that unknown to you, people will be monitoring and judging you in your use of the internet and this includes all communications you have via the internet and anything connected to teh internet, such as phones that use the internet.</p><p>Hmmm, and that means paypal will remain, so when some government official or someone they know or sucking up to them (payola) doesn't like your communication they can take your money away from you.<br>And tax you for doing so too.</p><p>And hey, since you don't really have control over what information gets put on your system in being connected to the internet, you can be set up and busted for all sorts of things. And taxed for it too.</p><p>As always, this will get sold to the public as a good thing and the ignorant public will accept it. little by little.</p><p>And the worse part......... They won't regulate the spam, it'll continue to be the majority of the traffic on the internet.<br>Proving how worthless and incompetent they (we know who they are here), to do anything about anything real.</p><p>So it should be obvious, just think of spam, if you think there exist any ability to do anything more than spy and attack those they don't like with acts of fraud.</p><p>For what is being claimed to be the benefits of such a direction, they should already be able to do anyway.</p><p>I.e. get rid of paypal exception to banking regulations.<br>And that is something they could do, but haven't.</p><p>Why is that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Spam,Paypal.low bandwidth due spam congestion.But it will most likely bring about addition taxation for you usage time .
( so much for constant connection value ) And it seems very clear that unknown to you , people will be monitoring and judging you in your use of the internet and this includes all communications you have via the internet and anything connected to teh internet , such as phones that use the internet.Hmmm , and that means paypal will remain , so when some government official or someone they know or sucking up to them ( payola ) does n't like your communication they can take your money away from you.And tax you for doing so too.And hey , since you do n't really have control over what information gets put on your system in being connected to the internet , you can be set up and busted for all sorts of things .
And taxed for it too.As always , this will get sold to the public as a good thing and the ignorant public will accept it .
little by little.And the worse part......... They wo n't regulate the spam , it 'll continue to be the majority of the traffic on the internet.Proving how worthless and incompetent they ( we know who they are here ) , to do anything about anything real.So it should be obvious , just think of spam , if you think there exist any ability to do anything more than spy and attack those they do n't like with acts of fraud.For what is being claimed to be the benefits of such a direction , they should already be able to do anyway.I.e .
get rid of paypal exception to banking regulations.And that is something they could do , but have n't.Why is that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spam,Paypal.low bandwidth due spam congestion.But it will most likely bring about addition taxation for you usage time.
(so much for constant connection value)And it seems very clear that unknown to you, people will be monitoring and judging you in your use of the internet and this includes all communications you have via the internet and anything connected to teh internet, such as phones that use the internet.Hmmm, and that means paypal will remain, so when some government official or someone they know or sucking up to them (payola) doesn't like your communication they can take your money away from you.And tax you for doing so too.And hey, since you don't really have control over what information gets put on your system in being connected to the internet, you can be set up and busted for all sorts of things.
And taxed for it too.As always, this will get sold to the public as a good thing and the ignorant public will accept it.
little by little.And the worse part......... They won't regulate the spam, it'll continue to be the majority of the traffic on the internet.Proving how worthless and incompetent they (we know who they are here), to do anything about anything real.So it should be obvious, just think of spam, if you think there exist any ability to do anything more than spy and attack those they don't like with acts of fraud.For what is being claimed to be the benefits of such a direction, they should already be able to do anyway.I.e.
get rid of paypal exception to banking regulations.And that is something they could do, but haven't.Why is that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31307188</id>
	<title>Re:Moratorium</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267382640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But Al Gore invested the internet!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But Al Gore invested the internet !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But Al Gore invested the internet!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306782</id>
	<title>Re:Well, this seems subpar.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267380000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If you believe that the government not getting involved is going to lead to an optimal outcome for the public, I'd love to hear why</p></div></blockquote><p>Getting it involved will certainly lead to an optimal solution provided the optimal solution can include content filtering and firewalling at a national level.</p><p>And yes, that can happen under the 'free market' but at least in that instance you have immediate recourse that doesn't include revolution or renouncing your citizenship...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you believe that the government not getting involved is going to lead to an optimal outcome for the public , I 'd love to hear whyGetting it involved will certainly lead to an optimal solution provided the optimal solution can include content filtering and firewalling at a national level.And yes , that can happen under the 'free market ' but at least in that instance you have immediate recourse that does n't include revolution or renouncing your citizenship.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you believe that the government not getting involved is going to lead to an optimal outcome for the public, I'd love to hear whyGetting it involved will certainly lead to an optimal solution provided the optimal solution can include content filtering and firewalling at a national level.And yes, that can happen under the 'free market' but at least in that instance you have immediate recourse that doesn't include revolution or renouncing your citizenship...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31309600</id>
	<title>Re:Well, this seems subpar.</title>
	<author>hedwards</author>
	<datestamp>1267358040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As opposed to when the U.S. government keeps out of it and we get the world's best health care at an affordable price? Wait, you say that it's actually way down on the list for quality and is far more costly than pretty much anybody else's? Hmm, yeah, better keep government out, we might get some of that socialism and corporate responsibility I keep hearing about.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As opposed to when the U.S. government keeps out of it and we get the world 's best health care at an affordable price ?
Wait , you say that it 's actually way down on the list for quality and is far more costly than pretty much anybody else 's ?
Hmm , yeah , better keep government out , we might get some of that socialism and corporate responsibility I keep hearing about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As opposed to when the U.S. government keeps out of it and we get the world's best health care at an affordable price?
Wait, you say that it's actually way down on the list for quality and is far more costly than pretty much anybody else's?
Hmm, yeah, better keep government out, we might get some of that socialism and corporate responsibility I keep hearing about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31308486</id>
	<title>Re:Stop banging on about healthcare</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267349100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are talking about emergency care, and the GP is talking about preventative care.</p><p>"There is Medicare, Medicaid, and a host of other programs...some federal, some state, some NGO, some faith-based, some even provided by those *evil* pharma companies that stand ready to act as safety nets."</p><p>And all of that costs taxpayers more money than just giving everybody healthcare with reservations against people who would abuse the system (if *just* emergency care was cheaper then private healthcare wouldn't exist).  And before you start shouting about how people always abuse the system, the people you are talking about in the quote above are abusing the system by using emergency services that they have ability to pay for.</p><p>So, the healthcare bill could be good, could be bad, depending on how well it is drafted.  And with Republicans united against any form of healthcare, and Democrats needing every vote they can get at this point (they used to have control before Kennedy died and they squandered their chance), you have a situation where the healthcare bill that will be voted in will not be good at all, but it will be amended (the senate bill is already being amended) after it passes.  And people will use the healthcare they now have, and people will start to look for ways to abuse the new system, and finally Congress will be able to work on something else.</p><p>"The problem with politics is politicians."<br>"No, the problem with politics is the idiot voters."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are talking about emergency care , and the GP is talking about preventative care .
" There is Medicare , Medicaid , and a host of other programs...some federal , some state , some NGO , some faith-based , some even provided by those * evil * pharma companies that stand ready to act as safety nets .
" And all of that costs taxpayers more money than just giving everybody healthcare with reservations against people who would abuse the system ( if * just * emergency care was cheaper then private healthcare would n't exist ) .
And before you start shouting about how people always abuse the system , the people you are talking about in the quote above are abusing the system by using emergency services that they have ability to pay for.So , the healthcare bill could be good , could be bad , depending on how well it is drafted .
And with Republicans united against any form of healthcare , and Democrats needing every vote they can get at this point ( they used to have control before Kennedy died and they squandered their chance ) , you have a situation where the healthcare bill that will be voted in will not be good at all , but it will be amended ( the senate bill is already being amended ) after it passes .
And people will use the healthcare they now have , and people will start to look for ways to abuse the new system , and finally Congress will be able to work on something else .
" The problem with politics is politicians .
" " No , the problem with politics is the idiot voters .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are talking about emergency care, and the GP is talking about preventative care.
"There is Medicare, Medicaid, and a host of other programs...some federal, some state, some NGO, some faith-based, some even provided by those *evil* pharma companies that stand ready to act as safety nets.
"And all of that costs taxpayers more money than just giving everybody healthcare with reservations against people who would abuse the system (if *just* emergency care was cheaper then private healthcare wouldn't exist).
And before you start shouting about how people always abuse the system, the people you are talking about in the quote above are abusing the system by using emergency services that they have ability to pay for.So, the healthcare bill could be good, could be bad, depending on how well it is drafted.
And with Republicans united against any form of healthcare, and Democrats needing every vote they can get at this point (they used to have control before Kennedy died and they squandered their chance), you have a situation where the healthcare bill that will be voted in will not be good at all, but it will be amended (the senate bill is already being amended) after it passes.
And people will use the healthcare they now have, and people will start to look for ways to abuse the new system, and finally Congress will be able to work on something else.
"The problem with politics is politicians.
""No, the problem with politics is the idiot voters.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31310594</id>
	<title>Re:Hopenchange!</title>
	<author>trenton</author>
	<datestamp>1267365000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Some hard evidence of the flip-a-floppin:
<p>
<a href="http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dems-in-2005-51-vote-nuclear-option-is-arrogant-power-grab-against-the-founders-intent" title="breitbart.tv">http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dems-in-2005-51-vote-nuclear-option-is-arrogant-power-grab-against-the-founders-intent</a> [breitbart.tv]
</p><p>
<b>Biden:</b> "I pray God when the Democrats take back control we don't make the kind of naked power grab you are doing." Unfortunately, his prayers were not answered.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some hard evidence of the flip-a-floppin : http : //www.breitbart.tv/obama-dems-in-2005-51-vote-nuclear-option-is-arrogant-power-grab-against-the-founders-intent [ breitbart.tv ] Biden : " I pray God when the Democrats take back control we do n't make the kind of naked power grab you are doing .
" Unfortunately , his prayers were not answered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some hard evidence of the flip-a-floppin:

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dems-in-2005-51-vote-nuclear-option-is-arrogant-power-grab-against-the-founders-intent [breitbart.tv]

Biden: "I pray God when the Democrats take back control we don't make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.
" Unfortunately, his prayers were not answered.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305498</id>
	<title>Here you go.</title>
	<author>TechForensics</author>
	<datestamp>1267371180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Directly from TFA:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Copyright protection:  How do we protect against illegal piracy of copyrighted works and intellectual property on the Internet while preserving the rights of users to access lawful content? NTIA and our sister agency at the Department of Commerce, the US Patent and Trademark Office, are beginning a comprehensive consultation process that will help the Administration develop a forward-looking set of policies to address online copyright infringement in a balanced, Internet-savvy manner.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Directly from TFA : Copyright protection : How do we protect against illegal piracy of copyrighted works and intellectual property on the Internet while preserving the rights of users to access lawful content ?
NTIA and our sister agency at the Department of Commerce , the US Patent and Trademark Office , are beginning a comprehensive consultation process that will help the Administration develop a forward-looking set of policies to address online copyright infringement in a balanced , Internet-savvy manner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Directly from TFA:Copyright protection:  How do we protect against illegal piracy of copyrighted works and intellectual property on the Internet while preserving the rights of users to access lawful content?
NTIA and our sister agency at the Department of Commerce, the US Patent and Trademark Office, are beginning a comprehensive consultation process that will help the Administration develop a forward-looking set of policies to address online copyright infringement in a balanced, Internet-savvy manner.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305990</id>
	<title>Re:Hopenchange!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267374660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You <em>do</em> understand that the Democrats wanted to add new privacy protections to the Act, don't you? They gave up the fight when the Republicans, as usual, promised to filibuster. Apparently the Republicans don't want any new privacy protections. You should ask them why the "small government" party wants to continue giving the bosses free rein to continue intruding into our private lives.</p><p><a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35592245/ns/politics/" title="msn.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35592245/ns/politics/</a> [msn.com] </p></div><p>"Waah, waah, waah!!!!  We'd do it if not for the EVIL RETHUGLICANS!!!"</p><p><b>BULLSHIT</b></p><p>George W. Bush's tax cuts passed 51-50 because they required a VP tie-breaker.  Ronald Reagan's tax cuts passed a <b>Democrat</b>-controlled House.</p><p>The Dems have clear majorities in the House, the Senate, and own the Presidency.  They control the budget process - and have since 2006, which coincidentally is when US budget deficts stopped shrinking and started exploding.</p><p>There's no way in hell Republicans would try to filibuster real privacy protections and not the normal claptrap and asinine "progressive" efforts to treat as simple civil criminals those who are in reality illegal combatants under the Geneva Conventions.</p><p>Care to specify what nebulous those "privacy protections" really were?  Were they requirements for soldiers in a firefight on a battlefield to read terrorists their rights before returning sniper fire?</p><p>Given the vitriol with which Dems campaigned against the Patriot Act in the past and their current clear control of the reins of the US government, why the hell were they afraid of a filibuster?  They're either base hypocrits or spineless pussies.  Or both.  Take your pick.  And them being either or both of those makes you a fool for defending them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do understand that the Democrats wanted to add new privacy protections to the Act , do n't you ?
They gave up the fight when the Republicans , as usual , promised to filibuster .
Apparently the Republicans do n't want any new privacy protections .
You should ask them why the " small government " party wants to continue giving the bosses free rein to continue intruding into our private lives.http : //www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35592245/ns/politics/ [ msn.com ] " Waah , waah , waah ! ! ! !
We 'd do it if not for the EVIL RETHUGLICANS ! ! !
" BULLSHITGeorge W. Bush 's tax cuts passed 51-50 because they required a VP tie-breaker .
Ronald Reagan 's tax cuts passed a Democrat-controlled House.The Dems have clear majorities in the House , the Senate , and own the Presidency .
They control the budget process - and have since 2006 , which coincidentally is when US budget deficts stopped shrinking and started exploding.There 's no way in hell Republicans would try to filibuster real privacy protections and not the normal claptrap and asinine " progressive " efforts to treat as simple civil criminals those who are in reality illegal combatants under the Geneva Conventions.Care to specify what nebulous those " privacy protections " really were ?
Were they requirements for soldiers in a firefight on a battlefield to read terrorists their rights before returning sniper fire ? Given the vitriol with which Dems campaigned against the Patriot Act in the past and their current clear control of the reins of the US government , why the hell were they afraid of a filibuster ?
They 're either base hypocrits or spineless pussies .
Or both .
Take your pick .
And them being either or both of those makes you a fool for defending them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do understand that the Democrats wanted to add new privacy protections to the Act, don't you?
They gave up the fight when the Republicans, as usual, promised to filibuster.
Apparently the Republicans don't want any new privacy protections.
You should ask them why the "small government" party wants to continue giving the bosses free rein to continue intruding into our private lives.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35592245/ns/politics/ [msn.com] "Waah, waah, waah!!!!
We'd do it if not for the EVIL RETHUGLICANS!!!
"BULLSHITGeorge W. Bush's tax cuts passed 51-50 because they required a VP tie-breaker.
Ronald Reagan's tax cuts passed a Democrat-controlled House.The Dems have clear majorities in the House, the Senate, and own the Presidency.
They control the budget process - and have since 2006, which coincidentally is when US budget deficts stopped shrinking and started exploding.There's no way in hell Republicans would try to filibuster real privacy protections and not the normal claptrap and asinine "progressive" efforts to treat as simple civil criminals those who are in reality illegal combatants under the Geneva Conventions.Care to specify what nebulous those "privacy protections" really were?
Were they requirements for soldiers in a firefight on a battlefield to read terrorists their rights before returning sniper fire?Given the vitriol with which Dems campaigned against the Patriot Act in the past and their current clear control of the reins of the US government, why the hell were they afraid of a filibuster?
They're either base hypocrits or spineless pussies.
Or both.
Take your pick.
And them being either or both of those makes you a fool for defending them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31311452</id>
	<title>It's STILL the Economy stupid.on</title>
	<author>Tiger Smile</author>
	<datestamp>1267372740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Internet has been a major success. But we have health care problems, jobs problems, Wall Street is out of fucking control. If our government has a single person who's got this kind of play time on his hands and wants to fuck up the only working think we have, I think it's time to shrink the Federal government. This is fucking amazing. This should not be a topic or a distraction. They should allow thing to work and get the fuck out of our what. What the hell did we hire these retards for in the first place? Clearly we keep hiring the wrong idiots. What's wrong with us?</p><p>I know the vast majority of people wont pry a single finger away form WOW to do anything, but you should. This is your fault, anyone who didn't stand up and be the the kind of boss these people need. We hire'em and we can fire'em. We got some rouge employees, so what are you going to do? Someone else will take care of it. I'll wait until Karl Auerbach does something about it. Take action or you caused the end of the Internet, about the only thing working.</p><p>We got Goerge Bush form your inaction, if you couldn't vote you could have campaigned. You. I'm talking to you. I'm pointing you. Fix it. Get up, cancel your TV subscription, game subscription, get your friends to do the same things. Get the word out. Vote. Brainstorm. Write to papers, web site, and educate people. Let's move you lazy ass for once. Get going.</p><p>I'll be doing the same.</p><p>Thanks, now get back to work!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Internet has been a major success .
But we have health care problems , jobs problems , Wall Street is out of fucking control .
If our government has a single person who 's got this kind of play time on his hands and wants to fuck up the only working think we have , I think it 's time to shrink the Federal government .
This is fucking amazing .
This should not be a topic or a distraction .
They should allow thing to work and get the fuck out of our what .
What the hell did we hire these retards for in the first place ?
Clearly we keep hiring the wrong idiots .
What 's wrong with us ? I know the vast majority of people wont pry a single finger away form WOW to do anything , but you should .
This is your fault , anyone who did n't stand up and be the the kind of boss these people need .
We hire'em and we can fire'em .
We got some rouge employees , so what are you going to do ?
Someone else will take care of it .
I 'll wait until Karl Auerbach does something about it .
Take action or you caused the end of the Internet , about the only thing working.We got Goerge Bush form your inaction , if you could n't vote you could have campaigned .
You. I 'm talking to you .
I 'm pointing you .
Fix it .
Get up , cancel your TV subscription , game subscription , get your friends to do the same things .
Get the word out .
Vote. Brainstorm .
Write to papers , web site , and educate people .
Let 's move you lazy ass for once .
Get going.I 'll be doing the same.Thanks , now get back to work !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Internet has been a major success.
But we have health care problems, jobs problems, Wall Street is out of fucking control.
If our government has a single person who's got this kind of play time on his hands and wants to fuck up the only working think we have, I think it's time to shrink the Federal government.
This is fucking amazing.
This should not be a topic or a distraction.
They should allow thing to work and get the fuck out of our what.
What the hell did we hire these retards for in the first place?
Clearly we keep hiring the wrong idiots.
What's wrong with us?I know the vast majority of people wont pry a single finger away form WOW to do anything, but you should.
This is your fault, anyone who didn't stand up and be the the kind of boss these people need.
We hire'em and we can fire'em.
We got some rouge employees, so what are you going to do?
Someone else will take care of it.
I'll wait until Karl Auerbach does something about it.
Take action or you caused the end of the Internet, about the only thing working.We got Goerge Bush form your inaction, if you couldn't vote you could have campaigned.
You. I'm talking to you.
I'm pointing you.
Fix it.
Get up, cancel your TV subscription, game subscription, get your friends to do the same things.
Get the word out.
Vote. Brainstorm.
Write to papers, web site, and educate people.
Let's move you lazy ass for once.
Get going.I'll be doing the same.Thanks, now get back to work!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305004</id>
	<title>Well, this seems subpar.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267366980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As far as I've noticed, the more the U.S. government gets involved with something, the lower the quality that something ends up being. This is pretty much the opposite of what the Internet needs to proliferate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As far as I 've noticed , the more the U.S. government gets involved with something , the lower the quality that something ends up being .
This is pretty much the opposite of what the Internet needs to proliferate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As far as I've noticed, the more the U.S. government gets involved with something, the lower the quality that something ends up being.
This is pretty much the opposite of what the Internet needs to proliferate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31307592</id>
	<title>Re:Stop banging on about healthcare</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267385460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, you're spewing bullshit from your face.  In the vast majority of places, you won't get any care at all without insurance unless you're a couple of hours from death.  Try getting anything other than ER treatment in Los Angeles without insurance and see how that works out for you, dipshit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , you 're spewing bullshit from your face .
In the vast majority of places , you wo n't get any care at all without insurance unless you 're a couple of hours from death .
Try getting anything other than ER treatment in Los Angeles without insurance and see how that works out for you , dipshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, you're spewing bullshit from your face.
In the vast majority of places, you won't get any care at all without insurance unless you're a couple of hours from death.
Try getting anything other than ER treatment in Los Angeles without insurance and see how that works out for you, dipshit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305028</id>
	<title>Maybe they need to set their priorities</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267367160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And change their stance on hands off spam.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And change their stance on hands off spam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And change their stance on hands off spam.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306068</id>
	<title>Re:Well, this seems subpar.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267375200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Thanks to the government, we no longer have the food quality, building standards, security situation, or worker protections (just to list a few examples) of countries like Haiti and Somalia.</p></div><p>Food quality is handled at the local level.  Buildings from the 1800s are still standing and are sturdier than most buildings today, despite the lack of building code.  What 'security situation'?  Worker protections came about from unions long before OSHA got involved.  Can you name anything the Federal Government has been a net benefit for when it has decided to interfere?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks to the government , we no longer have the food quality , building standards , security situation , or worker protections ( just to list a few examples ) of countries like Haiti and Somalia.Food quality is handled at the local level .
Buildings from the 1800s are still standing and are sturdier than most buildings today , despite the lack of building code .
What 'security situation ' ?
Worker protections came about from unions long before OSHA got involved .
Can you name anything the Federal Government has been a net benefit for when it has decided to interfere ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks to the government, we no longer have the food quality, building standards, security situation, or worker protections (just to list a few examples) of countries like Haiti and Somalia.Food quality is handled at the local level.
Buildings from the 1800s are still standing and are sturdier than most buildings today, despite the lack of building code.
What 'security situation'?
Worker protections came about from unions long before OSHA got involved.
Can you name anything the Federal Government has been a net benefit for when it has decided to interfere?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31310728</id>
	<title>Tin-Hatters are right this time</title>
	<author>hduff</author>
	<datestamp>1267366260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is just a preparation to apply draconian controls and restrictions on the Internet, which is the hidden agenda of the government. Sadly, no amount of protest will stop them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just a preparation to apply draconian controls and restrictions on the Internet , which is the hidden agenda of the government .
Sadly , no amount of protest will stop them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just a preparation to apply draconian controls and restrictions on the Internet, which is the hidden agenda of the government.
Sadly, no amount of protest will stop them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305114</id>
	<title>US Govt.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267368000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Don't worry,....I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Do n't worry,....I 'm from the Government , and I 'm here to help .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Don't worry,....I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305100</id>
	<title>Re:Internet to Powerful, for governments</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267367880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The internet is too powerful for governments to control.</p><p>Many have tried and ultimately failed. China has had some success, but even there it is slowly helping to disseminate news and information more freely. Perhaps the US thinks it is special because it invented the internet (although not the web) and controls the root DNS servers, but I doubt those things will help it much.</p><p>In a way I actually welcome this move. It will help push us towards mass uptake of anti-censorship technologies, awareness of online privacy issues and the ubiquity of encryption.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The internet is too powerful for governments to control.Many have tried and ultimately failed .
China has had some success , but even there it is slowly helping to disseminate news and information more freely .
Perhaps the US thinks it is special because it invented the internet ( although not the web ) and controls the root DNS servers , but I doubt those things will help it much.In a way I actually welcome this move .
It will help push us towards mass uptake of anti-censorship technologies , awareness of online privacy issues and the ubiquity of encryption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The internet is too powerful for governments to control.Many have tried and ultimately failed.
China has had some success, but even there it is slowly helping to disseminate news and information more freely.
Perhaps the US thinks it is special because it invented the internet (although not the web) and controls the root DNS servers, but I doubt those things will help it much.In a way I actually welcome this move.
It will help push us towards mass uptake of anti-censorship technologies, awareness of online privacy issues and the ubiquity of encryption.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31308356</id>
	<title>Re:Stop banging on about healthcare</title>
	<author>slimjim8094</author>
	<datestamp>1267348020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, by law hospitals are required to treat you if you go in and you are sick. If you can't pay, there's jack-all they can do about that.</p><p>But I honestly can't think of a less efficient system. Nevermind the fact that you're a leech, and don't seem to care, but your care isn't free. That MRI isn't free. Those pills aren't free. That lab tech isn't free. Somebody pays.</p><p>Who pays? It's all of us with insurance. So the insurance companies' costs go up. Can you blame them for raising premiums? Then less people can afford insurance.</p><p>You mention all those programs, but you also mention getting a bill. Hence, I can only conclude that nobody was paying and the hospital absorbed the cost.</p><p>I wonder - do you go to the doctor for your annual checkup and bloodwork? You know, the one where they would find your diabetes or your heart troubles, if you developed them? If I was the one paying, I'd rather you found out about your high cholesterol before you had a heart attack - it'd be a whole bunch cheaper. Oh, wait, I am paying - one way or another.</p><p>But the thing I can't understand is that <i>we already decided on the question of universal healthcare</i>! And we decided it was a universal right. We decided all of this when we mandated that hospitals had to handle anyone who came through. Why all this debate on whether to make it more efficient?</p><p>To all opponents of public-run universal healthcare - I challenge you to devise a less efficient system of universal healthcare than the one we already have; the "wait until you go into labor to provide prenatal care" and the "wait until you have a heart attack to find out about your heart troubles" system we have now. Please show all work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , by law hospitals are required to treat you if you go in and you are sick .
If you ca n't pay , there 's jack-all they can do about that.But I honestly ca n't think of a less efficient system .
Nevermind the fact that you 're a leech , and do n't seem to care , but your care is n't free .
That MRI is n't free .
Those pills are n't free .
That lab tech is n't free .
Somebody pays.Who pays ?
It 's all of us with insurance .
So the insurance companies ' costs go up .
Can you blame them for raising premiums ?
Then less people can afford insurance.You mention all those programs , but you also mention getting a bill .
Hence , I can only conclude that nobody was paying and the hospital absorbed the cost.I wonder - do you go to the doctor for your annual checkup and bloodwork ?
You know , the one where they would find your diabetes or your heart troubles , if you developed them ?
If I was the one paying , I 'd rather you found out about your high cholesterol before you had a heart attack - it 'd be a whole bunch cheaper .
Oh , wait , I am paying - one way or another.But the thing I ca n't understand is that we already decided on the question of universal healthcare !
And we decided it was a universal right .
We decided all of this when we mandated that hospitals had to handle anyone who came through .
Why all this debate on whether to make it more efficient ? To all opponents of public-run universal healthcare - I challenge you to devise a less efficient system of universal healthcare than the one we already have ; the " wait until you go into labor to provide prenatal care " and the " wait until you have a heart attack to find out about your heart troubles " system we have now .
Please show all work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, by law hospitals are required to treat you if you go in and you are sick.
If you can't pay, there's jack-all they can do about that.But I honestly can't think of a less efficient system.
Nevermind the fact that you're a leech, and don't seem to care, but your care isn't free.
That MRI isn't free.
Those pills aren't free.
That lab tech isn't free.
Somebody pays.Who pays?
It's all of us with insurance.
So the insurance companies' costs go up.
Can you blame them for raising premiums?
Then less people can afford insurance.You mention all those programs, but you also mention getting a bill.
Hence, I can only conclude that nobody was paying and the hospital absorbed the cost.I wonder - do you go to the doctor for your annual checkup and bloodwork?
You know, the one where they would find your diabetes or your heart troubles, if you developed them?
If I was the one paying, I'd rather you found out about your high cholesterol before you had a heart attack - it'd be a whole bunch cheaper.
Oh, wait, I am paying - one way or another.But the thing I can't understand is that we already decided on the question of universal healthcare!
And we decided it was a universal right.
We decided all of this when we mandated that hospitals had to handle anyone who came through.
Why all this debate on whether to make it more efficient?To all opponents of public-run universal healthcare - I challenge you to devise a less efficient system of universal healthcare than the one we already have; the "wait until you go into labor to provide prenatal care" and the "wait until you have a heart attack to find out about your heart troubles" system we have now.
Please show all work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31313100</id>
	<title>i2P</title>
	<author>Burz</author>
	<datestamp>1267435200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.i2p2.de/" title="i2p2.de">This alternative</a> [i2p2.de] is humming along fine. Its only about as fast as Tor, but supports full anonymity along with mail, websites, torrents (these first 3 are built-in), chat and custom apps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This alternative [ i2p2.de ] is humming along fine .
Its only about as fast as Tor , but supports full anonymity along with mail , websites , torrents ( these first 3 are built-in ) , chat and custom apps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This alternative [i2p2.de] is humming along fine.
Its only about as fast as Tor, but supports full anonymity along with mail, websites, torrents (these first 3 are built-in), chat and custom apps.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305138</id>
	<title>Geeks will blaze a new trail</title>
	<author>HangingChad</author>
	<datestamp>1267368240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>According to Assistant Secretary Larry Strickling, Obama's top official at the Department of Commerce, the US government's policy of leaving the Internet alone is over.</i>

</p><p>Any time this has happened the past, geeks blaze a trail to another communication medium.  While most people were using phones to make phone calls, geeks used it to create a BBS system.  Later came the internet, which was a great place until AOL came along.  Just seems like when one medium starts becoming crowded and excessively regulated, geeks will find another place.

</p><p>Maybe self-discovering mesh networks, something over satellite, not sure what's next.  But the more crowded and regulated the internet gets, the more the inner geek will start looking around for a less crowded place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to Assistant Secretary Larry Strickling , Obama 's top official at the Department of Commerce , the US government 's policy of leaving the Internet alone is over .
Any time this has happened the past , geeks blaze a trail to another communication medium .
While most people were using phones to make phone calls , geeks used it to create a BBS system .
Later came the internet , which was a great place until AOL came along .
Just seems like when one medium starts becoming crowded and excessively regulated , geeks will find another place .
Maybe self-discovering mesh networks , something over satellite , not sure what 's next .
But the more crowded and regulated the internet gets , the more the inner geek will start looking around for a less crowded place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> According to Assistant Secretary Larry Strickling, Obama's top official at the Department of Commerce, the US government's policy of leaving the Internet alone is over.
Any time this has happened the past, geeks blaze a trail to another communication medium.
While most people were using phones to make phone calls, geeks used it to create a BBS system.
Later came the internet, which was a great place until AOL came along.
Just seems like when one medium starts becoming crowded and excessively regulated, geeks will find another place.
Maybe self-discovering mesh networks, something over satellite, not sure what's next.
But the more crowded and regulated the internet gets, the more the inner geek will start looking around for a less crowded place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305124</id>
	<title>Money and Power.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267368120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"...covering issues such as privacy, child protection, cybersecurity, copyright protection, and Internet governance."</p></div><p>In other words, and in summarization, it's all about money and power/control.  It's pretty much the only reason the Government gets involved in ANYTHING like this these days.</p><p>We see how well Government-sponsored control programs have worked out for other countries, so expect more of the same here.  Billions (or trillions) spent, with little or not real effect(other than sending the country further into bankruptcy).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...covering issues such as privacy , child protection , cybersecurity , copyright protection , and Internet governance .
" In other words , and in summarization , it 's all about money and power/control .
It 's pretty much the only reason the Government gets involved in ANYTHING like this these days.We see how well Government-sponsored control programs have worked out for other countries , so expect more of the same here .
Billions ( or trillions ) spent , with little or not real effect ( other than sending the country further into bankruptcy ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...covering issues such as privacy, child protection, cybersecurity, copyright protection, and Internet governance.
"In other words, and in summarization, it's all about money and power/control.
It's pretty much the only reason the Government gets involved in ANYTHING like this these days.We see how well Government-sponsored control programs have worked out for other countries, so expect more of the same here.
Billions (or trillions) spent, with little or not real effect(other than sending the country further into bankruptcy).
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305696</id>
	<title>Anonymity</title>
	<author>nsapc3f</author>
	<datestamp>1267372440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the areas Hillary Clinton signaled the government may try (emphasize try) to address is anonymity on the internet (in the name of nailing child molesters).  Alot of this is about increasing tax revenue, I believe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the areas Hillary Clinton signaled the government may try ( emphasize try ) to address is anonymity on the internet ( in the name of nailing child molesters ) .
Alot of this is about increasing tax revenue , I believe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the areas Hillary Clinton signaled the government may try (emphasize try) to address is anonymity on the internet (in the name of nailing child molesters).
Alot of this is about increasing tax revenue, I believe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31325676</id>
	<title>Re:Well, this seems subpar.</title>
	<author>seekertom</author>
	<datestamp>1267458000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i don't think YOU were here 100 years ago either, maybe I was, but i think the reason we're better off now is because of all the sweat and brains that went into each and every advancement in society, not because the govt made it so with their intrusions and regulations.
i agree that there is a place for govt in our lives, and that benefit- to- all often comes from it, but that's 'good' govt we're talkin' about, and it's 'bad' govt we're bitchin' about. so, i couldn't just let it pass about your examples of what makes having govt a great thing....  we had a fire here, majorly, in a bunch of connected 'row' houses. seems the fire spread because the firewall between units wasn't extended up to the roof like it's supposed to be. it wasn't even on the plans. the local building dept guys, your govt group, passed the plans, passed the inspections etc. when it hit the fan that maybe they had a wee bit of responsibility, the state, your govt again, came to their rescue and told everyone that the local building-code guys were not 'responsible' for any of the projects they approved. so what good is govt in this respect, other than to make money from the citizens? betcha dollah i could come up with other similar things about the other groups you mentioned, but i won't waste our time here and now with it. mainly because we all know it's true, we need govt, just not the way it is acting right now! thanks fer lis'nin'  seekertom</htmltext>
<tokenext>i do n't think YOU were here 100 years ago either , maybe I was , but i think the reason we 're better off now is because of all the sweat and brains that went into each and every advancement in society , not because the govt made it so with their intrusions and regulations .
i agree that there is a place for govt in our lives , and that benefit- to- all often comes from it , but that 's 'good ' govt we 're talkin ' about , and it 's 'bad ' govt we 're bitchin ' about .
so , i could n't just let it pass about your examples of what makes having govt a great thing.... we had a fire here , majorly , in a bunch of connected 'row ' houses .
seems the fire spread because the firewall between units was n't extended up to the roof like it 's supposed to be .
it was n't even on the plans .
the local building dept guys , your govt group , passed the plans , passed the inspections etc .
when it hit the fan that maybe they had a wee bit of responsibility , the state , your govt again , came to their rescue and told everyone that the local building-code guys were not 'responsible ' for any of the projects they approved .
so what good is govt in this respect , other than to make money from the citizens ?
betcha dollah i could come up with other similar things about the other groups you mentioned , but i wo n't waste our time here and now with it .
mainly because we all know it 's true , we need govt , just not the way it is acting right now !
thanks fer lis'nin ' seekertom</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i don't think YOU were here 100 years ago either, maybe I was, but i think the reason we're better off now is because of all the sweat and brains that went into each and every advancement in society, not because the govt made it so with their intrusions and regulations.
i agree that there is a place for govt in our lives, and that benefit- to- all often comes from it, but that's 'good' govt we're talkin' about, and it's 'bad' govt we're bitchin' about.
so, i couldn't just let it pass about your examples of what makes having govt a great thing....  we had a fire here, majorly, in a bunch of connected 'row' houses.
seems the fire spread because the firewall between units wasn't extended up to the roof like it's supposed to be.
it wasn't even on the plans.
the local building dept guys, your govt group, passed the plans, passed the inspections etc.
when it hit the fan that maybe they had a wee bit of responsibility, the state, your govt again, came to their rescue and told everyone that the local building-code guys were not 'responsible' for any of the projects they approved.
so what good is govt in this respect, other than to make money from the citizens?
betcha dollah i could come up with other similar things about the other groups you mentioned, but i won't waste our time here and now with it.
mainly because we all know it's true, we need govt, just not the way it is acting right now!
thanks fer lis'nin'  seekertom</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305272</id>
	<title>Re:Money and Power. And their Corporate Masters</title>
	<author>gink1</author>
	<datestamp>1267369260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only reason the Government gets involved in anything is when they are paid to do so by their Corporate Masters.</p><p>And it is a well known fact that Corporations want to eliminate those pesky Internet freedoms and force us to pay for every click or download.</p><p>Luckily for them, Obama's just the man for that job!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only reason the Government gets involved in anything is when they are paid to do so by their Corporate Masters.And it is a well known fact that Corporations want to eliminate those pesky Internet freedoms and force us to pay for every click or download.Luckily for them , Obama 's just the man for that job !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only reason the Government gets involved in anything is when they are paid to do so by their Corporate Masters.And it is a well known fact that Corporations want to eliminate those pesky Internet freedoms and force us to pay for every click or download.Luckily for them, Obama's just the man for that job!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306432</id>
	<title>The Great Firewall of America</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267377720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here it comes "The Great Firewall of America".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here it comes " The Great Firewall of America " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here it comes "The Great Firewall of America".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306626</id>
	<title>Protection Racket</title>
	<author>moeinvt</author>
	<datestamp>1267378980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm almost positive that we once had this vague notion about government deriving its powers from the consent of the governed.  There was also this idea about government using the money that they steal from us in ways that are directly or indirectly beneficial to the society.  For quite a while now, we've had a gangster government running the taxation system like a protection racket where the confiscated wealth is concentrated in the hands of a well connected few.</p><p>The private sector gangsters would take the money, but then they would at least leave the person being "taxed" to their own activities, and even provide some valuable services in return.</p><p>With the public sector gangsters, they stll take the money, but then they also want to tell us what to do and how to do it and provide few, if any services in return.</p><p>They certainly don't govern with MY consent, and it's gotten so bad that I'd be willing to pay the protection money if they would just take it, and leave me the F*&amp;\% alone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm almost positive that we once had this vague notion about government deriving its powers from the consent of the governed .
There was also this idea about government using the money that they steal from us in ways that are directly or indirectly beneficial to the society .
For quite a while now , we 've had a gangster government running the taxation system like a protection racket where the confiscated wealth is concentrated in the hands of a well connected few.The private sector gangsters would take the money , but then they would at least leave the person being " taxed " to their own activities , and even provide some valuable services in return.With the public sector gangsters , they stll take the money , but then they also want to tell us what to do and how to do it and provide few , if any services in return.They certainly do n't govern with MY consent , and it 's gotten so bad that I 'd be willing to pay the protection money if they would just take it , and leave me the F * &amp; \ % alone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm almost positive that we once had this vague notion about government deriving its powers from the consent of the governed.
There was also this idea about government using the money that they steal from us in ways that are directly or indirectly beneficial to the society.
For quite a while now, we've had a gangster government running the taxation system like a protection racket where the confiscated wealth is concentrated in the hands of a well connected few.The private sector gangsters would take the money, but then they would at least leave the person being "taxed" to their own activities, and even provide some valuable services in return.With the public sector gangsters, they stll take the money, but then they also want to tell us what to do and how to do it and provide few, if any services in return.They certainly don't govern with MY consent, and it's gotten so bad that I'd be willing to pay the protection money if they would just take it, and leave me the F*&amp;\% alone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305710</id>
	<title>Re:Hopenchange!</title>
	<author>denton420</author>
	<datestamp>1267372560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You make a good point but fail to make the connection that they all LIE.</p><p>They just LIE about different things. These topics that they LIE about are just changed to appeal to certain types of voters/whatever will get them the most votes at the time. It's like a fun game of musical chairs.</p><p>Bush was tough on terrorists and could care less about civil rights. He was proud of this. Like any good Republican he wanted smaller government, but we all know he LIED about that...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You make a good point but fail to make the connection that they all LIE.They just LIE about different things .
These topics that they LIE about are just changed to appeal to certain types of voters/whatever will get them the most votes at the time .
It 's like a fun game of musical chairs.Bush was tough on terrorists and could care less about civil rights .
He was proud of this .
Like any good Republican he wanted smaller government , but we all know he LIED about that.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You make a good point but fail to make the connection that they all LIE.They just LIE about different things.
These topics that they LIE about are just changed to appeal to certain types of voters/whatever will get them the most votes at the time.
It's like a fun game of musical chairs.Bush was tough on terrorists and could care less about civil rights.
He was proud of this.
Like any good Republican he wanted smaller government, but we all know he LIED about that...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305748</id>
	<title>Re:Internet to Powerful, for governments</title>
	<author>hitmark</author>
	<datestamp>1267372860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>communism, bad for big corps.</p><p>facism, good for big corps.</p><p>big corps run government as a proxy so that the big corps have a patsy for the unpopular decisions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>communism , bad for big corps.facism , good for big corps.big corps run government as a proxy so that the big corps have a patsy for the unpopular decisions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>communism, bad for big corps.facism, good for big corps.big corps run government as a proxy so that the big corps have a patsy for the unpopular decisions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31307396</id>
	<title>More Government = Lower Quality</title>
	<author>Nova Express</author>
	<datestamp>1267384080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As far as I've noticed, the more the U.S. government gets involved with something, the lower the quality that something ends up being.</p></div><p>Indeed. So just look forward to the wonderful things in store if the Dmeocrats actually manage to ram ObamaCare through...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As far as I 've noticed , the more the U.S. government gets involved with something , the lower the quality that something ends up being.Indeed .
So just look forward to the wonderful things in store if the Dmeocrats actually manage to ram ObamaCare through.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As far as I've noticed, the more the U.S. government gets involved with something, the lower the quality that something ends up being.Indeed.
So just look forward to the wonderful things in store if the Dmeocrats actually manage to ram ObamaCare through...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31309002</id>
	<title>Re:Stop banging on about healthcare</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267353060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>In the UK we have the NHS. Lots of people moan about it. It's not perfect. But if you're ill, for the most part, people are thankful that it is there.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Oh yes, the NHS. How I wish we had something similar...
</p><p>
<a href="http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/02/26/uk-health-care-horror-1200-die-needlessly-in-filthy-blood-splattered-hospital/" title="hotair.com" rel="nofollow">http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/02/26/uk-health-care-horror-1200-die-needlessly-in-filthy-blood-splattered-hospital/</a> [hotair.com] :
</p><p>
<i>An NHS hospital let 1,200 patients die for no reason in the filthy, blood-splattered hospital where patients were routinely neglected and left in disgusting conditions.</i>
</p><p>
<i>Patients were left unwashed in their own filth for up to a month as nurses ignored their requests to use the toilet or change their sheets;</i>
</p><p>
<i>Four members of one family. including a new-born baby girl. died within 18 months after of blunders at the hospital;</i>
</p><p>
<i>Medics discharged patients hastily out of fear they risked being sacked for delaying;</i>
</p><p>
<i>Wards were left filthy with blood, discarded needles and used dressings while bullying managers made whistleblowers too frightened to come forward.</i>
</p><p>
<i>The Francis report said staff numbers were allowed to fall 'dangerously low', causing nurses to neglect the most basic care. It said: 'Requests for assistance to use a bedpan or to get to and from the toilet were not responded to.</i>
</p><p>
<i>'Some families were left to take soiled sheets home to wash or to change beds when this should have been undertaken by the hospital and its staff.' Food and drink were left out of reach, forcing patients to drink water from flower vases.
</i></p><p><i>
<i>This isn't an isolated incident. Another NHS hospital faced a similar scandal when 70 patients died after suffering similar conditions. Another NHS hospital let a premature newborn die... because infants born before 22 weeks are not allowed treatment. NHS also gave free Viagra to a convicted child molestor who was set free.</i></i></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the UK we have the NHS .
Lots of people moan about it .
It 's not perfect .
But if you 're ill , for the most part , people are thankful that it is there .
Oh yes , the NHS .
How I wish we had something similar.. . http : //hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/02/26/uk-health-care-horror-1200-die-needlessly-in-filthy-blood-splattered-hospital/ [ hotair.com ] : An NHS hospital let 1,200 patients die for no reason in the filthy , blood-splattered hospital where patients were routinely neglected and left in disgusting conditions .
Patients were left unwashed in their own filth for up to a month as nurses ignored their requests to use the toilet or change their sheets ; Four members of one family .
including a new-born baby girl .
died within 18 months after of blunders at the hospital ; Medics discharged patients hastily out of fear they risked being sacked for delaying ; Wards were left filthy with blood , discarded needles and used dressings while bullying managers made whistleblowers too frightened to come forward .
The Francis report said staff numbers were allowed to fall 'dangerously low ' , causing nurses to neglect the most basic care .
It said : 'Requests for assistance to use a bedpan or to get to and from the toilet were not responded to .
'Some families were left to take soiled sheets home to wash or to change beds when this should have been undertaken by the hospital and its staff .
' Food and drink were left out of reach , forcing patients to drink water from flower vases .
This is n't an isolated incident .
Another NHS hospital faced a similar scandal when 70 patients died after suffering similar conditions .
Another NHS hospital let a premature newborn die... because infants born before 22 weeks are not allowed treatment .
NHS also gave free Viagra to a convicted child molestor who was set free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the UK we have the NHS.
Lots of people moan about it.
It's not perfect.
But if you're ill, for the most part, people are thankful that it is there.
Oh yes, the NHS.
How I wish we had something similar...

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/02/26/uk-health-care-horror-1200-die-needlessly-in-filthy-blood-splattered-hospital/ [hotair.com] :

An NHS hospital let 1,200 patients die for no reason in the filthy, blood-splattered hospital where patients were routinely neglected and left in disgusting conditions.
Patients were left unwashed in their own filth for up to a month as nurses ignored their requests to use the toilet or change their sheets;

Four members of one family.
including a new-born baby girl.
died within 18 months after of blunders at the hospital;

Medics discharged patients hastily out of fear they risked being sacked for delaying;

Wards were left filthy with blood, discarded needles and used dressings while bullying managers made whistleblowers too frightened to come forward.
The Francis report said staff numbers were allowed to fall 'dangerously low', causing nurses to neglect the most basic care.
It said: 'Requests for assistance to use a bedpan or to get to and from the toilet were not responded to.
'Some families were left to take soiled sheets home to wash or to change beds when this should have been undertaken by the hospital and its staff.
' Food and drink were left out of reach, forcing patients to drink water from flower vases.
This isn't an isolated incident.
Another NHS hospital faced a similar scandal when 70 patients died after suffering similar conditions.
Another NHS hospital let a premature newborn die... because infants born before 22 weeks are not allowed treatment.
NHS also gave free Viagra to a convicted child molestor who was set free.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306072</id>
	<title>Re:Internet to Powerful, for governments</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267375200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>America freely elected socialism in 2008. Why is not so apparent to everyone?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>America freely elected socialism in 2008 .
Why is not so apparent to everyone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>America freely elected socialism in 2008.
Why is not so apparent to everyone?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31309400</id>
	<title>Re:Let me translate...</title>
	<author>vesuvana</author>
	<datestamp>1267356240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think you translate well; these are all the catch phrases that Democrats routinely trot out to show how much they care about protecting the poor little citizen. Of course really what they want is to control and tax every interaction they can. <p>

It's peeved them ever since www and graphical browsers came along that they weren't controlling or making money off all this human interaction. The technology (and their lack of understanding of it) cut government out of the loop from the start.
</p><p>
I really think the Wachowski brothers had it right with The Matrix imagery. Our government sees us as nothing more than perpetual energy sources for its own sustanence and immortality. So I'm all for limiting their power while we still can.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you translate well ; these are all the catch phrases that Democrats routinely trot out to show how much they care about protecting the poor little citizen .
Of course really what they want is to control and tax every interaction they can .
It 's peeved them ever since www and graphical browsers came along that they were n't controlling or making money off all this human interaction .
The technology ( and their lack of understanding of it ) cut government out of the loop from the start .
I really think the Wachowski brothers had it right with The Matrix imagery .
Our government sees us as nothing more than perpetual energy sources for its own sustanence and immortality .
So I 'm all for limiting their power while we still can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you translate well; these are all the catch phrases that Democrats routinely trot out to show how much they care about protecting the poor little citizen.
Of course really what they want is to control and tax every interaction they can.
It's peeved them ever since www and graphical browsers came along that they weren't controlling or making money off all this human interaction.
The technology (and their lack of understanding of it) cut government out of the loop from the start.
I really think the Wachowski brothers had it right with The Matrix imagery.
Our government sees us as nothing more than perpetual energy sources for its own sustanence and immortality.
So I'm all for limiting their power while we still can.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306374</id>
	<title>When have they EVER had their hands off?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267377420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's see:

<ul>
<li>Amateur Action BBS trial</li><li>Phrack E-911 case</li><li>Phil Zimmerman's trial</li><li>Clipper Chip</li><li>DMCA</li><li>COPA, CRA, and every other attempt to outlaw porn</li><li>Wiretapping closets in the backbones</li><li>Sales taxes being collected in all states</li><li>Software patents</li><li>Child porn convictions for cartoons</li></ul><p>
Since the days of Bill Clinton the federal government's "hand-off" policy has meant Americans had to download encryption code and audio/video codecs from abroad; couldn't use 128-bit encryption to secure financial transactions for several years; could be expedited to the most conservative jurisdiction and jailed for <i>receiving</i> illegal material; could be put on trial for re-publishing publicly-available information; and can now be jailed for drawings.

</p><p>
Maybe this new policy of "we'll finally start regulating the Internet" means they'll finally stop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's see : Amateur Action BBS trialPhrack E-911 casePhil Zimmerman 's trialClipper ChipDMCACOPA , CRA , and every other attempt to outlaw pornWiretapping closets in the backbonesSales taxes being collected in all statesSoftware patentsChild porn convictions for cartoons Since the days of Bill Clinton the federal government 's " hand-off " policy has meant Americans had to download encryption code and audio/video codecs from abroad ; could n't use 128-bit encryption to secure financial transactions for several years ; could be expedited to the most conservative jurisdiction and jailed for receiving illegal material ; could be put on trial for re-publishing publicly-available information ; and can now be jailed for drawings .
Maybe this new policy of " we 'll finally start regulating the Internet " means they 'll finally stop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's see:


Amateur Action BBS trialPhrack E-911 casePhil Zimmerman's trialClipper ChipDMCACOPA, CRA, and every other attempt to outlaw pornWiretapping closets in the backbonesSales taxes being collected in all statesSoftware patentsChild porn convictions for cartoons
Since the days of Bill Clinton the federal government's "hand-off" policy has meant Americans had to download encryption code and audio/video codecs from abroad; couldn't use 128-bit encryption to secure financial transactions for several years; could be expedited to the most conservative jurisdiction and jailed for receiving illegal material; could be put on trial for re-publishing publicly-available information; and can now be jailed for drawings.
Maybe this new policy of "we'll finally start regulating the Internet" means they'll finally stop.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305078</id>
	<title>Moratorium</title>
	<author>jofny</author>
	<datestamp>1267367640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>There should be a moratorium on government internet legislation of any kind until the first crop of kids who grew up with it and understand it are in power. The current group doesnt and will do long lasting damage - even if their intentions were/are good.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There should be a moratorium on government internet legislation of any kind until the first crop of kids who grew up with it and understand it are in power .
The current group doesnt and will do long lasting damage - even if their intentions were/are good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There should be a moratorium on government internet legislation of any kind until the first crop of kids who grew up with it and understand it are in power.
The current group doesnt and will do long lasting damage - even if their intentions were/are good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31307098</id>
	<title>They better</title>
	<author>ldconfig</author>
	<datestamp>1267381980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They better get ready to hire 10 million armed guards to stand in front of our Linux PC's and our Tivo's.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They better get ready to hire 10 million armed guards to stand in front of our Linux PC 's and our Tivo 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They better get ready to hire 10 million armed guards to stand in front of our Linux PC's and our Tivo's.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305476</id>
	<title>"Control" the internet?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267371060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The internet isn't something you control. Government morons have no idea what technology this is. Remember when some idiot decided to shut Napster down and thereby "end" music sharing? Nerds will always get around this kind of stupid stuff. How about ad hoc networks? How about rooting your Droid to get around a different overseer, Verizon. This is all political posturing crap by the great benevolent dictator government. They should do what government is supposed to do. That is provide roads, water, sewer, police, fire, and pick up the garbage. Keep me safe with a big army and navy. Leave technology and it's advancement to nerds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The internet is n't something you control .
Government morons have no idea what technology this is .
Remember when some idiot decided to shut Napster down and thereby " end " music sharing ?
Nerds will always get around this kind of stupid stuff .
How about ad hoc networks ?
How about rooting your Droid to get around a different overseer , Verizon .
This is all political posturing crap by the great benevolent dictator government .
They should do what government is supposed to do .
That is provide roads , water , sewer , police , fire , and pick up the garbage .
Keep me safe with a big army and navy .
Leave technology and it 's advancement to nerds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The internet isn't something you control.
Government morons have no idea what technology this is.
Remember when some idiot decided to shut Napster down and thereby "end" music sharing?
Nerds will always get around this kind of stupid stuff.
How about ad hoc networks?
How about rooting your Droid to get around a different overseer, Verizon.
This is all political posturing crap by the great benevolent dictator government.
They should do what government is supposed to do.
That is provide roads, water, sewer, police, fire, and pick up the garbage.
Keep me safe with a big army and navy.
Leave technology and it's advancement to nerds.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31307978</id>
	<title>Re:Internet to Powerful, for governments</title>
	<author>melikamp</author>
	<datestamp>1267388460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They can try to control it all they want. They will especially try to lock down the Web (HTTP part) so that they can control what gets publicized there. It can be done, and probably will be done. But the core ability of the Internet is not in displaying blog pages. It is in allowing any two computers to establish a real-time, peer-to-peer connection. Remove that and you destroy the Internet. IMHO, the chances of anyone tampering with that are zero. We have some difficulty in promptly transitioning to IPv6: a largely compatible, more scalable, and more secure protocol. Now imagine someone tries to replace TCP/IP with a protocol that does not allow networked hosts to connect. It's a non-starter. In fact, we have such a protocol: IPv4 with its NAT goodness is exactly the kind of faulty design that creates extra friction when you try to talk peer-to-peer. The content providers are very happy about this boon because it makes a critical mass of consumer devices into receivers, to which they can beam ads and sponsored opinions. But even with all that opposition, the forces that are responsible for communication infrastructure (looking at you, Comcast) are preparing to ditch IPv4 in favor of a better protocol.

</p><p>As long as we have peer-to-peer connectivity, we have all but eliminated friction for disseminating information (compared to the pre-Internet situation). A good idea, no matter how much despised by powerful corporations, the government, or even Internet Service Providers, will find its way around the globe before they even know it's out there. At an attempt of suppression, there is always a fair chance that a good idea will Streissand itself back into life.

</p><p>We do need to worry about certain things though. We need to make sure that we continue having an option of using free hardware and free software on the Internet. If we loose that, only then can the censorship really begin. We won't be worse off if some consumers or businesses keep using Microsoft or Apple - it's their own funeral - but we must insist that the government switch to free software. The non-free software will always waste our computing cycles or do things outright wrong just to further the publisher's agenda, and we do not need that, unless we, the people, are the publisher. This is even more true for the software used in scientific research. We should not accept scientific results from any source, no matter how credible, unless the software they used is free, and anyone in academia can review the software, the data, and the process, and, given enough resources, carry out the same computation and get the same result.

</p><p>We should also develop a peer-to-peer communication protocol that does not suck. We need a kind of XMPP, but with mandated peer-to-peer encryption. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-the-Record\_Messaging" title="wikipedia.org">Off-the-record messaging</a> [wikipedia.org] seems like a step in the right direction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They can try to control it all they want .
They will especially try to lock down the Web ( HTTP part ) so that they can control what gets publicized there .
It can be done , and probably will be done .
But the core ability of the Internet is not in displaying blog pages .
It is in allowing any two computers to establish a real-time , peer-to-peer connection .
Remove that and you destroy the Internet .
IMHO , the chances of anyone tampering with that are zero .
We have some difficulty in promptly transitioning to IPv6 : a largely compatible , more scalable , and more secure protocol .
Now imagine someone tries to replace TCP/IP with a protocol that does not allow networked hosts to connect .
It 's a non-starter .
In fact , we have such a protocol : IPv4 with its NAT goodness is exactly the kind of faulty design that creates extra friction when you try to talk peer-to-peer .
The content providers are very happy about this boon because it makes a critical mass of consumer devices into receivers , to which they can beam ads and sponsored opinions .
But even with all that opposition , the forces that are responsible for communication infrastructure ( looking at you , Comcast ) are preparing to ditch IPv4 in favor of a better protocol .
As long as we have peer-to-peer connectivity , we have all but eliminated friction for disseminating information ( compared to the pre-Internet situation ) .
A good idea , no matter how much despised by powerful corporations , the government , or even Internet Service Providers , will find its way around the globe before they even know it 's out there .
At an attempt of suppression , there is always a fair chance that a good idea will Streissand itself back into life .
We do need to worry about certain things though .
We need to make sure that we continue having an option of using free hardware and free software on the Internet .
If we loose that , only then can the censorship really begin .
We wo n't be worse off if some consumers or businesses keep using Microsoft or Apple - it 's their own funeral - but we must insist that the government switch to free software .
The non-free software will always waste our computing cycles or do things outright wrong just to further the publisher 's agenda , and we do not need that , unless we , the people , are the publisher .
This is even more true for the software used in scientific research .
We should not accept scientific results from any source , no matter how credible , unless the software they used is free , and anyone in academia can review the software , the data , and the process , and , given enough resources , carry out the same computation and get the same result .
We should also develop a peer-to-peer communication protocol that does not suck .
We need a kind of XMPP , but with mandated peer-to-peer encryption .
Off-the-record messaging [ wikipedia.org ] seems like a step in the right direction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can try to control it all they want.
They will especially try to lock down the Web (HTTP part) so that they can control what gets publicized there.
It can be done, and probably will be done.
But the core ability of the Internet is not in displaying blog pages.
It is in allowing any two computers to establish a real-time, peer-to-peer connection.
Remove that and you destroy the Internet.
IMHO, the chances of anyone tampering with that are zero.
We have some difficulty in promptly transitioning to IPv6: a largely compatible, more scalable, and more secure protocol.
Now imagine someone tries to replace TCP/IP with a protocol that does not allow networked hosts to connect.
It's a non-starter.
In fact, we have such a protocol: IPv4 with its NAT goodness is exactly the kind of faulty design that creates extra friction when you try to talk peer-to-peer.
The content providers are very happy about this boon because it makes a critical mass of consumer devices into receivers, to which they can beam ads and sponsored opinions.
But even with all that opposition, the forces that are responsible for communication infrastructure (looking at you, Comcast) are preparing to ditch IPv4 in favor of a better protocol.
As long as we have peer-to-peer connectivity, we have all but eliminated friction for disseminating information (compared to the pre-Internet situation).
A good idea, no matter how much despised by powerful corporations, the government, or even Internet Service Providers, will find its way around the globe before they even know it's out there.
At an attempt of suppression, there is always a fair chance that a good idea will Streissand itself back into life.
We do need to worry about certain things though.
We need to make sure that we continue having an option of using free hardware and free software on the Internet.
If we loose that, only then can the censorship really begin.
We won't be worse off if some consumers or businesses keep using Microsoft or Apple - it's their own funeral - but we must insist that the government switch to free software.
The non-free software will always waste our computing cycles or do things outright wrong just to further the publisher's agenda, and we do not need that, unless we, the people, are the publisher.
This is even more true for the software used in scientific research.
We should not accept scientific results from any source, no matter how credible, unless the software they used is free, and anyone in academia can review the software, the data, and the process, and, given enough resources, carry out the same computation and get the same result.
We should also develop a peer-to-peer communication protocol that does not suck.
We need a kind of XMPP, but with mandated peer-to-peer encryption.
Off-the-record messaging [wikipedia.org] seems like a step in the right direction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306192</id>
	<title>Middle Class gets hammered, not the poor</title>
	<author>sadler121</author>
	<datestamp>1267376100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In the US the poor 20\% of the population have nothing.</p></div><p>The poor in the US have Medicare. It's the middle class that gets screwed when they get layed off or fired. COBRA is too expensive to pay for, and they are ineligible for Medicare. If you have a pre-existing condition your even more screwed, as you have to find a job ASAP because no private insurance will cover you. You can't start your own company, because you have a pre-existing condition and no insurance company will touch you.</p><p>If your poor, more importantly if your a young girl in a poverty area, the best way to be provided for is to get pregnant. The goverment opens up it's coffers to support you.</p><p>So it's not the poor who don't have anything, they get covered, it's all about the Middle Class. They get screwed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the US the poor 20 \ % of the population have nothing.The poor in the US have Medicare .
It 's the middle class that gets screwed when they get layed off or fired .
COBRA is too expensive to pay for , and they are ineligible for Medicare .
If you have a pre-existing condition your even more screwed , as you have to find a job ASAP because no private insurance will cover you .
You ca n't start your own company , because you have a pre-existing condition and no insurance company will touch you.If your poor , more importantly if your a young girl in a poverty area , the best way to be provided for is to get pregnant .
The goverment opens up it 's coffers to support you.So it 's not the poor who do n't have anything , they get covered , it 's all about the Middle Class .
They get screwed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the US the poor 20\% of the population have nothing.The poor in the US have Medicare.
It's the middle class that gets screwed when they get layed off or fired.
COBRA is too expensive to pay for, and they are ineligible for Medicare.
If you have a pre-existing condition your even more screwed, as you have to find a job ASAP because no private insurance will cover you.
You can't start your own company, because you have a pre-existing condition and no insurance company will touch you.If your poor, more importantly if your a young girl in a poverty area, the best way to be provided for is to get pregnant.
The goverment opens up it's coffers to support you.So it's not the poor who don't have anything, they get covered, it's all about the Middle Class.
They get screwed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305162</id>
	<title>Actually read the article</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267368420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These points (crucial to the argument) strike me as massive FUD:</p><p>"* If users do not trust that their credit card numbers and private information are safe on the Internet, they won&rsquo;t use it.<br>* If content providers do not trust that their content will be protected, they will threaten to stop putting it online.<br>* If large enterprises don&rsquo;t have confidence that their network will not be breached over the Internet, they will disconnect their network and limit access to business partners and customers.<br>* If foreign governments do not trust the Internet governance systems, they will threaten to balkanize the Domain Name System which will jeopardize the worldwide reach of the Internet."</p><p>- How many users are afraid to use Amazon, eBay, or any other service because of credit card fraud? I would suggest that only terminally ignorant users are afraid of this.<br>- Content providers are capable of handling their own protection just fine. See: Steam, Hulu, Netflix, YouTube, etc. What he really means is "old and incompetent" providers.<br>- Large enterprises will NOT just disconnect their network for fear of being breached: they will develop better security. Fuck, this is an incredibly stupid argument.<br>- WHY would foreign governments ever trust Internet governance unless the internet is completely censored of all objectionable (read: valuable) speech?</p><p>Terrible, terrible, terrible arguments. This needs to be fought vigorously.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These points ( crucial to the argument ) strike me as massive FUD : " * If users do not trust that their credit card numbers and private information are safe on the Internet , they won    t use it .
* If content providers do not trust that their content will be protected , they will threaten to stop putting it online .
* If large enterprises don    t have confidence that their network will not be breached over the Internet , they will disconnect their network and limit access to business partners and customers .
* If foreign governments do not trust the Internet governance systems , they will threaten to balkanize the Domain Name System which will jeopardize the worldwide reach of the Internet .
" - How many users are afraid to use Amazon , eBay , or any other service because of credit card fraud ?
I would suggest that only terminally ignorant users are afraid of this.- Content providers are capable of handling their own protection just fine .
See : Steam , Hulu , Netflix , YouTube , etc .
What he really means is " old and incompetent " providers.- Large enterprises will NOT just disconnect their network for fear of being breached : they will develop better security .
Fuck , this is an incredibly stupid argument.- WHY would foreign governments ever trust Internet governance unless the internet is completely censored of all objectionable ( read : valuable ) speech ? Terrible , terrible , terrible arguments .
This needs to be fought vigorously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These points (crucial to the argument) strike me as massive FUD:"* If users do not trust that their credit card numbers and private information are safe on the Internet, they won’t use it.
* If content providers do not trust that their content will be protected, they will threaten to stop putting it online.
* If large enterprises don’t have confidence that their network will not be breached over the Internet, they will disconnect their network and limit access to business partners and customers.
* If foreign governments do not trust the Internet governance systems, they will threaten to balkanize the Domain Name System which will jeopardize the worldwide reach of the Internet.
"- How many users are afraid to use Amazon, eBay, or any other service because of credit card fraud?
I would suggest that only terminally ignorant users are afraid of this.- Content providers are capable of handling their own protection just fine.
See: Steam, Hulu, Netflix, YouTube, etc.
What he really means is "old and incompetent" providers.- Large enterprises will NOT just disconnect their network for fear of being breached: they will develop better security.
Fuck, this is an incredibly stupid argument.- WHY would foreign governments ever trust Internet governance unless the internet is completely censored of all objectionable (read: valuable) speech?Terrible, terrible, terrible arguments.
This needs to be fought vigorously.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31307710</id>
	<title>Re:Moratorium</title>
	<author>aztektum</author>
	<datestamp>1267386240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Two things we the people need to fight for with regard to Congress...</p><p>Congressional term limits. Two or three and you are required to sit it out for one or two.</p><p>Sunset clause. ALL legislation must have a sunset clause that cannot extend beyond 10-15 years. There must be a 2/3 majority to make something more permanent. I see this having two advantages: They'll be busy working on laws that are about to expire that they want to keep around and won't have as much time for bullshit shenanigans. Laws passed 100 years ago have a good chance of not effecting a world where they are horribly out of date.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Two things we the people need to fight for with regard to Congress...Congressional term limits .
Two or three and you are required to sit it out for one or two.Sunset clause .
ALL legislation must have a sunset clause that can not extend beyond 10-15 years .
There must be a 2/3 majority to make something more permanent .
I see this having two advantages : They 'll be busy working on laws that are about to expire that they want to keep around and wo n't have as much time for bullshit shenanigans .
Laws passed 100 years ago have a good chance of not effecting a world where they are horribly out of date .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two things we the people need to fight for with regard to Congress...Congressional term limits.
Two or three and you are required to sit it out for one or two.Sunset clause.
ALL legislation must have a sunset clause that cannot extend beyond 10-15 years.
There must be a 2/3 majority to make something more permanent.
I see this having two advantages: They'll be busy working on laws that are about to expire that they want to keep around and won't have as much time for bullshit shenanigans.
Laws passed 100 years ago have a good chance of not effecting a world where they are horribly out of date.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306034</id>
	<title>Hope and Change</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267375020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How's that hope and change message sounding now?   Welcome to the Obamanation formerly known as the US of A.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How 's that hope and change message sounding now ?
Welcome to the Obamanation formerly known as the US of A .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How's that hope and change message sounding now?
Welcome to the Obamanation formerly known as the US of A.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31308824</id>
	<title>Re:Hopenchange!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267351680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Idiot liberals of course.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Idiot liberals of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Idiot liberals of course.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31309318</id>
	<title>some really do get zero care</title>
	<author>vesuvana</author>
	<datestamp>1267355460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sorry but I need to throw in my two cents: as a college student I started to miscarry my baby, so I showed up at the local hospital in Berkeley. I wasn't even allowed in to see a doctor to be stabilized or sent by ambulance to the county hospital in Oakland. They literally couldn't hurry me off their property fast enough. I had to have someone drive me the half hour to Highland. It was shocking and awful.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry but I need to throw in my two cents : as a college student I started to miscarry my baby , so I showed up at the local hospital in Berkeley .
I was n't even allowed in to see a doctor to be stabilized or sent by ambulance to the county hospital in Oakland .
They literally could n't hurry me off their property fast enough .
I had to have someone drive me the half hour to Highland .
It was shocking and awful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry but I need to throw in my two cents: as a college student I started to miscarry my baby, so I showed up at the local hospital in Berkeley.
I wasn't even allowed in to see a doctor to be stabilized or sent by ambulance to the county hospital in Oakland.
They literally couldn't hurry me off their property fast enough.
I had to have someone drive me the half hour to Highland.
It was shocking and awful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306332</id>
	<title>Re:Well, this seems subpar.</title>
	<author>xilmaril</author>
	<datestamp>1267377180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It certainly doesn't cost $0 to pass a bill... especially one which Hilary Clinton tried to pass when her husband was in office, and got completely and thoroughly shut down on. And how was it treated?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>this huge bill is a massive top-down, bureaucratic command-and-control system that would meticulously govern virtually every aspect of the delivery and the financing of health care services for the American people.<br>-http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/tp00.cfm</p></div><p>People who say that business should be free of government competition are full of crap, because they pretend that the government should just regulate. Except they don't like regulation either.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It certainly does n't cost $ 0 to pass a bill... especially one which Hilary Clinton tried to pass when her husband was in office , and got completely and thoroughly shut down on .
And how was it treated ? this huge bill is a massive top-down , bureaucratic command-and-control system that would meticulously govern virtually every aspect of the delivery and the financing of health care services for the American people.-http : //www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/tp00.cfmPeople who say that business should be free of government competition are full of crap , because they pretend that the government should just regulate .
Except they do n't like regulation either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It certainly doesn't cost $0 to pass a bill... especially one which Hilary Clinton tried to pass when her husband was in office, and got completely and thoroughly shut down on.
And how was it treated?this huge bill is a massive top-down, bureaucratic command-and-control system that would meticulously govern virtually every aspect of the delivery and the financing of health care services for the American people.-http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/tp00.cfmPeople who say that business should be free of government competition are full of crap, because they pretend that the government should just regulate.
Except they don't like regulation either.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31307720</id>
	<title>Re:3,2,1 until internet breakaway under Eu control</title>
	<author>Shark</author>
	<datestamp>1267386300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really think you give the EU too much credit...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really think you give the EU too much credit.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really think you give the EU too much credit...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306494</id>
	<title>Re:Internet to Powerful, for governments</title>
	<author>BeanThere</author>
	<datestamp>1267378080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Mexicans who's land was invaded and taken</p></div><p>That's hilariously ironic --- you do realise, don't you, that the Spanish conquered and colonised Latin America in much the same way as other Western Europeans did North America? You think Spanish Mexicans were always 'just there'? They did their share of killing the indigenous populations too - why do you single out the US? You seem to have an agenda.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Africans (kidnapping and slavery)</p></div><p>And yet America fought a civil war partly over slavery, emancipating the African Americans, fought to end the Jim Crow era, and ultimately African Americans now enjoy more liberty than the majority of their 'counterparts' living under despotic murderous dictators in various African countries.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Women and their rights, and the list goes on?</p></div><p>What!? The Western world has been BY FAR the world's leaders in the women's rights movements --- most other cultures are only now slowly starting to "catch up". You think the Middle East leads in women's rights? You think China leads in women's rights? You think Africa leads in women's rights? They are all FAR behind the US, my friend!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mexicans who 's land was invaded and takenThat 's hilariously ironic --- you do realise , do n't you , that the Spanish conquered and colonised Latin America in much the same way as other Western Europeans did North America ?
You think Spanish Mexicans were always 'just there ' ?
They did their share of killing the indigenous populations too - why do you single out the US ?
You seem to have an agenda.Africans ( kidnapping and slavery ) And yet America fought a civil war partly over slavery , emancipating the African Americans , fought to end the Jim Crow era , and ultimately African Americans now enjoy more liberty than the majority of their 'counterparts ' living under despotic murderous dictators in various African countries.Women and their rights , and the list goes on ? What ! ?
The Western world has been BY FAR the world 's leaders in the women 's rights movements --- most other cultures are only now slowly starting to " catch up " .
You think the Middle East leads in women 's rights ?
You think China leads in women 's rights ?
You think Africa leads in women 's rights ?
They are all FAR behind the US , my friend !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mexicans who's land was invaded and takenThat's hilariously ironic --- you do realise, don't you, that the Spanish conquered and colonised Latin America in much the same way as other Western Europeans did North America?
You think Spanish Mexicans were always 'just there'?
They did their share of killing the indigenous populations too - why do you single out the US?
You seem to have an agenda.Africans (kidnapping and slavery)And yet America fought a civil war partly over slavery, emancipating the African Americans, fought to end the Jim Crow era, and ultimately African Americans now enjoy more liberty than the majority of their 'counterparts' living under despotic murderous dictators in various African countries.Women and their rights, and the list goes on?What!?
The Western world has been BY FAR the world's leaders in the women's rights movements --- most other cultures are only now slowly starting to "catch up".
You think the Middle East leads in women's rights?
You think China leads in women's rights?
You think Africa leads in women's rights?
They are all FAR behind the US, my friend!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305434</id>
	<title>Re:Internet to Powerful, for governments</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267370640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Once upon a time the US used to be a 'beacon of liberty' to the world.</p></div><p>When was this?  Was the US a beacon of liberty to the Native Americans (genocide and slavery), Africans (kidnapping and slavery), Mexicans who's land was invaded and taken, Women and their rights, and the list goes on?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once upon a time the US used to be a 'beacon of liberty ' to the world.When was this ?
Was the US a beacon of liberty to the Native Americans ( genocide and slavery ) , Africans ( kidnapping and slavery ) , Mexicans who 's land was invaded and taken , Women and their rights , and the list goes on ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once upon a time the US used to be a 'beacon of liberty' to the world.When was this?
Was the US a beacon of liberty to the Native Americans (genocide and slavery), Africans (kidnapping and slavery), Mexicans who's land was invaded and taken, Women and their rights, and the list goes on?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31311550</id>
	<title>Re:Actually read the article</title>
	<author>Tiger Smile</author>
	<datestamp>1267374180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These arguments can all be summed up as "Nobody is using the Internet, because they don't trust it, so we're going to fix that."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These arguments can all be summed up as " Nobody is using the Internet , because they do n't trust it , so we 're going to fix that .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These arguments can all be summed up as "Nobody is using the Internet, because they don't trust it, so we're going to fix that.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305010</id>
	<title>Internet to Powerful, for governments</title>
	<author>physburn</author>
	<datestamp>1267366980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The internet is too powerful, for governments, to leave alone.
This is especially true of governments which would like to
control the thoughts of there populus, but even for the most
Lazze Faire governments, the chance to control the internet
industy must be highly tempting.
<p>
---
</p><p>
<a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/blogs/Privacy\%20vs\%20surveillance/feed.html" title="feeddistiller.com" rel="nofollow">Privacy vs
Sureillance</a> [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ <a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/" title="feeddistiller.com" rel="nofollow">Feed Distiller</a> [feeddistiller.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The internet is too powerful , for governments , to leave alone .
This is especially true of governments which would like to control the thoughts of there populus , but even for the most Lazze Faire governments , the chance to control the internet industy must be highly tempting .
--- Privacy vs Sureillance [ feeddistiller.com ] Feed @ Feed Distiller [ feeddistiller.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The internet is too powerful, for governments, to leave alone.
This is especially true of governments which would like to
control the thoughts of there populus, but even for the most
Lazze Faire governments, the chance to control the internet
industy must be highly tempting.
---

Privacy vs
Sureillance [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306064</id>
	<title>Three strikes are not mandated, but still worrying</title>
	<author>langelgjm</author>
	<datestamp>1267375140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Interesting how 3 strikes laws like those mandated in the ACTA Anti-Counterfeiting Treaty (championed by Obama) are showing up in various countries.</p></div><p>Just to clarify, the draft texts of the ACTA Internet Chapter that have been leaked do not mandate 3-strikes/graduated response. The text mentions 3 strikes in a footnote as an example of the measures that ISPs could take to qualify for safe harbor. Also, ACTA is not a treaty, but an executive agreement. The different is important, because treaties require ratification by the Senate, whereas executive agreements involve no Congressional oversight.</p><p>The problem is that 3 strikes is the ONLY example that the footnote provides, and that in past such "off the cuff" remarks in agreements have been used to justify interpreting laws in particular ways.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting how 3 strikes laws like those mandated in the ACTA Anti-Counterfeiting Treaty ( championed by Obama ) are showing up in various countries.Just to clarify , the draft texts of the ACTA Internet Chapter that have been leaked do not mandate 3-strikes/graduated response .
The text mentions 3 strikes in a footnote as an example of the measures that ISPs could take to qualify for safe harbor .
Also , ACTA is not a treaty , but an executive agreement .
The different is important , because treaties require ratification by the Senate , whereas executive agreements involve no Congressional oversight.The problem is that 3 strikes is the ONLY example that the footnote provides , and that in past such " off the cuff " remarks in agreements have been used to justify interpreting laws in particular ways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting how 3 strikes laws like those mandated in the ACTA Anti-Counterfeiting Treaty (championed by Obama) are showing up in various countries.Just to clarify, the draft texts of the ACTA Internet Chapter that have been leaked do not mandate 3-strikes/graduated response.
The text mentions 3 strikes in a footnote as an example of the measures that ISPs could take to qualify for safe harbor.
Also, ACTA is not a treaty, but an executive agreement.
The different is important, because treaties require ratification by the Senate, whereas executive agreements involve no Congressional oversight.The problem is that 3 strikes is the ONLY example that the footnote provides, and that in past such "off the cuff" remarks in agreements have been used to justify interpreting laws in particular ways.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306168</id>
	<title>Joe Biden's Influence?</title>
	<author>andydread</author>
	<datestamp>1267375980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This smells a lot like the copyright lobby is behind this.  I think Obama made a big mistake choosing Joe Biden as Vice President.  Biden is a staunch copyright goon.  And I wonder if it was him that influenced Obama to put all those copyright lawyers in the justice department.  I would be surprised.  Biden stinks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This smells a lot like the copyright lobby is behind this .
I think Obama made a big mistake choosing Joe Biden as Vice President .
Biden is a staunch copyright goon .
And I wonder if it was him that influenced Obama to put all those copyright lawyers in the justice department .
I would be surprised .
Biden stinks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This smells a lot like the copyright lobby is behind this.
I think Obama made a big mistake choosing Joe Biden as Vice President.
Biden is a staunch copyright goon.
And I wonder if it was him that influenced Obama to put all those copyright lawyers in the justice department.
I would be surprised.
Biden stinks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31308186</id>
	<title>Re:Well, this seems subpar.</title>
	<author>im\_thatoneguy</author>
	<datestamp>1267390020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There is a big difference between regulating an industry and taking over an industry. Take the health care debate, for example. It would cost exactly $0 to pass laws that says "Insurance companies cannot deny you for a preexisting condition". But that doesn't give the government control over the industry, instead they want to spend $800 billion to be an insurance company.</p><p>Regulation is fine. Involvement is not.</p></div><p>Ladies and Gentlemen I provide you the average intellectual honesty of a Tea-Partier or Republican as Exhibit A.</p><p>Yes.   Let's simply mandate pre-existing conditions.   In that case I'm dropping my insurance.  I'll pay for a check-up every few years but I have no subscription drug expenses so I have no reason to buy it.   Or if I do need prescriptions I'll just sign up the day before for a drug rebate only plan.   If I get really sick or hospitalized I'll just sign up when I get to the hospital.  Hopefully they won't perform any tests before I fill out the paperwork.</p><p>Outcome:  Increased prices to the point where it's no longer insurance, it's just a bureaucratic and expensive collection agency.  or Insurance companies will extend their application time so that the paperwork just happens to take 1 year to work its way through the process.   At which point Congress will mandate acceptance rates due to the obvious exploitation of the law and we'll go back to the skyrocketing prices by 100\%s of percent.</p><p>Ok. So we'll mandate some form of coverage. But we won't define what that coverage is. A bunch of $10 a month insurance companies pop up in Alabama or some other lightly regulated state and sell it nationwide.  It counts as "Insurance" and anyone gets really sick will just switch to a real plan with real-coverage.</p><p>Outcome:   Increased prices to the point where it's no longer insurance, it's just a bureaucratic and expensive collection agency.</p><p>Ok.  So we'll mandate that there has to be minimum coverage to be considered "Healthcare Insurance".</p><p>GOP/TeaBagger description of plan:  "Socialist Goverment take-over of healthcare".<br>Outcome: People who couldn't afford healthcare before still can't afford healthcare now also face huge government fines for not buying it.  Small Businesses which previous provided crappy healthcare which no longer meets the minimum standards drop their insurance.</p><p>Ok.  So we'll offer tax credits and subsidies for those who really can't afford health insurance and small businesses to make up the difference.</p><p>GOP/Teabagger description of plan: "Communist Goverment redistributing wealth and stealing to give to the poor. Also too expensive."<br>Outcome: $80B a year in subsidies and administration. (Even though the GAO finds that it'll be a net savings to the federal government.)</p><p>Which is a long way of saying.   Sure the conservatives SAY that they are for these healthcare reforms.  But if you actually think about the proposals for a few seconds you can easily see that in order to actually enact them they'll reject them as expensive pink-commie plots.</p><p>----</p><p>Sidebar.  The same can be said for "Cutting government spending."</p><p>The vast majority of Government spending goes into 4 things: Social Security. Defense. Medicare. FICA.   Those 4 make up 70\% of our budget.  SS is presently underfunded if it isn't going to go into the red in 2038.   If you want to cut government spending then you have to end those programs.  But that's not what they propose.   They want to somehow cut government spending and the size of government while simultaneously protecting these programs.  And they want to protect them for good reason: people like them and want them!   So one side of their mouth says they want smaller government.  The other side says they're going to protect the vast majority of what constitutes a "large government".  It's outright hypocrisy.  It's nothing more than ideological populism wrapped in patriotism without any sound policy to actually enact.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a big difference between regulating an industry and taking over an industry .
Take the health care debate , for example .
It would cost exactly $ 0 to pass laws that says " Insurance companies can not deny you for a preexisting condition " .
But that does n't give the government control over the industry , instead they want to spend $ 800 billion to be an insurance company.Regulation is fine .
Involvement is not.Ladies and Gentlemen I provide you the average intellectual honesty of a Tea-Partier or Republican as Exhibit A.Yes .
Let 's simply mandate pre-existing conditions .
In that case I 'm dropping my insurance .
I 'll pay for a check-up every few years but I have no subscription drug expenses so I have no reason to buy it .
Or if I do need prescriptions I 'll just sign up the day before for a drug rebate only plan .
If I get really sick or hospitalized I 'll just sign up when I get to the hospital .
Hopefully they wo n't perform any tests before I fill out the paperwork.Outcome : Increased prices to the point where it 's no longer insurance , it 's just a bureaucratic and expensive collection agency .
or Insurance companies will extend their application time so that the paperwork just happens to take 1 year to work its way through the process .
At which point Congress will mandate acceptance rates due to the obvious exploitation of the law and we 'll go back to the skyrocketing prices by 100 \ % s of percent.Ok .
So we 'll mandate some form of coverage .
But we wo n't define what that coverage is .
A bunch of $ 10 a month insurance companies pop up in Alabama or some other lightly regulated state and sell it nationwide .
It counts as " Insurance " and anyone gets really sick will just switch to a real plan with real-coverage.Outcome : Increased prices to the point where it 's no longer insurance , it 's just a bureaucratic and expensive collection agency.Ok .
So we 'll mandate that there has to be minimum coverage to be considered " Healthcare Insurance " .GOP/TeaBagger description of plan : " Socialist Goverment take-over of healthcare " .Outcome : People who could n't afford healthcare before still ca n't afford healthcare now also face huge government fines for not buying it .
Small Businesses which previous provided crappy healthcare which no longer meets the minimum standards drop their insurance.Ok .
So we 'll offer tax credits and subsidies for those who really ca n't afford health insurance and small businesses to make up the difference.GOP/Teabagger description of plan : " Communist Goverment redistributing wealth and stealing to give to the poor .
Also too expensive .
" Outcome : $ 80B a year in subsidies and administration .
( Even though the GAO finds that it 'll be a net savings to the federal government .
) Which is a long way of saying .
Sure the conservatives SAY that they are for these healthcare reforms .
But if you actually think about the proposals for a few seconds you can easily see that in order to actually enact them they 'll reject them as expensive pink-commie plots.----Sidebar .
The same can be said for " Cutting government spending .
" The vast majority of Government spending goes into 4 things : Social Security .
Defense. Medicare .
FICA. Those 4 make up 70 \ % of our budget .
SS is presently underfunded if it is n't going to go into the red in 2038 .
If you want to cut government spending then you have to end those programs .
But that 's not what they propose .
They want to somehow cut government spending and the size of government while simultaneously protecting these programs .
And they want to protect them for good reason : people like them and want them !
So one side of their mouth says they want smaller government .
The other side says they 're going to protect the vast majority of what constitutes a " large government " .
It 's outright hypocrisy .
It 's nothing more than ideological populism wrapped in patriotism without any sound policy to actually enact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a big difference between regulating an industry and taking over an industry.
Take the health care debate, for example.
It would cost exactly $0 to pass laws that says "Insurance companies cannot deny you for a preexisting condition".
But that doesn't give the government control over the industry, instead they want to spend $800 billion to be an insurance company.Regulation is fine.
Involvement is not.Ladies and Gentlemen I provide you the average intellectual honesty of a Tea-Partier or Republican as Exhibit A.Yes.
Let's simply mandate pre-existing conditions.
In that case I'm dropping my insurance.
I'll pay for a check-up every few years but I have no subscription drug expenses so I have no reason to buy it.
Or if I do need prescriptions I'll just sign up the day before for a drug rebate only plan.
If I get really sick or hospitalized I'll just sign up when I get to the hospital.
Hopefully they won't perform any tests before I fill out the paperwork.Outcome:  Increased prices to the point where it's no longer insurance, it's just a bureaucratic and expensive collection agency.
or Insurance companies will extend their application time so that the paperwork just happens to take 1 year to work its way through the process.
At which point Congress will mandate acceptance rates due to the obvious exploitation of the law and we'll go back to the skyrocketing prices by 100\%s of percent.Ok.
So we'll mandate some form of coverage.
But we won't define what that coverage is.
A bunch of $10 a month insurance companies pop up in Alabama or some other lightly regulated state and sell it nationwide.
It counts as "Insurance" and anyone gets really sick will just switch to a real plan with real-coverage.Outcome:   Increased prices to the point where it's no longer insurance, it's just a bureaucratic and expensive collection agency.Ok.
So we'll mandate that there has to be minimum coverage to be considered "Healthcare Insurance".GOP/TeaBagger description of plan:  "Socialist Goverment take-over of healthcare".Outcome: People who couldn't afford healthcare before still can't afford healthcare now also face huge government fines for not buying it.
Small Businesses which previous provided crappy healthcare which no longer meets the minimum standards drop their insurance.Ok.
So we'll offer tax credits and subsidies for those who really can't afford health insurance and small businesses to make up the difference.GOP/Teabagger description of plan: "Communist Goverment redistributing wealth and stealing to give to the poor.
Also too expensive.
"Outcome: $80B a year in subsidies and administration.
(Even though the GAO finds that it'll be a net savings to the federal government.
)Which is a long way of saying.
Sure the conservatives SAY that they are for these healthcare reforms.
But if you actually think about the proposals for a few seconds you can easily see that in order to actually enact them they'll reject them as expensive pink-commie plots.----Sidebar.
The same can be said for "Cutting government spending.
"The vast majority of Government spending goes into 4 things: Social Security.
Defense. Medicare.
FICA.   Those 4 make up 70\% of our budget.
SS is presently underfunded if it isn't going to go into the red in 2038.
If you want to cut government spending then you have to end those programs.
But that's not what they propose.
They want to somehow cut government spending and the size of government while simultaneously protecting these programs.
And they want to protect them for good reason: people like them and want them!
So one side of their mouth says they want smaller government.
The other side says they're going to protect the vast majority of what constitutes a "large government".
It's outright hypocrisy.
It's nothing more than ideological populism wrapped in patriotism without any sound policy to actually enact.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306220</id>
	<title>Re:Well, this seems subpar.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267376340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The government should not control anything it is there to serve the people not tell them what to do. The government has done nothing but ruin anything it touches, like for instance the economy. The fed is allowed to control our money with no regulation or accountability. The recent bailout of wall street has undermined the very basis of capitalism by not letting massive and inefficiently run companies go bankrupt. The government takeover of the largest private manufacturing company in the US, General Motors, will lead to government ownership of other businesses such as health care, which will lead to a government that tells the people what to do instead of a government by and for the people, like it is supposed to be. Tube Steak must be one of the the Obama voters that's still waiting for his entitlement. I got news for you sir, the only entitlement you will be receiving is your bill for more taxes and your requirement to buy mandatory health care or get fined.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The government should not control anything it is there to serve the people not tell them what to do .
The government has done nothing but ruin anything it touches , like for instance the economy .
The fed is allowed to control our money with no regulation or accountability .
The recent bailout of wall street has undermined the very basis of capitalism by not letting massive and inefficiently run companies go bankrupt .
The government takeover of the largest private manufacturing company in the US , General Motors , will lead to government ownership of other businesses such as health care , which will lead to a government that tells the people what to do instead of a government by and for the people , like it is supposed to be .
Tube Steak must be one of the the Obama voters that 's still waiting for his entitlement .
I got news for you sir , the only entitlement you will be receiving is your bill for more taxes and your requirement to buy mandatory health care or get fined .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government should not control anything it is there to serve the people not tell them what to do.
The government has done nothing but ruin anything it touches, like for instance the economy.
The fed is allowed to control our money with no regulation or accountability.
The recent bailout of wall street has undermined the very basis of capitalism by not letting massive and inefficiently run companies go bankrupt.
The government takeover of the largest private manufacturing company in the US, General Motors, will lead to government ownership of other businesses such as health care, which will lead to a government that tells the people what to do instead of a government by and for the people, like it is supposed to be.
Tube Steak must be one of the the Obama voters that's still waiting for his entitlement.
I got news for you sir, the only entitlement you will be receiving is your bill for more taxes and your requirement to buy mandatory health care or get fined.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305558</id>
	<title>That "beacon of freedom" never existed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267371480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Enter the 20th century, it was a figment of imagination. There were always inherent limit to freedoms in the US imposed by local politics, and outside the US imposed by US foreign policy. The diffeernce, is that for a time the US looked LESS worst than the other bad guy. But now this is turning around, and the US looks as bad as everybody else, with politics wishing to grab as much power as possible , and keep it, and a certain aprt of the society , the new "aristocracy", enriching itself on the back of the serf. Sure we are better off than the 15th century (or even 19th) but let not you be blind : your chance to ever enter that group is nil.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Enter the 20th century , it was a figment of imagination .
There were always inherent limit to freedoms in the US imposed by local politics , and outside the US imposed by US foreign policy .
The diffeernce , is that for a time the US looked LESS worst than the other bad guy .
But now this is turning around , and the US looks as bad as everybody else , with politics wishing to grab as much power as possible , and keep it , and a certain aprt of the society , the new " aristocracy " , enriching itself on the back of the serf .
Sure we are better off than the 15th century ( or even 19th ) but let not you be blind : your chance to ever enter that group is nil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Enter the 20th century, it was a figment of imagination.
There were always inherent limit to freedoms in the US imposed by local politics, and outside the US imposed by US foreign policy.
The diffeernce, is that for a time the US looked LESS worst than the other bad guy.
But now this is turning around, and the US looks as bad as everybody else, with politics wishing to grab as much power as possible , and keep it, and a certain aprt of the society , the new "aristocracy", enriching itself on the back of the serf.
Sure we are better off than the 15th century (or even 19th) but let not you be blind : your chance to ever enter that group is nil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31307326</id>
	<title>Re:Hopenchange!</title>
	<author>moeinvt</author>
	<datestamp>1267383540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"You do understand that the Democrats wanted to add new privacy protections to the Act, don't you?"</p><p>I'm glad that you enjoyed the smoke and mirrors show surrounding renewal of the legislation.  Now that the fog has lifted, think about it for a minute.  If the Democrats really had any more concern about civil liberties than Bush and the Republicans, they would have just let the bloody things expire!  Our hope and change President could have used his veto power as well.</p><p>I think it's absurd to believe that you can add "privacy protections" to a piece of legislation that is an inherent violation of privacy, but, for the sake of argument, I'll consider it theoretically possible.  IF the Democrats had wanted this, they could have issued an ultimatum to those evil Republicans:  Either pass a renewal with our new "privacy protections" included or, use your filibuster to block it, and let the all of the relevant provisions expire.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" You do understand that the Democrats wanted to add new privacy protections to the Act , do n't you ?
" I 'm glad that you enjoyed the smoke and mirrors show surrounding renewal of the legislation .
Now that the fog has lifted , think about it for a minute .
If the Democrats really had any more concern about civil liberties than Bush and the Republicans , they would have just let the bloody things expire !
Our hope and change President could have used his veto power as well.I think it 's absurd to believe that you can add " privacy protections " to a piece of legislation that is an inherent violation of privacy , but , for the sake of argument , I 'll consider it theoretically possible .
IF the Democrats had wanted this , they could have issued an ultimatum to those evil Republicans : Either pass a renewal with our new " privacy protections " included or , use your filibuster to block it , and let the all of the relevant provisions expire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"You do understand that the Democrats wanted to add new privacy protections to the Act, don't you?
"I'm glad that you enjoyed the smoke and mirrors show surrounding renewal of the legislation.
Now that the fog has lifted, think about it for a minute.
If the Democrats really had any more concern about civil liberties than Bush and the Republicans, they would have just let the bloody things expire!
Our hope and change President could have used his veto power as well.I think it's absurd to believe that you can add "privacy protections" to a piece of legislation that is an inherent violation of privacy, but, for the sake of argument, I'll consider it theoretically possible.
IF the Democrats had wanted this, they could have issued an ultimatum to those evil Republicans:  Either pass a renewal with our new "privacy protections" included or, use your filibuster to block it, and let the all of the relevant provisions expire.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305158</id>
	<title>Let me translate...</title>
	<author>kenh</author>
	<datestamp>1267368420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>privacy, child protection, cybersecurity, copyright protection, and Internet governance</p></div></blockquote><p><i> <b>Privacy</b> </i> - You are allowed to feel like you have privacy, but if we can trump-up a good sounding reason, forget it.</p><p><i> <b>Child Protection</b> </i> - Now we can go after offending websites, forgetting First Amendment protections, but don't worry, it's all for the sake of protecting the children.</p><p><i> <b>Cyber-security</b> </i> - We can't out-smart our opponents, so we'll employ brute force and squash anything that even looks dangerous.</p><p><i> <b>Copyright Protection</b> </i> - Hey, we're big fans of the major media players, and we think they deserve a little <i>somethin'-somethin</i> for their generosity in the last several campaigns. (You don't think this administrations election campaign really raised three-quarters of a trillion dollars from (essentially) untraceable $10-200 donations over the web, do you?</p><p><i> <b>Internet Governance</b> </i> - Hey, why should we cede control of something <i>we in America</i> invented?</p><p>There, I hope that helps you understand what is going on.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>privacy , child protection , cybersecurity , copyright protection , and Internet governance Privacy - You are allowed to feel like you have privacy , but if we can trump-up a good sounding reason , forget it .
Child Protection - Now we can go after offending websites , forgetting First Amendment protections , but do n't worry , it 's all for the sake of protecting the children .
Cyber-security - We ca n't out-smart our opponents , so we 'll employ brute force and squash anything that even looks dangerous .
Copyright Protection - Hey , we 're big fans of the major media players , and we think they deserve a little somethin'-somethin for their generosity in the last several campaigns .
( You do n't think this administrations election campaign really raised three-quarters of a trillion dollars from ( essentially ) untraceable $ 10-200 donations over the web , do you ?
Internet Governance - Hey , why should we cede control of something we in America invented ? There , I hope that helps you understand what is going on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>privacy, child protection, cybersecurity, copyright protection, and Internet governance Privacy  - You are allowed to feel like you have privacy, but if we can trump-up a good sounding reason, forget it.
Child Protection  - Now we can go after offending websites, forgetting First Amendment protections, but don't worry, it's all for the sake of protecting the children.
Cyber-security  - We can't out-smart our opponents, so we'll employ brute force and squash anything that even looks dangerous.
Copyright Protection  - Hey, we're big fans of the major media players, and we think they deserve a little somethin'-somethin for their generosity in the last several campaigns.
(You don't think this administrations election campaign really raised three-quarters of a trillion dollars from (essentially) untraceable $10-200 donations over the web, do you?
Internet Governance  - Hey, why should we cede control of something we in America invented?There, I hope that helps you understand what is going on.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31307406</id>
	<title>Re:Well, this seems subpar.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267384140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You really should really think through what you say. You say you see sturdy buildings from the 1800s? You should really ask yourself "Who's buildings?". Is it buildings originally occupied by ordinary people, or some bloody palace built for some fat cat back then? I smell an agenda in your choice of examples.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You really should really think through what you say .
You say you see sturdy buildings from the 1800s ?
You should really ask yourself " Who 's buildings ? " .
Is it buildings originally occupied by ordinary people , or some bloody palace built for some fat cat back then ?
I smell an agenda in your choice of examples .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You really should really think through what you say.
You say you see sturdy buildings from the 1800s?
You should really ask yourself "Who's buildings?".
Is it buildings originally occupied by ordinary people, or some bloody palace built for some fat cat back then?
I smell an agenda in your choice of examples.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305568</id>
	<title>Re:Let me translate...</title>
	<author>SQL Error</author>
	<datestamp>1267371600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> Copyright Protection  - Hey, we're big fans of the major media players, and we think they deserve a little somethin'-somethin  for their generosity in the last several campaigns. (You don't think this administrations election campaign really raised three-quarters of a trillion dollars from (essentially) untraceable $10-200 donations over the web, do you?</p></div></blockquote><p>I don't think they raised three-quarters of a trillion dollars at all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Copyright Protection - Hey , we 're big fans of the major media players , and we think they deserve a little somethin'-somethin for their generosity in the last several campaigns .
( You do n't think this administrations election campaign really raised three-quarters of a trillion dollars from ( essentially ) untraceable $ 10-200 donations over the web , do you ? I do n't think they raised three-quarters of a trillion dollars at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Copyright Protection  - Hey, we're big fans of the major media players, and we think they deserve a little somethin'-somethin  for their generosity in the last several campaigns.
(You don't think this administrations election campaign really raised three-quarters of a trillion dollars from (essentially) untraceable $10-200 donations over the web, do you?I don't think they raised three-quarters of a trillion dollars at all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305144</id>
	<title>Consumer Monkeys!</title>
	<author>Art\_Vandelai</author>
	<datestamp>1267368300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"If you&rsquo;re a user, you want to know that you can make a transaction online without your credit card information falling into the wrong hands..."

Yes, because all "internet users" are supposed to use the internet for is to consume.

Feed the beast.  If you are a consumer, you can be controlled, and we don't have to worry about you actually doing anything about the predicament this world is in.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" If you    re a user , you want to know that you can make a transaction online without your credit card information falling into the wrong hands... " Yes , because all " internet users " are supposed to use the internet for is to consume .
Feed the beast .
If you are a consumer , you can be controlled , and we do n't have to worry about you actually doing anything about the predicament this world is in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If you’re a user, you want to know that you can make a transaction online without your credit card information falling into the wrong hands..."

Yes, because all "internet users" are supposed to use the internet for is to consume.
Feed the beast.
If you are a consumer, you can be controlled, and we don't have to worry about you actually doing anything about the predicament this world is in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31311368</id>
	<title>Re:Well, this seems subpar.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267371900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So the government is going to make a browser that surpasses IE's earlier failures and push some non-standards compliant bullshoot upon us. Been there done that (I hope this is the case, it would be fun).I personally hope they crash and burn in this endevor. I would love to have everyone thrust the old mottos of the Internet being comprised of an elite, untouchable few upon the government so they fail to be able to do anything.</p><p>All those for Internet neutrality say aye.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the government is going to make a browser that surpasses IE 's earlier failures and push some non-standards compliant bullshoot upon us .
Been there done that ( I hope this is the case , it would be fun ) .I personally hope they crash and burn in this endevor .
I would love to have everyone thrust the old mottos of the Internet being comprised of an elite , untouchable few upon the government so they fail to be able to do anything.All those for Internet neutrality say aye .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the government is going to make a browser that surpasses IE's earlier failures and push some non-standards compliant bullshoot upon us.
Been there done that (I hope this is the case, it would be fun).I personally hope they crash and burn in this endevor.
I would love to have everyone thrust the old mottos of the Internet being comprised of an elite, untouchable few upon the government so they fail to be able to do anything.All those for Internet neutrality say aye.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306452</id>
	<title>Re:Well, this seems subpar.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267377780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Then you either haven't been looking very hard or have no fucking clue of what life was like 100 years ago.</p><p>The government "gets involved" with the quality of your food (FDA), worker safety (OSHA), air travel (NTSB), highway safety (NHTSA), building codes (varies by State), law enforcement and an endless number of other sectors of society.</p><p>Whenever I hear "the government ruins everything" I know that I'm hearing ideology, not reality.</p></div><p>No one in their right minds can say that the government doesn't do all of the things you mentioned.  I think most people against larger government think that they do a poor job and tend to become overzealous.  Any honest small governement advocate will also admit that there will be consequences to deregulation, but that those consequences will ultimately be less dire in totality than a large government would inflict on its populace.</p><p>Consider all the people who die needlessly every year purely because of FDA bureaucracy.  Often times Europe and other developed countries will have drugs for many years before the FDA gets around to approving a drug.  What is the FDA's excuse in these cases?</p><p>Finally, I doubt there are very many people who would claim that security is not a legitimate function of government.</p><p>If you haven't already, you might consider checking out <a href="http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html" title="econlib.org" rel="nofollow">That which is unseen</a> [econlib.org] by Frederick Bastiat for a counterpoint to government intervention.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then you either have n't been looking very hard or have no fucking clue of what life was like 100 years ago.The government " gets involved " with the quality of your food ( FDA ) , worker safety ( OSHA ) , air travel ( NTSB ) , highway safety ( NHTSA ) , building codes ( varies by State ) , law enforcement and an endless number of other sectors of society.Whenever I hear " the government ruins everything " I know that I 'm hearing ideology , not reality.No one in their right minds can say that the government does n't do all of the things you mentioned .
I think most people against larger government think that they do a poor job and tend to become overzealous .
Any honest small governement advocate will also admit that there will be consequences to deregulation , but that those consequences will ultimately be less dire in totality than a large government would inflict on its populace.Consider all the people who die needlessly every year purely because of FDA bureaucracy .
Often times Europe and other developed countries will have drugs for many years before the FDA gets around to approving a drug .
What is the FDA 's excuse in these cases ? Finally , I doubt there are very many people who would claim that security is not a legitimate function of government.If you have n't already , you might consider checking out That which is unseen [ econlib.org ] by Frederick Bastiat for a counterpoint to government intervention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then you either haven't been looking very hard or have no fucking clue of what life was like 100 years ago.The government "gets involved" with the quality of your food (FDA), worker safety (OSHA), air travel (NTSB), highway safety (NHTSA), building codes (varies by State), law enforcement and an endless number of other sectors of society.Whenever I hear "the government ruins everything" I know that I'm hearing ideology, not reality.No one in their right minds can say that the government doesn't do all of the things you mentioned.
I think most people against larger government think that they do a poor job and tend to become overzealous.
Any honest small governement advocate will also admit that there will be consequences to deregulation, but that those consequences will ultimately be less dire in totality than a large government would inflict on its populace.Consider all the people who die needlessly every year purely because of FDA bureaucracy.
Often times Europe and other developed countries will have drugs for many years before the FDA gets around to approving a drug.
What is the FDA's excuse in these cases?Finally, I doubt there are very many people who would claim that security is not a legitimate function of government.If you haven't already, you might consider checking out That which is unseen [econlib.org] by Frederick Bastiat for a counterpoint to government intervention.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305768</id>
	<title>Obama gets a 'B' for keeping promises</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267372980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
This website <a href="http://www.obamapromisewatch.net/" title="obamapromisewatch.net">tracks how well Obama is keeping his promises</a> [obamapromisewatch.net] <br>
<br>
<i>Meet the new boss, same as the old boss!</i> <br>
<br>
The old boss <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tentrillion/view/" title="pbs.org">destroyed the budget</a> [pbs.org], and <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/" title="pbs.org">pissed off the whole world</a> [pbs.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>This website tracks how well Obama is keeping his promises [ obamapromisewatch.net ] Meet the new boss , same as the old boss !
The old boss destroyed the budget [ pbs.org ] , and pissed off the whole world [ pbs.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
This website tracks how well Obama is keeping his promises [obamapromisewatch.net] 

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss!
The old boss destroyed the budget [pbs.org], and pissed off the whole world [pbs.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31311364</id>
	<title>It's not 3.0</title>
	<author>Tiger Smile</author>
	<datestamp>1267371840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It looks more like Internet Vista</p><p>Everyone is sure going to love it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It looks more like Internet VistaEveryone is sure going to love it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It looks more like Internet VistaEveryone is sure going to love it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305300</id>
	<title>Stop banging on about healthcare</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267369560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the UK we have the NHS. Lots of people moan about it. It's not perfect. But if you're ill, for the most part, people are thankful that it is there.</p><p>In the US the poor 20\% of the population have nothing.</p><p>The US is the home of free speech and a bastion of many personal freedoms, but it is also a place where survival of the fittest takes priority. If you're doing well for youself, then great. Not everyone is.</p><p>Take a step back and start thinking about what other people need for a change.  Having a government mandated healthcare system to cater for the bottom fifth of society (which private healthcare would otherwise ignore) ain't so bad an idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the UK we have the NHS .
Lots of people moan about it .
It 's not perfect .
But if you 're ill , for the most part , people are thankful that it is there.In the US the poor 20 \ % of the population have nothing.The US is the home of free speech and a bastion of many personal freedoms , but it is also a place where survival of the fittest takes priority .
If you 're doing well for youself , then great .
Not everyone is.Take a step back and start thinking about what other people need for a change .
Having a government mandated healthcare system to cater for the bottom fifth of society ( which private healthcare would otherwise ignore ) ai n't so bad an idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the UK we have the NHS.
Lots of people moan about it.
It's not perfect.
But if you're ill, for the most part, people are thankful that it is there.In the US the poor 20\% of the population have nothing.The US is the home of free speech and a bastion of many personal freedoms, but it is also a place where survival of the fittest takes priority.
If you're doing well for youself, then great.
Not everyone is.Take a step back and start thinking about what other people need for a change.
Having a government mandated healthcare system to cater for the bottom fifth of society (which private healthcare would otherwise ignore) ain't so bad an idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31312036</id>
	<title>Re:Well, this seems subpar.</title>
	<author>the\_womble</author>
	<datestamp>1267379280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Food standards is a bad example. Tight regulations leads to large slaughterhouses, which lead to production line methods and unskilled works, and more contamination (e.g. through spills from evisceration) and any contamination is more widely spread.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Food standards is a bad example .
Tight regulations leads to large slaughterhouses , which lead to production line methods and unskilled works , and more contamination ( e.g .
through spills from evisceration ) and any contamination is more widely spread .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Food standards is a bad example.
Tight regulations leads to large slaughterhouses, which lead to production line methods and unskilled works, and more contamination (e.g.
through spills from evisceration) and any contamination is more widely spread.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306818</id>
	<title>Sounded Reasonable to Me</title>
	<author>tobiah</author>
	<datestamp>1267380120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I read the article too, and this seems to be the only thread discussing it...
<p>Internet theft (real theft) increases greatly every year. I run into phishing schemes a few times per year. Don't fall for them because I know better, but it still looks like a blatant crime. If you can connect an author to that phishing site, that's very strong evidence of an attempted crime, and I'd like to see these people punished. The government has a poor record of prosecuting these activities, and I would like to see them take it seriously.</p><p>Mr. Strickling's article is pretty reasonable on this point, he discusses reasons to avoid heavy-handed government control (other governments won't trust us or it), the downside of not having net-neutrality rules, etc. And the article doesn't have many hard conclusions, it's more focused on trying to identify problems and frame the questions.</p><p>His main point, that we are in the internet 3.0 era, and it's time for the government to pay attention and help everyone trust it sounds reasonable and obvious to me. In particular the need for net neutrality, and the fallout from governments fighting for control of the internet. It's time for the government to grow up, and this seems like a good start.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read the article too , and this seems to be the only thread discussing it.. . Internet theft ( real theft ) increases greatly every year .
I run into phishing schemes a few times per year .
Do n't fall for them because I know better , but it still looks like a blatant crime .
If you can connect an author to that phishing site , that 's very strong evidence of an attempted crime , and I 'd like to see these people punished .
The government has a poor record of prosecuting these activities , and I would like to see them take it seriously.Mr .
Strickling 's article is pretty reasonable on this point , he discusses reasons to avoid heavy-handed government control ( other governments wo n't trust us or it ) , the downside of not having net-neutrality rules , etc .
And the article does n't have many hard conclusions , it 's more focused on trying to identify problems and frame the questions.His main point , that we are in the internet 3.0 era , and it 's time for the government to pay attention and help everyone trust it sounds reasonable and obvious to me .
In particular the need for net neutrality , and the fallout from governments fighting for control of the internet .
It 's time for the government to grow up , and this seems like a good start .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read the article too, and this seems to be the only thread discussing it...
Internet theft (real theft) increases greatly every year.
I run into phishing schemes a few times per year.
Don't fall for them because I know better, but it still looks like a blatant crime.
If you can connect an author to that phishing site, that's very strong evidence of an attempted crime, and I'd like to see these people punished.
The government has a poor record of prosecuting these activities, and I would like to see them take it seriously.Mr.
Strickling's article is pretty reasonable on this point, he discusses reasons to avoid heavy-handed government control (other governments won't trust us or it), the downside of not having net-neutrality rules, etc.
And the article doesn't have many hard conclusions, it's more focused on trying to identify problems and frame the questions.His main point, that we are in the internet 3.0 era, and it's time for the government to pay attention and help everyone trust it sounds reasonable and obvious to me.
In particular the need for net neutrality, and the fallout from governments fighting for control of the internet.
It's time for the government to grow up, and this seems like a good start.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305832</id>
	<title>Re:Moratorium</title>
	<author>HolyCrapSCOsux</author>
	<datestamp>1267373520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think politics and internet knowledge are 2 completely different domains. Chances are that anyone who is fluent with the latter will not be able to make it in the former.</p><p>That said, Politics is social engineering at it's finest.</p><p>Another issue remains, to most of the young folks, the internets comprise of facebook, twitter, youtube, and places google tells them to go. I would bet that they understand the internet about as well as they understand the global cellular network.</p><p>Now get off my lawn.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think politics and internet knowledge are 2 completely different domains .
Chances are that anyone who is fluent with the latter will not be able to make it in the former.That said , Politics is social engineering at it 's finest.Another issue remains , to most of the young folks , the internets comprise of facebook , twitter , youtube , and places google tells them to go .
I would bet that they understand the internet about as well as they understand the global cellular network.Now get off my lawn .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think politics and internet knowledge are 2 completely different domains.
Chances are that anyone who is fluent with the latter will not be able to make it in the former.That said, Politics is social engineering at it's finest.Another issue remains, to most of the young folks, the internets comprise of facebook, twitter, youtube, and places google tells them to go.
I would bet that they understand the internet about as well as they understand the global cellular network.Now get off my lawn.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305324</id>
	<title>It's time to build a new Internet...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267369800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... archiving (i.e. anonymous cache proxy) and extending the old, with 100\% private locally-owned "last mile" underground wiring, or better yet <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless\_mesh\_network" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">wireless mesh</a> [wikipedia.org] infrastructure that would be very difficult for the government to subvert and control.  Of course such a project would benefit from a sufficient density of liberty-loving individuals habitating in close proximity to each-other, but luckily we a already have the <a href="http://freestateproject.org/" title="freestateproject.org" rel="nofollow">Free State Project</a> [freestateproject.org] gradually taking shape in New Hampshire.</p><p>Only the fools are being fooled by the governments.  Sooner or later, Atlas will shrug!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... archiving ( i.e .
anonymous cache proxy ) and extending the old , with 100 \ % private locally-owned " last mile " underground wiring , or better yet wireless mesh [ wikipedia.org ] infrastructure that would be very difficult for the government to subvert and control .
Of course such a project would benefit from a sufficient density of liberty-loving individuals habitating in close proximity to each-other , but luckily we a already have the Free State Project [ freestateproject.org ] gradually taking shape in New Hampshire.Only the fools are being fooled by the governments .
Sooner or later , Atlas will shrug !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... archiving (i.e.
anonymous cache proxy) and extending the old, with 100\% private locally-owned "last mile" underground wiring, or better yet wireless mesh [wikipedia.org] infrastructure that would be very difficult for the government to subvert and control.
Of course such a project would benefit from a sufficient density of liberty-loving individuals habitating in close proximity to each-other, but luckily we a already have the Free State Project [freestateproject.org] gradually taking shape in New Hampshire.Only the fools are being fooled by the governments.
Sooner or later, Atlas will shrug!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305084</id>
	<title>Oh great...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267367700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Either this article is over 10 years too late, or the things like the DMCA and forcing search engines to hand over use search records are seen as "hands off".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Either this article is over 10 years too late , or the things like the DMCA and forcing search engines to hand over use search records are seen as " hands off " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Either this article is over 10 years too late, or the things like the DMCA and forcing search engines to hand over use search records are seen as "hands off".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31311478</id>
	<title>Re:Well, this seems subpar.</title>
	<author>IICV</author>
	<datestamp>1267373220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know what else would cost the government $0? Passing a law that says that your workplace has to pay to pave the roads and build bridges from your house to your office.</p><p>And yet for some reason they don't do that. Weird, isn't it? Maybe it's because with a system like that, small businesses would have a much harder time bootstrapping themselves due to the crippling cost of implementing their own road infrastructure, and entrepreneurs would have to use some pretty shitty roads because they left their last job.</p><p>It's almost like roads are something that is considered part of the infrastructure of a modern society, and thus something the government should be in charge of maintaining for the general good. Weird huh?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know what else would cost the government $ 0 ?
Passing a law that says that your workplace has to pay to pave the roads and build bridges from your house to your office.And yet for some reason they do n't do that .
Weird , is n't it ?
Maybe it 's because with a system like that , small businesses would have a much harder time bootstrapping themselves due to the crippling cost of implementing their own road infrastructure , and entrepreneurs would have to use some pretty shitty roads because they left their last job.It 's almost like roads are something that is considered part of the infrastructure of a modern society , and thus something the government should be in charge of maintaining for the general good .
Weird huh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know what else would cost the government $0?
Passing a law that says that your workplace has to pay to pave the roads and build bridges from your house to your office.And yet for some reason they don't do that.
Weird, isn't it?
Maybe it's because with a system like that, small businesses would have a much harder time bootstrapping themselves due to the crippling cost of implementing their own road infrastructure, and entrepreneurs would have to use some pretty shitty roads because they left their last job.It's almost like roads are something that is considered part of the infrastructure of a modern society, and thus something the government should be in charge of maintaining for the general good.
Weird huh?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31312126</id>
	<title>Re:Well, this seems subpar.</title>
	<author>sp3d2orbit</author>
	<datestamp>1267380660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess when you cut math education enough we get people like you.</p><p>If there are 45 million uninsured, and health care reform will cost $800 billion - $1 trillion then we are spending about $20,000 per person for health insurance.</p><p>Its people like you, with no basic math skills that let politicians get away with this shit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess when you cut math education enough we get people like you.If there are 45 million uninsured , and health care reform will cost $ 800 billion - $ 1 trillion then we are spending about $ 20,000 per person for health insurance.Its people like you , with no basic math skills that let politicians get away with this shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess when you cut math education enough we get people like you.If there are 45 million uninsured, and health care reform will cost $800 billion - $1 trillion then we are spending about $20,000 per person for health insurance.Its people like you, with no basic math skills that let politicians get away with this shit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31308186</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31312624</id>
	<title>When the internet is outlawed...</title>
	<author>grikdog</author>
	<datestamp>1267387020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...only outlaws will have internet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...only outlaws will have internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...only outlaws will have internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31312488</id>
	<title>Re:Well, this seems subpar.</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1267385460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I would argue that it's not due to the government being involved that the quality lowers, but rather that the government decides to become involved without raising taxes to fully fund the projects</p></div><p>Obviously, you have never worked in government or you wouldn't be saying that or perhaps you have and you are simply being disingenuous. The only time that is actually effective is when the government, by miracle of chance, happens to hire the right private contractors, consultants or vendors; which does happen occasionally, but not very often. Otherwise, all of the money will be spent in such a way that little or nothing is actually produced. The problem is one of human motivation and nothing seems to get us going like the prospect of receiving rewards for success (something the government, with its pay grades and limited ability to reward outstanding achievements, does very poorly) and punishments for failure (which the government also does very poorly). The basic question boils down to this: Who spends your money the best? You or someone else who decides how you should be spending it; regardless of what you want or how you feel?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would argue that it 's not due to the government being involved that the quality lowers , but rather that the government decides to become involved without raising taxes to fully fund the projectsObviously , you have never worked in government or you would n't be saying that or perhaps you have and you are simply being disingenuous .
The only time that is actually effective is when the government , by miracle of chance , happens to hire the right private contractors , consultants or vendors ; which does happen occasionally , but not very often .
Otherwise , all of the money will be spent in such a way that little or nothing is actually produced .
The problem is one of human motivation and nothing seems to get us going like the prospect of receiving rewards for success ( something the government , with its pay grades and limited ability to reward outstanding achievements , does very poorly ) and punishments for failure ( which the government also does very poorly ) .
The basic question boils down to this : Who spends your money the best ?
You or someone else who decides how you should be spending it ; regardless of what you want or how you feel ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would argue that it's not due to the government being involved that the quality lowers, but rather that the government decides to become involved without raising taxes to fully fund the projectsObviously, you have never worked in government or you wouldn't be saying that or perhaps you have and you are simply being disingenuous.
The only time that is actually effective is when the government, by miracle of chance, happens to hire the right private contractors, consultants or vendors; which does happen occasionally, but not very often.
Otherwise, all of the money will be spent in such a way that little or nothing is actually produced.
The problem is one of human motivation and nothing seems to get us going like the prospect of receiving rewards for success (something the government, with its pay grades and limited ability to reward outstanding achievements, does very poorly) and punishments for failure (which the government also does very poorly).
The basic question boils down to this: Who spends your money the best?
You or someone else who decides how you should be spending it; regardless of what you want or how you feel?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306258</id>
	<title>Re:Stop banging on about healthcare</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267376640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>In the US the poor 20\% of the population have nothing.</i></p><p>This is utter tripe. It is *not* true.</p><p>I've *been a part* of that 20\% for a good while, so I know. You always get care. You are never refused care. You get care on a par with most everyone else. I've always had medications and treatments provided. I've never been unable to have any testing done such as X-ray, CT, MRI, blood-work, biopsies, etc.</p><p>Yes, they'll send you a bill in the mail. If you're unable to pay, they continue to send bills for a while, then they stop. You are not charged with any crime even if your care has amassed hundreds of thousands in charges. There is Medicare, Medicaid, and a host of other programs...some federal, some state, some NGO, some faith-based, some even provided by those *evil* pharma companies that stand ready to act as safety nets.</p><p>It is pure unadulterated political FUD so obviously untrue that even MS would be too ashamed to spread it.</p><p>Strat</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the US the poor 20 \ % of the population have nothing.This is utter tripe .
It is * not * true.I 've * been a part * of that 20 \ % for a good while , so I know .
You always get care .
You are never refused care .
You get care on a par with most everyone else .
I 've always had medications and treatments provided .
I 've never been unable to have any testing done such as X-ray , CT , MRI , blood-work , biopsies , etc.Yes , they 'll send you a bill in the mail .
If you 're unable to pay , they continue to send bills for a while , then they stop .
You are not charged with any crime even if your care has amassed hundreds of thousands in charges .
There is Medicare , Medicaid , and a host of other programs...some federal , some state , some NGO , some faith-based , some even provided by those * evil * pharma companies that stand ready to act as safety nets.It is pure unadulterated political FUD so obviously untrue that even MS would be too ashamed to spread it.Strat</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the US the poor 20\% of the population have nothing.This is utter tripe.
It is *not* true.I've *been a part* of that 20\% for a good while, so I know.
You always get care.
You are never refused care.
You get care on a par with most everyone else.
I've always had medications and treatments provided.
I've never been unable to have any testing done such as X-ray, CT, MRI, blood-work, biopsies, etc.Yes, they'll send you a bill in the mail.
If you're unable to pay, they continue to send bills for a while, then they stop.
You are not charged with any crime even if your care has amassed hundreds of thousands in charges.
There is Medicare, Medicaid, and a host of other programs...some federal, some state, some NGO, some faith-based, some even provided by those *evil* pharma companies that stand ready to act as safety nets.It is pure unadulterated political FUD so obviously untrue that even MS would be too ashamed to spread it.Strat</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306216</id>
	<title>Internet</title>
	<author>hackus</author>
	<datestamp>1267376340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would like to point out was invented using American tax payers money.</p><p>It belongs to the American people, not to our government, and certainly not to any foreign individual, corporation or government.</p><p>If the American people want to play hands off, it should be voted on.</p><p>I vote "NO" to ending American management of the internet.</p><p>Leave our friggin internet alone.</p><p>-Hack</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would like to point out was invented using American tax payers money.It belongs to the American people , not to our government , and certainly not to any foreign individual , corporation or government.If the American people want to play hands off , it should be voted on.I vote " NO " to ending American management of the internet.Leave our friggin internet alone.-Hack</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would like to point out was invented using American tax payers money.It belongs to the American people, not to our government, and certainly not to any foreign individual, corporation or government.If the American people want to play hands off, it should be voted on.I vote "NO" to ending American management of the internet.Leave our friggin internet alone.-Hack</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305094</id>
	<title>Re:Internet to Powerful, for governments</title>
	<author>BeanThere</author>
	<datestamp>1267367820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to mention money. So, will the people just roll over as usual and accept this? Once upon a time the US used to be a 'beacon of liberty' to the world. Now the article even talks about "aligning" itself with "global trends" towards fascism, even mentioning Italy's latest display of blatant fascism as something to "align" itself with. When communism was a "global trend" the old-style US had the balls to stand out against it. Now they want to hide behind "global trends" to gain more power and money in clamping down on liberty. You can justify anything these days by just saying it's a "global trend".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention money .
So , will the people just roll over as usual and accept this ?
Once upon a time the US used to be a 'beacon of liberty ' to the world .
Now the article even talks about " aligning " itself with " global trends " towards fascism , even mentioning Italy 's latest display of blatant fascism as something to " align " itself with .
When communism was a " global trend " the old-style US had the balls to stand out against it .
Now they want to hide behind " global trends " to gain more power and money in clamping down on liberty .
You can justify anything these days by just saying it 's a " global trend " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention money.
So, will the people just roll over as usual and accept this?
Once upon a time the US used to be a 'beacon of liberty' to the world.
Now the article even talks about "aligning" itself with "global trends" towards fascism, even mentioning Italy's latest display of blatant fascism as something to "align" itself with.
When communism was a "global trend" the old-style US had the balls to stand out against it.
Now they want to hide behind "global trends" to gain more power and money in clamping down on liberty.
You can justify anything these days by just saying it's a "global trend".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305688</id>
	<title>3,2,1 until internet breakaway under Eu control</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267372380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>European union bureaucracy wont like this. that bureaucracy has been built on various freedoms and principles that are the core of our modern society. even more than u.s. constitution - you dont need any constitution to ensure those rights in europe - the declaration of human rights is paramount.</p><p>if this charade goes further, it will be inevitable for Eu to break away Eu's internet space from u.s. related control sources, to ensure these principles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>European union bureaucracy wont like this .
that bureaucracy has been built on various freedoms and principles that are the core of our modern society .
even more than u.s. constitution - you dont need any constitution to ensure those rights in europe - the declaration of human rights is paramount.if this charade goes further , it will be inevitable for Eu to break away Eu 's internet space from u.s. related control sources , to ensure these principles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>European union bureaucracy wont like this.
that bureaucracy has been built on various freedoms and principles that are the core of our modern society.
even more than u.s. constitution - you dont need any constitution to ensure those rights in europe - the declaration of human rights is paramount.if this charade goes further, it will be inevitable for Eu to break away Eu's internet space from u.s. related control sources, to ensure these principles.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305264</id>
	<title>I think its time...</title>
	<author>Servaas</author>
	<datestamp>1267369200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>LEAVE INTERNET ALONE!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>LEAVE INTERNET ALONE !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LEAVE INTERNET ALONE!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306268</id>
	<title>Re:Well, this seems subpar.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267376700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?</htmltext>
<tokenext>All right , but apart from the sanitation , medicine , education , wine , public order , irrigation , roads , the fresh water system and public health , what have the Romans ever done for us ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31317210</id>
	<title>Re:Actually read the article</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267462980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Totally agreed. It's like this wave of thought-control is hitting the world: Italy, France, the UK, and Australia have explicitly moved to regulate the internet in this last Febuary; the US is rapidly moving in that direction as well.</p><p>What is this, liberty? Or nascent totalianarism?</p><p>I'm starting to keep an eye out for networks designed to be anonymous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Totally agreed .
It 's like this wave of thought-control is hitting the world : Italy , France , the UK , and Australia have explicitly moved to regulate the internet in this last Febuary ; the US is rapidly moving in that direction as well.What is this , liberty ?
Or nascent totalianarism ? I 'm starting to keep an eye out for networks designed to be anonymous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Totally agreed.
It's like this wave of thought-control is hitting the world: Italy, France, the UK, and Australia have explicitly moved to regulate the internet in this last Febuary; the US is rapidly moving in that direction as well.What is this, liberty?
Or nascent totalianarism?I'm starting to keep an eye out for networks designed to be anonymous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305194</id>
	<title>Re:Well, this seems subpar.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267368720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is typical Democrat behavior.  They want their hands in everything to grow the Government.  I'm not surprised, just pissed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is typical Democrat behavior .
They want their hands in everything to grow the Government .
I 'm not surprised , just pissed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is typical Democrat behavior.
They want their hands in everything to grow the Government.
I'm not surprised, just pissed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31309564</id>
	<title>Yeah, the arguments stink</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1267357800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If users do not trust that their credit card numbers and private information are safe on the Internet, they won&rsquo;t use it.</p></div><p>And the current system works fine, so that's an argument for government hands off, right?  Or maybe it's an argument for tightening credit/debit card security?  I mean, the crypto for transmitting credit card numbers works fine as is...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If content providers do not trust that their content will be protected, they will threaten to stop putting it online.</p></div><p>Then the pirates will have the online distribution market all to themselves.  Yeah, I'm sure the legit content distributors are going to like that.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If large enterprises don&rsquo;t have confidence that their network will not be breached over the Internet, they will disconnect their network and limit access to business partners and customers.</p></div><p>Any sane large organization should realize that it <em>will</em> have security incidents.  I see an abundance of organizations online today.  So this is an argument for... what, exactly?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If foreign governments do not trust the Internet governance systems, they will threaten to balkanize the Domain Name System which will jeopardize the worldwide reach of the Internet.</p></div><p>Uh-huh.  And the US having control of the root zone engenders trust exactly how?  I see this as a great argument for <em>less</em> US gov involvement.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If users do not trust that their credit card numbers and private information are safe on the Internet , they won    t use it.And the current system works fine , so that 's an argument for government hands off , right ?
Or maybe it 's an argument for tightening credit/debit card security ?
I mean , the crypto for transmitting credit card numbers works fine as is...If content providers do not trust that their content will be protected , they will threaten to stop putting it online.Then the pirates will have the online distribution market all to themselves .
Yeah , I 'm sure the legit content distributors are going to like that.If large enterprises don    t have confidence that their network will not be breached over the Internet , they will disconnect their network and limit access to business partners and customers.Any sane large organization should realize that it will have security incidents .
I see an abundance of organizations online today .
So this is an argument for... what , exactly ? If foreign governments do not trust the Internet governance systems , they will threaten to balkanize the Domain Name System which will jeopardize the worldwide reach of the Internet.Uh-huh .
And the US having control of the root zone engenders trust exactly how ?
I see this as a great argument for less US gov involvement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If users do not trust that their credit card numbers and private information are safe on the Internet, they won’t use it.And the current system works fine, so that's an argument for government hands off, right?
Or maybe it's an argument for tightening credit/debit card security?
I mean, the crypto for transmitting credit card numbers works fine as is...If content providers do not trust that their content will be protected, they will threaten to stop putting it online.Then the pirates will have the online distribution market all to themselves.
Yeah, I'm sure the legit content distributors are going to like that.If large enterprises don’t have confidence that their network will not be breached over the Internet, they will disconnect their network and limit access to business partners and customers.Any sane large organization should realize that it will have security incidents.
I see an abundance of organizations online today.
So this is an argument for... what, exactly?If foreign governments do not trust the Internet governance systems, they will threaten to balkanize the Domain Name System which will jeopardize the worldwide reach of the Internet.Uh-huh.
And the US having control of the root zone engenders trust exactly how?
I see this as a great argument for less US gov involvement.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305726</id>
	<title>If it isn't broken</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267372680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; If you believe that the government not getting involved is going to lead to an optimal outcome for the public, I'd love to hear why.</p><p>If it ain't broke, don't fix it.</p><p>BTW, do you also believe that the TSA increases our air travel security?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; If you believe that the government not getting involved is going to lead to an optimal outcome for the public , I 'd love to hear why.If it ai n't broke , do n't fix it.BTW , do you also believe that the TSA increases our air travel security ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; If you believe that the government not getting involved is going to lead to an optimal outcome for the public, I'd love to hear why.If it ain't broke, don't fix it.BTW, do you also believe that the TSA increases our air travel security?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306342</id>
	<title>Re:Actually read the article</title>
	<author>Antony-Kyre</author>
	<datestamp>1267377240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am really concerned about a potential lack of actions by American citizens in this case. Contact a member of congress and complain seems the most logical thing to do. Threaten to vote against the incumbent to force a polar change.</p><p>Although, that last one might not be a good idea, as I feel it is better to vote one's heart, and not necessarily for a given party. People need to stop compromising when voting for candidates. I think even writing in something like "Protest" in the write-in field would make an impact if enough people did it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am really concerned about a potential lack of actions by American citizens in this case .
Contact a member of congress and complain seems the most logical thing to do .
Threaten to vote against the incumbent to force a polar change.Although , that last one might not be a good idea , as I feel it is better to vote one 's heart , and not necessarily for a given party .
People need to stop compromising when voting for candidates .
I think even writing in something like " Protest " in the write-in field would make an impact if enough people did it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am really concerned about a potential lack of actions by American citizens in this case.
Contact a member of congress and complain seems the most logical thing to do.
Threaten to vote against the incumbent to force a polar change.Although, that last one might not be a good idea, as I feel it is better to vote one's heart, and not necessarily for a given party.
People need to stop compromising when voting for candidates.
I think even writing in something like "Protest" in the write-in field would make an impact if enough people did it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305626</id>
	<title>Re:Internet to Powerful, for governments</title>
	<author>Nerdfest</author>
	<datestamp>1267371960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The internet is too powerful, for governments, to leave alone.</p></div><p>William Shatner, is that you?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The internet is too powerful , for governments , to leave alone.William Shatner , is that you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The internet is too powerful, for governments, to leave alone.William Shatner, is that you?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305228</id>
	<title>Re:Hopenchange!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267369020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yah, it's funny how everyone was up in arms about Bush and the Patriot act, and the war, and the unemployment, and the deficit.  Nevermind that all these things continue, AND GET WORSE under Obama.  Where is the Slashdot outrage over this?!  The Patriot Act didn't affect me on iota.  This Internet "bill" will.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yah , it 's funny how everyone was up in arms about Bush and the Patriot act , and the war , and the unemployment , and the deficit .
Nevermind that all these things continue , AND GET WORSE under Obama .
Where is the Slashdot outrage over this ? !
The Patriot Act did n't affect me on iota .
This Internet " bill " will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yah, it's funny how everyone was up in arms about Bush and the Patriot act, and the war, and the unemployment, and the deficit.
Nevermind that all these things continue, AND GET WORSE under Obama.
Where is the Slashdot outrage over this?!
The Patriot Act didn't affect me on iota.
This Internet "bill" will.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31308446</id>
	<title>Change 2.0</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267348680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Change!  (Some restrictions apply)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Change !
( Some restrictions apply )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Change!
(Some restrictions apply)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305298</id>
	<title>Nerds in concentration camps!</title>
	<author>voodoo cheesecake</author>
	<datestamp>1267369560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hell, they've already culled off a good portion of the fighting force, now just cull off the free thinkers and the economy will snap right back!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hell , they 've already culled off a good portion of the fighting force , now just cull off the free thinkers and the economy will snap right back !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hell, they've already culled off a good portion of the fighting force, now just cull off the free thinkers and the economy will snap right back!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31308990</id>
	<title>Re:Stop banging on about healthcare</title>
	<author>http</author>
	<datestamp>1267352940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, you get might get care, but just try buying a house after those letters get not dealt with...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , you get might get care , but just try buying a house after those letters get not dealt with.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, you get might get care, but just try buying a house after those letters get not dealt with...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31310234</id>
	<title>Tor Hidden Services - The OnionForum</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267362000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's Tor hidden services. Try the onionforum (see link in external links @ wikipedia's tor entry page) for starters, with your browser's image autoloading turned off just in case - never know what someone may post! Always browse them with images off in your browser.</p><p>Tor hidden services is a good alternative right now, though there aren't a lot of well known and good hidden services up at the moment. It may take awhile to catch on or it may dwindle to nothing without ever catching on.</p><p>Check out onionforums via tor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's Tor hidden services .
Try the onionforum ( see link in external links @ wikipedia 's tor entry page ) for starters , with your browser 's image autoloading turned off just in case - never know what someone may post !
Always browse them with images off in your browser.Tor hidden services is a good alternative right now , though there are n't a lot of well known and good hidden services up at the moment .
It may take awhile to catch on or it may dwindle to nothing without ever catching on.Check out onionforums via tor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's Tor hidden services.
Try the onionforum (see link in external links @ wikipedia's tor entry page) for starters, with your browser's image autoloading turned off just in case - never know what someone may post!
Always browse them with images off in your browser.Tor hidden services is a good alternative right now, though there aren't a lot of well known and good hidden services up at the moment.
It may take awhile to catch on or it may dwindle to nothing without ever catching on.Check out onionforums via tor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305294</id>
	<title>Re:Hopenchange!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267369500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You <em>do</em> understand that the Democrats wanted to add new privacy protections to the Act, don't you? They gave up the fight when the Republicans, as usual, promised to filibuster. Apparently the Republicans don't want any new privacy protections. You should ask them why the "small government" party wants to continue giving the bosses free rein to continue intruding into our private lives.
<p>
<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35592245/ns/politics/" title="msn.com">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35592245/ns/politics/</a> [msn.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do understand that the Democrats wanted to add new privacy protections to the Act , do n't you ?
They gave up the fight when the Republicans , as usual , promised to filibuster .
Apparently the Republicans do n't want any new privacy protections .
You should ask them why the " small government " party wants to continue giving the bosses free rein to continue intruding into our private lives .
http : //www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35592245/ns/politics/ [ msn.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do understand that the Democrats wanted to add new privacy protections to the Act, don't you?
They gave up the fight when the Republicans, as usual, promised to filibuster.
Apparently the Republicans don't want any new privacy protections.
You should ask them why the "small government" party wants to continue giving the bosses free rein to continue intruding into our private lives.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35592245/ns/politics/ [msn.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31307740</id>
	<title>Re:Stop banging on about healthcare</title>
	<author>starblazer</author>
	<datestamp>1267386480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>In the US the poor 20\% of the population have nothing.</i> </p><p>This is utter tripe. It is *not* true.</p><p>I've *been a part* of that 20\% for a good while, so I know. You always get care. You are never refused care. You get care on a par with most everyone else. I've always had medications and treatments provided. I've never been unable to have any testing done such as X-ray, CT, MRI, blood-work, biopsies, etc.</p></div><p>You get a lower standard of care.  I also, was part of that lower 20\%.  Most of the time, they will find the first "easy" diagnosis and claim that is what it is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the US the poor 20 \ % of the population have nothing .
This is utter tripe .
It is * not * true.I 've * been a part * of that 20 \ % for a good while , so I know .
You always get care .
You are never refused care .
You get care on a par with most everyone else .
I 've always had medications and treatments provided .
I 've never been unable to have any testing done such as X-ray , CT , MRI , blood-work , biopsies , etc.You get a lower standard of care .
I also , was part of that lower 20 \ % .
Most of the time , they will find the first " easy " diagnosis and claim that is what it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> In the US the poor 20\% of the population have nothing.
This is utter tripe.
It is *not* true.I've *been a part* of that 20\% for a good while, so I know.
You always get care.
You are never refused care.
You get care on a par with most everyone else.
I've always had medications and treatments provided.
I've never been unable to have any testing done such as X-ray, CT, MRI, blood-work, biopsies, etc.You get a lower standard of care.
I also, was part of that lower 20\%.
Most of the time, they will find the first "easy" diagnosis and claim that is what it is.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305044</id>
	<title>Re:Internet to Powerful, for governments</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267367280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you mean laissez faire</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you mean laissez faire</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you mean laissez faire</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306376</id>
	<title>Obama nationalizing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267377420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After nationalizing the financial, banking and auto industries, and attempting to nationalize health care, is it surprising that Obama and his Bolsheviks would want to seize the communications networks as well?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After nationalizing the financial , banking and auto industries , and attempting to nationalize health care , is it surprising that Obama and his Bolsheviks would want to seize the communications networks as well ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After nationalizing the financial, banking and auto industries, and attempting to nationalize health care, is it surprising that Obama and his Bolsheviks would want to seize the communications networks as well?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31320832</id>
	<title>You know your experience</title>
	<author>manaway</author>
	<datestamp>1267476900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You get care on a par with most everyone else.</p></div><p>The Emergency Room is the only access to the medical system for those without insurance (some 45 million people). ER is <em>the</em> most expensive place to receive care (e.g. $75 aspirin).  The uninsured statistics get marginal attention in the corporate press, for obvious reasons, but you can find them:</p><ul>
<li>All people are at risk for traumatic accidents, but <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/16/health/main5674116.shtml" title="cbsnews.com">the uninsured are twice as likely to die</a> [cbsnews.com] (if you can believe Harvard).</li><li> <a href="http://www.oregonlive.com/health/index.ssf/2009/12/does\_insurance\_discrimination.html" title="oregonlive.com">One new study by Oregon State University's Sheryl Thorburn found that pregnant Oregon women with annual incomes below $50,000 were three times more likely than other pregnant women to report getting worse treatment at the doctor because of their insurance.</a> [oregonlive.com] </li><li> <a href="http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/blogs/paging.dr.gupta/2008/02/without-insurance-cancer-often-found.html" title="cnn.com">A new American Cancer Society study published in the journal Lancet looked at 3.7 million cancer patients - the largest study of its kind - and found that uninsured and underinsured patients are twice as likely to learn about their cancer in its late stages of cancer as people who have private insurance.</a> [cnn.com]</li>
<li> <a href="http://www.fixourhealthcare.ca.gov/index.php/facts/more/6771/" title="ca.gov">Getting treated in an emergency room is 3-4 times more expensive than a trip to the doctor&rsquo;s office, according to the California Health care Foundation.</a> [ca.gov] </li></ul><p>Billing is up to each doctor, to each hospital, to each billing service (collection department), sometimes even to each collection agent. Some write off bills <em>far</em> more willingly than others. Some never let go, and your credit report reflects these choices.</p><p>Try a thought experiment: you have 3 new clients with broken computers. Client 1 is well off and will pay you $120 per hour, plus parts, no questions. Client 2 can afford a $60 repair. Client 3 has no money, but needs their computer operational. Which one gets most of your attention, has priority? Sure every analogy is flawed, and a broken computer does not equal a sick person and the difference in consequences are huge (and give me credit for not using a car analogy). Still, how much difference is there between your ethics and a doctor's?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You get care on a par with most everyone else.The Emergency Room is the only access to the medical system for those without insurance ( some 45 million people ) .
ER is the most expensive place to receive care ( e.g .
$ 75 aspirin ) .
The uninsured statistics get marginal attention in the corporate press , for obvious reasons , but you can find them : All people are at risk for traumatic accidents , but the uninsured are twice as likely to die [ cbsnews.com ] ( if you can believe Harvard ) .
One new study by Oregon State University 's Sheryl Thorburn found that pregnant Oregon women with annual incomes below $ 50,000 were three times more likely than other pregnant women to report getting worse treatment at the doctor because of their insurance .
[ oregonlive.com ] A new American Cancer Society study published in the journal Lancet looked at 3.7 million cancer patients - the largest study of its kind - and found that uninsured and underinsured patients are twice as likely to learn about their cancer in its late stages of cancer as people who have private insurance .
[ cnn.com ] Getting treated in an emergency room is 3-4 times more expensive than a trip to the doctor    s office , according to the California Health care Foundation .
[ ca.gov ] Billing is up to each doctor , to each hospital , to each billing service ( collection department ) , sometimes even to each collection agent .
Some write off bills far more willingly than others .
Some never let go , and your credit report reflects these choices.Try a thought experiment : you have 3 new clients with broken computers .
Client 1 is well off and will pay you $ 120 per hour , plus parts , no questions .
Client 2 can afford a $ 60 repair .
Client 3 has no money , but needs their computer operational .
Which one gets most of your attention , has priority ?
Sure every analogy is flawed , and a broken computer does not equal a sick person and the difference in consequences are huge ( and give me credit for not using a car analogy ) .
Still , how much difference is there between your ethics and a doctor 's ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You get care on a par with most everyone else.The Emergency Room is the only access to the medical system for those without insurance (some 45 million people).
ER is the most expensive place to receive care (e.g.
$75 aspirin).
The uninsured statistics get marginal attention in the corporate press, for obvious reasons, but you can find them:
All people are at risk for traumatic accidents, but the uninsured are twice as likely to die [cbsnews.com] (if you can believe Harvard).
One new study by Oregon State University's Sheryl Thorburn found that pregnant Oregon women with annual incomes below $50,000 were three times more likely than other pregnant women to report getting worse treatment at the doctor because of their insurance.
[oregonlive.com]  A new American Cancer Society study published in the journal Lancet looked at 3.7 million cancer patients - the largest study of its kind - and found that uninsured and underinsured patients are twice as likely to learn about their cancer in its late stages of cancer as people who have private insurance.
[cnn.com]
 Getting treated in an emergency room is 3-4 times more expensive than a trip to the doctor’s office, according to the California Health care Foundation.
[ca.gov] Billing is up to each doctor, to each hospital, to each billing service (collection department), sometimes even to each collection agent.
Some write off bills far more willingly than others.
Some never let go, and your credit report reflects these choices.Try a thought experiment: you have 3 new clients with broken computers.
Client 1 is well off and will pay you $120 per hour, plus parts, no questions.
Client 2 can afford a $60 repair.
Client 3 has no money, but needs their computer operational.
Which one gets most of your attention, has priority?
Sure every analogy is flawed, and a broken computer does not equal a sick person and the difference in consequences are huge (and give me credit for not using a car analogy).
Still, how much difference is there between your ethics and a doctor's?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305554</id>
	<title>Re:Internet to Powerful, for governments</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267371480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Once upon a time the US used to be a 'beacon of liberty' to the world.</p><p>Only in your own eyes.  To everyone else, you have been an aggressive nation, meddling where you aren't wanted, genociding the native peoples who were in your lands before you, invading countries without cause, and ruining others economically for your own benefit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Once upon a time the US used to be a 'beacon of liberty ' to the world.Only in your own eyes .
To everyone else , you have been an aggressive nation , meddling where you are n't wanted , genociding the native peoples who were in your lands before you , invading countries without cause , and ruining others economically for your own benefit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Once upon a time the US used to be a 'beacon of liberty' to the world.Only in your own eyes.
To everyone else, you have been an aggressive nation, meddling where you aren't wanted, genociding the native peoples who were in your lands before you, invading countries without cause, and ruining others economically for your own benefit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31312830</id>
	<title>Re:Well, this seems subpar.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267475400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because the government does a few things well, does not mean that anything the government does will work.</p><p>Considering your three examples.</p><p>FDA - Been around since the early 20th century in one form or another</p><p>OSHA - Dates from the early 70s</p><p>NHTSA - Dates also from the early 70s</p><p>None actually sells anything or provides anything other than regulation.</p><p>The FDA is an organization that regulates food. It does not nationalize food production to ensure quality standards.</p><p>OSHA does not make ladders or build warehouses. It simply regulates how these things are constructed.</p><p>NHTSA does not make cars. It simply regulates the standards to which cars are built.</p><p>Nationalized healthcare would not be concerned with regulating insurance. It is concerned with providing insurance, or paying for insurance (I don't know what the cockup plan of the day is today). If the great and glorious leader wishes to create an agency to deal with regulating insurance, well that's a whole other ball of wax. The healthcare system in America is a mess, no doubt about it. But why does an already existing system need to suddenly be run by the government. I might understand if there was NO form of insurance, and all healthcare was paid for out of pocket, but the truth is that unless I get cancer or some other kind of long wasting disease that is not immediately lethal, I will not be denied care.</p><p>In fact, the government services that we rely on daily have been running in one form or another for years. Mainly because they were recognized as necessary when the country was founded. Mail, Military, Police, Fire, etc... I don't see what services the federal government needs to provide above these.</p><p>I can't find any reference to OSHA, NHTSA, or the FDA replacing similar and already functioning industries when they were created, which is why it was deemed necessary for the government to step in.</p><p>Please do not make the mistake of assuming that because politicians in previous years were able to create legislation that was beneficial and helpful to all that the current crop will do the same.</p><p>Do not assume that because there exists government organizations that do their job efficiently and are necessary that all government organizations and programs will be this way. People love to talk about the post office and OSHA, but nobody ever talks about the miserably failed programs that no longer exist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because the government does a few things well , does not mean that anything the government does will work.Considering your three examples.FDA - Been around since the early 20th century in one form or anotherOSHA - Dates from the early 70sNHTSA - Dates also from the early 70sNone actually sells anything or provides anything other than regulation.The FDA is an organization that regulates food .
It does not nationalize food production to ensure quality standards.OSHA does not make ladders or build warehouses .
It simply regulates how these things are constructed.NHTSA does not make cars .
It simply regulates the standards to which cars are built.Nationalized healthcare would not be concerned with regulating insurance .
It is concerned with providing insurance , or paying for insurance ( I do n't know what the cockup plan of the day is today ) .
If the great and glorious leader wishes to create an agency to deal with regulating insurance , well that 's a whole other ball of wax .
The healthcare system in America is a mess , no doubt about it .
But why does an already existing system need to suddenly be run by the government .
I might understand if there was NO form of insurance , and all healthcare was paid for out of pocket , but the truth is that unless I get cancer or some other kind of long wasting disease that is not immediately lethal , I will not be denied care.In fact , the government services that we rely on daily have been running in one form or another for years .
Mainly because they were recognized as necessary when the country was founded .
Mail , Military , Police , Fire , etc... I do n't see what services the federal government needs to provide above these.I ca n't find any reference to OSHA , NHTSA , or the FDA replacing similar and already functioning industries when they were created , which is why it was deemed necessary for the government to step in.Please do not make the mistake of assuming that because politicians in previous years were able to create legislation that was beneficial and helpful to all that the current crop will do the same.Do not assume that because there exists government organizations that do their job efficiently and are necessary that all government organizations and programs will be this way .
People love to talk about the post office and OSHA , but nobody ever talks about the miserably failed programs that no longer exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because the government does a few things well, does not mean that anything the government does will work.Considering your three examples.FDA - Been around since the early 20th century in one form or anotherOSHA - Dates from the early 70sNHTSA - Dates also from the early 70sNone actually sells anything or provides anything other than regulation.The FDA is an organization that regulates food.
It does not nationalize food production to ensure quality standards.OSHA does not make ladders or build warehouses.
It simply regulates how these things are constructed.NHTSA does not make cars.
It simply regulates the standards to which cars are built.Nationalized healthcare would not be concerned with regulating insurance.
It is concerned with providing insurance, or paying for insurance (I don't know what the cockup plan of the day is today).
If the great and glorious leader wishes to create an agency to deal with regulating insurance, well that's a whole other ball of wax.
The healthcare system in America is a mess, no doubt about it.
But why does an already existing system need to suddenly be run by the government.
I might understand if there was NO form of insurance, and all healthcare was paid for out of pocket, but the truth is that unless I get cancer or some other kind of long wasting disease that is not immediately lethal, I will not be denied care.In fact, the government services that we rely on daily have been running in one form or another for years.
Mainly because they were recognized as necessary when the country was founded.
Mail, Military, Police, Fire, etc... I don't see what services the federal government needs to provide above these.I can't find any reference to OSHA, NHTSA, or the FDA replacing similar and already functioning industries when they were created, which is why it was deemed necessary for the government to step in.Please do not make the mistake of assuming that because politicians in previous years were able to create legislation that was beneficial and helpful to all that the current crop will do the same.Do not assume that because there exists government organizations that do their job efficiently and are necessary that all government organizations and programs will be this way.
People love to talk about the post office and OSHA, but nobody ever talks about the miserably failed programs that no longer exist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305050</id>
	<title>Hopenchange!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267367340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Along with a <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/27/AR2010022702870.html" title="washingtonpost.com" rel="nofollow">renewed Patriot Act!</a> [washingtonpost.com]</p><p>Funny, I seem to have missed the Slashdot story of the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives passing that bill, or the Democrat-controlled Senate passing that bill.  Nevermind the Slasdot story about the Democrat President actually signing that Patriot Act extension....</p><p>Meet the new boss, same as the old boss!</p><p>Actually, that's not true.  The old bosses at least said they were going to keep Gitmo open, extend that Patriot Act, and leave troops in Iraq.  So at least they did what they said.  These new bosses are MUCH worse - they LIE and do and say anything to get elected, then keep on with the policies of the past that they LIED about changing.</p><p>And now, these LYING new bosses want us to turn the largest sector of the US economy - health care - over to THEIR control.  Because that'll be better for all of us.</p><p>What kind of person could possibly believe that THIS group of egomaniacs getting control of another couple of trillion dollars a year would help anyone?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Along with a renewed Patriot Act !
[ washingtonpost.com ] Funny , I seem to have missed the Slashdot story of the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives passing that bill , or the Democrat-controlled Senate passing that bill .
Nevermind the Slasdot story about the Democrat President actually signing that Patriot Act extension....Meet the new boss , same as the old boss ! Actually , that 's not true .
The old bosses at least said they were going to keep Gitmo open , extend that Patriot Act , and leave troops in Iraq .
So at least they did what they said .
These new bosses are MUCH worse - they LIE and do and say anything to get elected , then keep on with the policies of the past that they LIED about changing.And now , these LYING new bosses want us to turn the largest sector of the US economy - health care - over to THEIR control .
Because that 'll be better for all of us.What kind of person could possibly believe that THIS group of egomaniacs getting control of another couple of trillion dollars a year would help anyone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Along with a renewed Patriot Act!
[washingtonpost.com]Funny, I seem to have missed the Slashdot story of the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives passing that bill, or the Democrat-controlled Senate passing that bill.
Nevermind the Slasdot story about the Democrat President actually signing that Patriot Act extension....Meet the new boss, same as the old boss!Actually, that's not true.
The old bosses at least said they were going to keep Gitmo open, extend that Patriot Act, and leave troops in Iraq.
So at least they did what they said.
These new bosses are MUCH worse - they LIE and do and say anything to get elected, then keep on with the policies of the past that they LIED about changing.And now, these LYING new bosses want us to turn the largest sector of the US economy - health care - over to THEIR control.
Because that'll be better for all of us.What kind of person could possibly believe that THIS group of egomaniacs getting control of another couple of trillion dollars a year would help anyone?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306738</id>
	<title>Ohhhhhh no...</title>
	<author>T-Bucket</author>
	<datestamp>1267379700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You were slightly off there... The government "gets involved" with your air travel via the FAA... And the FAA has not been a net positive for ANYONE...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You were slightly off there... The government " gets involved " with your air travel via the FAA... And the FAA has not been a net positive for ANYONE.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You were slightly off there... The government "gets involved" with your air travel via the FAA... And the FAA has not been a net positive for ANYONE...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306292</id>
	<title>Wikiacracy</title>
	<author>BountyX</author>
	<datestamp>1267376940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A bit off topic, but in the event that internet legislation leads to revolution...<br>I've been thinking of new democratic and legislative structures for a post-revolution America. An exercise in thought, nothing more. Anyways, I was thinking that one of the biggest issues with our current government is the Iron Triangle. Essentially, we have a centralized government that is actively being DoS'ed by lobbyists and anyone else who can buy a lobbyist. The interest of those individual groups often come at the expense of the majority.
<br> <br>
What if we structured our government like the Internet by providing functionality at the end point and only using congress to pass data?<br> <br>
Essentially, people would be responsible for writing laws in some sort of wiki type collaboration. These laws would have "release cycles" that go to an elected body of "experts" (congress) only after the legislation passed a public review process. Congress would ONLY have the ability to veto proposed legislation. The president would serve more as a mediator in the event the public wanted to force legislation after congress has already vetoed it. If the majority has a mandate and Congress has a minority veto, then the president can be used to override the Congressional veto, but only in those circumstances. <br> <br>Lobbyists would essentially be spammers. They cannot effectively bribe anymore due to decentralization of legislation. Anyways, I'm still developing the idea, feedback would be much appreciated, sorry I'm offtopic!</htmltext>
<tokenext>A bit off topic , but in the event that internet legislation leads to revolution...I 've been thinking of new democratic and legislative structures for a post-revolution America .
An exercise in thought , nothing more .
Anyways , I was thinking that one of the biggest issues with our current government is the Iron Triangle .
Essentially , we have a centralized government that is actively being DoS'ed by lobbyists and anyone else who can buy a lobbyist .
The interest of those individual groups often come at the expense of the majority .
What if we structured our government like the Internet by providing functionality at the end point and only using congress to pass data ?
Essentially , people would be responsible for writing laws in some sort of wiki type collaboration .
These laws would have " release cycles " that go to an elected body of " experts " ( congress ) only after the legislation passed a public review process .
Congress would ONLY have the ability to veto proposed legislation .
The president would serve more as a mediator in the event the public wanted to force legislation after congress has already vetoed it .
If the majority has a mandate and Congress has a minority veto , then the president can be used to override the Congressional veto , but only in those circumstances .
Lobbyists would essentially be spammers .
They can not effectively bribe anymore due to decentralization of legislation .
Anyways , I 'm still developing the idea , feedback would be much appreciated , sorry I 'm offtopic !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A bit off topic, but in the event that internet legislation leads to revolution...I've been thinking of new democratic and legislative structures for a post-revolution America.
An exercise in thought, nothing more.
Anyways, I was thinking that one of the biggest issues with our current government is the Iron Triangle.
Essentially, we have a centralized government that is actively being DoS'ed by lobbyists and anyone else who can buy a lobbyist.
The interest of those individual groups often come at the expense of the majority.
What if we structured our government like the Internet by providing functionality at the end point and only using congress to pass data?
Essentially, people would be responsible for writing laws in some sort of wiki type collaboration.
These laws would have "release cycles" that go to an elected body of "experts" (congress) only after the legislation passed a public review process.
Congress would ONLY have the ability to veto proposed legislation.
The president would serve more as a mediator in the event the public wanted to force legislation after congress has already vetoed it.
If the majority has a mandate and Congress has a minority veto, then the president can be used to override the Congressional veto, but only in those circumstances.
Lobbyists would essentially be spammers.
They cannot effectively bribe anymore due to decentralization of legislation.
Anyways, I'm still developing the idea, feedback would be much appreciated, sorry I'm offtopic!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306578</id>
	<title>Re:Well, government "oversight"...</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1267378680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What are ten-year-olds <em>supposed</em> to do over summer vacation?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What are ten-year-olds supposed to do over summer vacation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are ten-year-olds supposed to do over summer vacation?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31310156</id>
	<title>Re:Well, government "oversight"...</title>
	<author>istewart</author>
	<datestamp>1267361580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, and now you have a thoroughly subsidized monocultural food production system which breeds antibiotic-resistant bacteria and outputs decidely non-nutritious food at its most affordable levels; and the abusive working conditions you decry have simply been moved offshore, leaving the corporations who contract for such cheap labor to enforce our enlightened norms, if they feel like it. The moneyed interests which benefit from these arrangements have much more influence over the people in power than do you, the single voter. So while these problems may, eventually, be addressed by the government, it will not happen until they are almost catastrophes. This is the downside to such a heavily centralized republic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , and now you have a thoroughly subsidized monocultural food production system which breeds antibiotic-resistant bacteria and outputs decidely non-nutritious food at its most affordable levels ; and the abusive working conditions you decry have simply been moved offshore , leaving the corporations who contract for such cheap labor to enforce our enlightened norms , if they feel like it .
The moneyed interests which benefit from these arrangements have much more influence over the people in power than do you , the single voter .
So while these problems may , eventually , be addressed by the government , it will not happen until they are almost catastrophes .
This is the downside to such a heavily centralized republic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, and now you have a thoroughly subsidized monocultural food production system which breeds antibiotic-resistant bacteria and outputs decidely non-nutritious food at its most affordable levels; and the abusive working conditions you decry have simply been moved offshore, leaving the corporations who contract for such cheap labor to enforce our enlightened norms, if they feel like it.
The moneyed interests which benefit from these arrangements have much more influence over the people in power than do you, the single voter.
So while these problems may, eventually, be addressed by the government, it will not happen until they are almost catastrophes.
This is the downside to such a heavily centralized republic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306300</id>
	<title>What he said / What he means</title>
	<author>oDDmON oUT</author>
	<datestamp>1267377000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I say that the government's role need not be one of a heavy-handed regulator."</p><p>"I say that the government's role need not be one of a heavy-handed regulator, but we will be."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I say that the government 's role need not be one of a heavy-handed regulator .
" " I say that the government 's role need not be one of a heavy-handed regulator , but we will be .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I say that the government's role need not be one of a heavy-handed regulator.
""I say that the government's role need not be one of a heavy-handed regulator, but we will be.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31311296</id>
	<title>Re:Stop banging on about healthcare</title>
	<author>Pictish Prince</author>
	<datestamp>1267371060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In the UK we have the NHS. Lots of people moan about it. It's not perfect. But if you're ill, for the most part, people are thankful that it is there.</p><p>In the US the poor 20\% of the population have nothing.</p><p>The US is the home of free speech and a bastion of many personal freedoms, but it is also a place where survival of the fittest takes priority. If you're doing well for youself, then great. Not everyone is.</p><p>Take a step back and start thinking about what other people need for a change.  Having a government mandated healthcare system to cater for the bottom fifth of society (which private healthcare would otherwise ignore) ain't so bad an idea.</p></div><p>I don't give a shit what kind of ridiculous numbers they run on you over there.  Between this government's "education" system and their "justice" system, they've pretty much fucked up my life.  And now I should just sit down and shut up when they try to make me buy "health care" that I don't need or be fined and face jail time?  Go jerk off someone else.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the UK we have the NHS .
Lots of people moan about it .
It 's not perfect .
But if you 're ill , for the most part , people are thankful that it is there.In the US the poor 20 \ % of the population have nothing.The US is the home of free speech and a bastion of many personal freedoms , but it is also a place where survival of the fittest takes priority .
If you 're doing well for youself , then great .
Not everyone is.Take a step back and start thinking about what other people need for a change .
Having a government mandated healthcare system to cater for the bottom fifth of society ( which private healthcare would otherwise ignore ) ai n't so bad an idea.I do n't give a shit what kind of ridiculous numbers they run on you over there .
Between this government 's " education " system and their " justice " system , they 've pretty much fucked up my life .
And now I should just sit down and shut up when they try to make me buy " health care " that I do n't need or be fined and face jail time ?
Go jerk off someone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the UK we have the NHS.
Lots of people moan about it.
It's not perfect.
But if you're ill, for the most part, people are thankful that it is there.In the US the poor 20\% of the population have nothing.The US is the home of free speech and a bastion of many personal freedoms, but it is also a place where survival of the fittest takes priority.
If you're doing well for youself, then great.
Not everyone is.Take a step back and start thinking about what other people need for a change.
Having a government mandated healthcare system to cater for the bottom fifth of society (which private healthcare would otherwise ignore) ain't so bad an idea.I don't give a shit what kind of ridiculous numbers they run on you over there.
Between this government's "education" system and their "justice" system, they've pretty much fucked up my life.
And now I should just sit down and shut up when they try to make me buy "health care" that I don't need or be fined and face jail time?
Go jerk off someone else.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31307346</id>
	<title>Re:Let me translate...</title>
	<author>daniel\_i\_l</author>
	<datestamp>1267383720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p> <i> <b>Copyright Protection</b> </i> - Hey, we're big fans of the major media players, and we think they deserve a little <i>somethin'-somethin</i> for their generosity in the last several campaigns. (You don't think this administrations election campaign really raised three-quarters of a trillion dollars from (essentially) untraceable $10-200 donations over the web, do you?</p></div></blockquote></div><p>So if he didn't get the money from web donations then he must have gotten it from the media companies?  That's a false dichotomy if I've ever seen one.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Copyright Protection - Hey , we 're big fans of the major media players , and we think they deserve a little somethin'-somethin for their generosity in the last several campaigns .
( You do n't think this administrations election campaign really raised three-quarters of a trillion dollars from ( essentially ) untraceable $ 10-200 donations over the web , do you ? So if he did n't get the money from web donations then he must have gotten it from the media companies ?
That 's a false dichotomy if I 've ever seen one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  Copyright Protection  - Hey, we're big fans of the major media players, and we think they deserve a little somethin'-somethin for their generosity in the last several campaigns.
(You don't think this administrations election campaign really raised three-quarters of a trillion dollars from (essentially) untraceable $10-200 donations over the web, do you?So if he didn't get the money from web donations then he must have gotten it from the media companies?
That's a false dichotomy if I've ever seen one.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305380</id>
	<title>So</title>
	<author>Vinegar Joe</author>
	<datestamp>1267370280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How's that hope and change working out?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How 's that hope and change working out ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How's that hope and change working out?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31313080</id>
	<title>About copyright protection</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267435020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did he mean to protect works from being pirated on the Net? That is, someone rips a DVD or records a movie in a theatre and sticks it on the Net.</p><p>Or, did he mean to prevent online media from being ripped? But, wait a second! What is the difference from using a VCR to record a TV show (see Betamax decision) on TV and from using software to record a show you're watching on Hulu? Provided it falls under fair use, and you're not seeding it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did he mean to protect works from being pirated on the Net ?
That is , someone rips a DVD or records a movie in a theatre and sticks it on the Net.Or , did he mean to prevent online media from being ripped ?
But , wait a second !
What is the difference from using a VCR to record a TV show ( see Betamax decision ) on TV and from using software to record a show you 're watching on Hulu ?
Provided it falls under fair use , and you 're not seeding it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did he mean to protect works from being pirated on the Net?
That is, someone rips a DVD or records a movie in a theatre and sticks it on the Net.Or, did he mean to prevent online media from being ripped?
But, wait a second!
What is the difference from using a VCR to record a TV show (see Betamax decision) on TV and from using software to record a show you're watching on Hulu?
Provided it falls under fair use, and you're not seeding it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305788</id>
	<title>Re:Let me translate...</title>
	<author>the eric conspiracy</author>
	<datestamp>1267373160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>three-quarters of a trillion dollars from (essentially) untraceable $10-200 donations</i></p><p>No I don't. In fact I think he only raised three-quarters of a BILLION dollars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>three-quarters of a trillion dollars from ( essentially ) untraceable $ 10-200 donationsNo I do n't .
In fact I think he only raised three-quarters of a BILLION dollars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>three-quarters of a trillion dollars from (essentially) untraceable $10-200 donationsNo I don't.
In fact I think he only raised three-quarters of a BILLION dollars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31340786</id>
	<title>Re:Geeks will blaze a new trail</title>
	<author>Jaazaniah</author>
	<datestamp>1267554360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hmm...This could be just the (mis)opportunity they were looking for. Wasn't there an article sometime back about what the guys who came up with TCP/IP wanted to really do with the net and new protocols, but couldn't because of entrenched culture? Maybe now is the time...and to really look at employing that quantum entanglement effect as a communication medium. Let's see them tap that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm...This could be just the ( mis ) opportunity they were looking for .
Was n't there an article sometime back about what the guys who came up with TCP/IP wanted to really do with the net and new protocols , but could n't because of entrenched culture ?
Maybe now is the time...and to really look at employing that quantum entanglement effect as a communication medium .
Let 's see them tap that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm...This could be just the (mis)opportunity they were looking for.
Wasn't there an article sometime back about what the guys who came up with TCP/IP wanted to really do with the net and new protocols, but couldn't because of entrenched culture?
Maybe now is the time...and to really look at employing that quantum entanglement effect as a communication medium.
Let's see them tap that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31309052</id>
	<title>Re:Stop banging on about healthcare</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267353600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The rest of us are paying the not-a-douchebag tax for your treatment in the form of higher costs.  So what's the harm in calling it what it is and having the govt run it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The rest of us are paying the not-a-douchebag tax for your treatment in the form of higher costs .
So what 's the harm in calling it what it is and having the govt run it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The rest of us are paying the not-a-douchebag tax for your treatment in the form of higher costs.
So what's the harm in calling it what it is and having the govt run it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31307218</id>
	<title>Re:Well, this seems subpar.</title>
	<author>xPhoenix</author>
	<datestamp>1267382820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Whenever I hear "the government ruins everything" I know that I'm hearing ideology, not reality.
The people saying such things take so many of the regulations, which make this country run smoothly, for granted.</p></div><p>Whenever I hear "the government makes this country run smoothly", I know that I'm hearing <i>ideology, not reality.</i>  The government is <i>by its very nature and definition</i> an institution of criminals that accomplishes everything it does by force and coercion.  In a democratic nation, just because 51\% of the population chooses something, it does not mean it is justified to FORCE the other 49\% into doing it.  Likewise, the 51\% majority likely will not even get what they vote for anyway, as is seen with the current and previous American administrations.  You may remember that GW Bush campaigned on a non-interventionist foreign policy.

</p><p>All of the agencies you have listed have nothing to do with the quality of food, worker safety, air travel, highway safety, and building codes - those things are all improved only by the actions of free individuals on the market.  While companies may be compelled by government "standards", the real driving force behind any increase of quality is due to competition.  Company A, no matter how large must, must maintain a certain level of quality if it does not want to risk losing market share to smaller, better companies in the same sector.  The belief that without government constraints, all production would be rubbish or food poisonous, etc. is ludicrous.  On the contrary, look at any country that has had increased controls and you will see less production at a lower quality, along with a worse standard of living.

</p><p>In a free market, no company can escape from competition.  Coercive monopolies are not possible without government policy.  Without the force of government, no company has the power to force anyone and can always be out maneuvered.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whenever I hear " the government ruins everything " I know that I 'm hearing ideology , not reality .
The people saying such things take so many of the regulations , which make this country run smoothly , for granted.Whenever I hear " the government makes this country run smoothly " , I know that I 'm hearing ideology , not reality .
The government is by its very nature and definition an institution of criminals that accomplishes everything it does by force and coercion .
In a democratic nation , just because 51 \ % of the population chooses something , it does not mean it is justified to FORCE the other 49 \ % into doing it .
Likewise , the 51 \ % majority likely will not even get what they vote for anyway , as is seen with the current and previous American administrations .
You may remember that GW Bush campaigned on a non-interventionist foreign policy .
All of the agencies you have listed have nothing to do with the quality of food , worker safety , air travel , highway safety , and building codes - those things are all improved only by the actions of free individuals on the market .
While companies may be compelled by government " standards " , the real driving force behind any increase of quality is due to competition .
Company A , no matter how large must , must maintain a certain level of quality if it does not want to risk losing market share to smaller , better companies in the same sector .
The belief that without government constraints , all production would be rubbish or food poisonous , etc .
is ludicrous .
On the contrary , look at any country that has had increased controls and you will see less production at a lower quality , along with a worse standard of living .
In a free market , no company can escape from competition .
Coercive monopolies are not possible without government policy .
Without the force of government , no company has the power to force anyone and can always be out maneuvered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whenever I hear "the government ruins everything" I know that I'm hearing ideology, not reality.
The people saying such things take so many of the regulations, which make this country run smoothly, for granted.Whenever I hear "the government makes this country run smoothly", I know that I'm hearing ideology, not reality.
The government is by its very nature and definition an institution of criminals that accomplishes everything it does by force and coercion.
In a democratic nation, just because 51\% of the population chooses something, it does not mean it is justified to FORCE the other 49\% into doing it.
Likewise, the 51\% majority likely will not even get what they vote for anyway, as is seen with the current and previous American administrations.
You may remember that GW Bush campaigned on a non-interventionist foreign policy.
All of the agencies you have listed have nothing to do with the quality of food, worker safety, air travel, highway safety, and building codes - those things are all improved only by the actions of free individuals on the market.
While companies may be compelled by government "standards", the real driving force behind any increase of quality is due to competition.
Company A, no matter how large must, must maintain a certain level of quality if it does not want to risk losing market share to smaller, better companies in the same sector.
The belief that without government constraints, all production would be rubbish or food poisonous, etc.
is ludicrous.
On the contrary, look at any country that has had increased controls and you will see less production at a lower quality, along with a worse standard of living.
In a free market, no company can escape from competition.
Coercive monopolies are not possible without government policy.
Without the force of government, no company has the power to force anyone and can always be out maneuvered.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31308512</id>
	<title>No Government!</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1267349280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>         I have long uttered the statement that no government can withstand the public being able to communicate freely. The pressure from foreign governments to censor or limit the net must be stunning. And I suspect that numerous corporations also want content controlled as well.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Individual resistance is fine but without organised resistance the net will suffer a huge and crippling blow as these types of measures come into play. During these harsh times the last thing our nation needs is angry groups protesting anything but we simply have to get together and put pressure to maintain freedom of speech or it will soon be lost to us entirely. Publishers in the US have for a couple of decades used lawyers to survey every publication before it is put in print to judge if there is any way that the content might generate a law suit. That would not occur in a free and open society.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have long uttered the statement that no government can withstand the public being able to communicate freely .
The pressure from foreign governments to censor or limit the net must be stunning .
And I suspect that numerous corporations also want content controlled as well .
                  Individual resistance is fine but without organised resistance the net will suffer a huge and crippling blow as these types of measures come into play .
During these harsh times the last thing our nation needs is angry groups protesting anything but we simply have to get together and put pressure to maintain freedom of speech or it will soon be lost to us entirely .
Publishers in the US have for a couple of decades used lawyers to survey every publication before it is put in print to judge if there is any way that the content might generate a law suit .
That would not occur in a free and open society .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>         I have long uttered the statement that no government can withstand the public being able to communicate freely.
The pressure from foreign governments to censor or limit the net must be stunning.
And I suspect that numerous corporations also want content controlled as well.
                  Individual resistance is fine but without organised resistance the net will suffer a huge and crippling blow as these types of measures come into play.
During these harsh times the last thing our nation needs is angry groups protesting anything but we simply have to get together and put pressure to maintain freedom of speech or it will soon be lost to us entirely.
Publishers in the US have for a couple of decades used lawyers to survey every publication before it is put in print to judge if there is any way that the content might generate a law suit.
That would not occur in a free and open society.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305112</id>
	<title>Just like the old boss ...</title>
	<author>warren.oates</author>
	<datestamp>1267368000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The working class can kiss my ass;
I've got the foreman's job at last.

-- Ballacks O'Bama.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The working class can kiss my ass ; I 've got the foreman 's job at last .
-- Ballacks O'Bama .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The working class can kiss my ass;
I've got the foreman's job at last.
-- Ballacks O'Bama.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31309822</id>
	<title>Re:Wikiacracy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267359540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even our current flawed system is better than a de-centralized system run by humorless autistic fat neckbeards deep in their parents' basements.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even our current flawed system is better than a de-centralized system run by humorless autistic fat neckbeards deep in their parents ' basements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even our current flawed system is better than a de-centralized system run by humorless autistic fat neckbeards deep in their parents' basements.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305190</id>
	<title>It's the war on file sharers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267368660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me be the first to welcome our acta-wielding *AA -sponsored overlords.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me be the first to welcome our acta-wielding * AA -sponsored overlords .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me be the first to welcome our acta-wielding *AA -sponsored overlords.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31311814</id>
	<title>Re:Internet to Powerful, for governments</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267376880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are guilty of naivety. How could you possibly think that the internet would remain untouched by the same laws and standards that apply to every other medium. What made you think the internet was different?</p><p>There is a worlwide trend to police the internet. You are not going to stop it by stamping your feet and insisting the net is a special case; that anarchy is sustainable. The best you can do is get on board and at least try to ensure that the coming regulations are sensible ones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are guilty of naivety .
How could you possibly think that the internet would remain untouched by the same laws and standards that apply to every other medium .
What made you think the internet was different ? There is a worlwide trend to police the internet .
You are not going to stop it by stamping your feet and insisting the net is a special case ; that anarchy is sustainable .
The best you can do is get on board and at least try to ensure that the coming regulations are sensible ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are guilty of naivety.
How could you possibly think that the internet would remain untouched by the same laws and standards that apply to every other medium.
What made you think the internet was different?There is a worlwide trend to police the internet.
You are not going to stop it by stamping your feet and insisting the net is a special case; that anarchy is sustainable.
The best you can do is get on board and at least try to ensure that the coming regulations are sensible ones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305238</id>
	<title>Re:Internet to Powerful, for governments</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267369020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Knowing words fail... "populace" is what you want there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Knowing words fail... " populace " is what you want there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Knowing words fail... "populace" is what you want there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305828</id>
	<title>Re:Geeks will blaze a new trail</title>
	<author>the eric conspiracy</author>
	<datestamp>1267373520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>According to Assistant Secretary Larry Strickling, Obama's top official at the Department of Commerce, the US government's policy of leaving the Internet alone is over.</i></p><p>What makes you think it actually happened in the past. Hell the US Government funded that initial development of the internet and has been running it ever since.</p><p>The basic premise of this whole thing is completely wrong. The US has NEVER EVER left the internet alone.</p><p>If they had it would be a lot better than it is now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to Assistant Secretary Larry Strickling , Obama 's top official at the Department of Commerce , the US government 's policy of leaving the Internet alone is over.What makes you think it actually happened in the past .
Hell the US Government funded that initial development of the internet and has been running it ever since.The basic premise of this whole thing is completely wrong .
The US has NEVER EVER left the internet alone.If they had it would be a lot better than it is now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to Assistant Secretary Larry Strickling, Obama's top official at the Department of Commerce, the US government's policy of leaving the Internet alone is over.What makes you think it actually happened in the past.
Hell the US Government funded that initial development of the internet and has been running it ever since.The basic premise of this whole thing is completely wrong.
The US has NEVER EVER left the internet alone.If they had it would be a lot better than it is now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306680</id>
	<title>Re:Internet to Powerful, for governments</title>
	<author>gad\_zuki!</author>
	<datestamp>1267379280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Err, how are we "leaving the internet alone" now? DMCA, ISP regulations, wiretap laws, computer crime laws, pedophile laws, copyright laws, etc etc etc.  The only proof of a "big change" is an NTIA advisory article? What legislation has passed? Looks to me like the regulations are already here in the form of the laws I mentioned earlier and this is a just typical Register-style trolling to get ad impressions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Err , how are we " leaving the internet alone " now ?
DMCA , ISP regulations , wiretap laws , computer crime laws , pedophile laws , copyright laws , etc etc etc .
The only proof of a " big change " is an NTIA advisory article ?
What legislation has passed ?
Looks to me like the regulations are already here in the form of the laws I mentioned earlier and this is a just typical Register-style trolling to get ad impressions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Err, how are we "leaving the internet alone" now?
DMCA, ISP regulations, wiretap laws, computer crime laws, pedophile laws, copyright laws, etc etc etc.
The only proof of a "big change" is an NTIA advisory article?
What legislation has passed?
Looks to me like the regulations are already here in the form of the laws I mentioned earlier and this is a just typical Register-style trolling to get ad impressions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306478</id>
	<title>Re:Well, this seems subpar.</title>
	<author>Daengbo</author>
	<datestamp>1267377960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Great Depression would have killed the trade unions if not for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National\_Labor\_Relations\_Act" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">The National Labor Relations Act</a> [wikipedia.org]. I'm pretty anti-government involvement, too, but I think you chose the wrong example there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Great Depression would have killed the trade unions if not for The National Labor Relations Act [ wikipedia.org ] .
I 'm pretty anti-government involvement , too , but I think you chose the wrong example there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Great Depression would have killed the trade unions if not for The National Labor Relations Act [wikipedia.org].
I'm pretty anti-government involvement, too, but I think you chose the wrong example there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31308692</id>
	<title>Re:Hopenchange!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267350660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obama has supported the Patriot Act for several years now. If you haven't ignored this publicly touted fact, then why do you feign surprise over it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama has supported the Patriot Act for several years now .
If you have n't ignored this publicly touted fact , then why do you feign surprise over it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama has supported the Patriot Act for several years now.
If you haven't ignored this publicly touted fact, then why do you feign surprise over it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305062</id>
	<title>Well, government "oversight"...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267367460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...is frequently mentioned here in approving tones.  You wouldn't want people to go on doing things without permission, would you?  The State knows what's best.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...is frequently mentioned here in approving tones .
You would n't want people to go on doing things without permission , would you ?
The State knows what 's best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...is frequently mentioned here in approving tones.
You wouldn't want people to go on doing things without permission, would you?
The State knows what's best.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305008</id>
	<title>it's about time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267366980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Al Gore invented it, remember?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Al Gore invented it , remember ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Al Gore invented it, remember?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305326</id>
	<title>Re:Internet to Powerful, for governments</title>
	<author>jiteo</author>
	<datestamp>1267369800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Populus is crowd-sourced calculus!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Populus is crowd-sourced calculus !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Populus is crowd-sourced calculus!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31309194</id>
	<title>Re:Hopenchange!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267354740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used to love listening to Bidens smart remarks and humor on foreign policy over the years on C-SPAN.  I always concidered him a "giant" of sorts. Then when he and Obama got into office I was crushed when I found out about all of his heavy handed copyright positions he subscribes to which unecessarily hurt basic freedoms.. it really hurt I was sad.</p><p>Neither party cares about rights and freedoms, they only care about corporate interests and the unfettered expense of basic rights.  Just because something is not thought to be "unconstitutional" does not mean it should be done.  There are no shortage of avenues available to the US to become a total police state while still adhereing to the constitution.</p><p>The only difference at electon time for me was a more or less sane foreign policy being spouted by Obama... They both would have made the same stupid decisions except with Obama WWIII seemed like a less likely outcome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to love listening to Bidens smart remarks and humor on foreign policy over the years on C-SPAN .
I always concidered him a " giant " of sorts .
Then when he and Obama got into office I was crushed when I found out about all of his heavy handed copyright positions he subscribes to which unecessarily hurt basic freedoms.. it really hurt I was sad.Neither party cares about rights and freedoms , they only care about corporate interests and the unfettered expense of basic rights .
Just because something is not thought to be " unconstitutional " does not mean it should be done .
There are no shortage of avenues available to the US to become a total police state while still adhereing to the constitution.The only difference at electon time for me was a more or less sane foreign policy being spouted by Obama... They both would have made the same stupid decisions except with Obama WWIII seemed like a less likely outcome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to love listening to Bidens smart remarks and humor on foreign policy over the years on C-SPAN.
I always concidered him a "giant" of sorts.
Then when he and Obama got into office I was crushed when I found out about all of his heavy handed copyright positions he subscribes to which unecessarily hurt basic freedoms.. it really hurt I was sad.Neither party cares about rights and freedoms, they only care about corporate interests and the unfettered expense of basic rights.
Just because something is not thought to be "unconstitutional" does not mean it should be done.
There are no shortage of avenues available to the US to become a total police state while still adhereing to the constitution.The only difference at electon time for me was a more or less sane foreign policy being spouted by Obama... They both would have made the same stupid decisions except with Obama WWIII seemed like a less likely outcome.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306816</id>
	<title>Re:Stop banging on about healthcare</title>
	<author>circuitworx</author>
	<datestamp>1267380120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We do have a government health care program for the bottom fifth of society. Its called Medicaid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We do have a government health care program for the bottom fifth of society .
Its called Medicaid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We do have a government health care program for the bottom fifth of society.
Its called Medicaid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305474</id>
	<title>Re:Well, government "oversight"...</title>
	<author>AlamedaStone</author>
	<datestamp>1267371060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>...is frequently mentioned here in approving tones.  You wouldn't want people to go on doing things without permission, would you?  The State knows what's best.</p></div><p>Wow. Yeah. You know, not having lead in my food and not having my 10 year old nephew working in a factory - man, those over-regulating bastards. It is exactly the same thing as abridging access and privacy on the internet.</p><p>Exactly the same.</p><p>Awesome show. Great job.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...is frequently mentioned here in approving tones .
You would n't want people to go on doing things without permission , would you ?
The State knows what 's best.Wow .
Yeah. You know , not having lead in my food and not having my 10 year old nephew working in a factory - man , those over-regulating bastards .
It is exactly the same thing as abridging access and privacy on the internet.Exactly the same.Awesome show .
Great job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...is frequently mentioned here in approving tones.
You wouldn't want people to go on doing things without permission, would you?
The State knows what's best.Wow.
Yeah. You know, not having lead in my food and not having my 10 year old nephew working in a factory - man, those over-regulating bastards.
It is exactly the same thing as abridging access and privacy on the internet.Exactly the same.Awesome show.
Great job.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31309264</id>
	<title>Re:Well, this seems subpar.</title>
	<author>bsDaemon</author>
	<datestamp>1267355160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Industry only self-regulates when the option is government regulation.  For instance, the Gore hearings on the record industry where they cut a deal that they'd put the little stickers on them "voluntarily" just to keep the government from doing it.  Of course, in that situation there were no known 'good guys'</htmltext>
<tokenext>Industry only self-regulates when the option is government regulation .
For instance , the Gore hearings on the record industry where they cut a deal that they 'd put the little stickers on them " voluntarily " just to keep the government from doing it .
Of course , in that situation there were no known 'good guys'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Industry only self-regulates when the option is government regulation.
For instance, the Gore hearings on the record industry where they cut a deal that they'd put the little stickers on them "voluntarily" just to keep the government from doing it.
Of course, in that situation there were no known 'good guys'</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31307356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305924</id>
	<title>Re:Well, this seems subpar.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267374180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a big difference between regulating an industry and taking over an industry. Take the health care debate, for example. It would cost exactly $0 to pass laws that says "Insurance companies cannot deny you for a preexisting condition". But that doesn't give the government control over the industry, instead they want to spend $800 billion to be an insurance company.</p><p>Regulation is fine. Involvement is not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a big difference between regulating an industry and taking over an industry .
Take the health care debate , for example .
It would cost exactly $ 0 to pass laws that says " Insurance companies can not deny you for a preexisting condition " .
But that does n't give the government control over the industry , instead they want to spend $ 800 billion to be an insurance company.Regulation is fine .
Involvement is not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a big difference between regulating an industry and taking over an industry.
Take the health care debate, for example.
It would cost exactly $0 to pass laws that says "Insurance companies cannot deny you for a preexisting condition".
But that doesn't give the government control over the industry, instead they want to spend $800 billion to be an insurance company.Regulation is fine.
Involvement is not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31307012</id>
	<title>Just don't be infringing on the freedom of speech</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267381500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"with those discussions covering issues such as privacy, child protection, cybersecurity, copyright protection, and Internet governance."</p><p>and freedom of speech. Mother Fucker.</p><p>Oh, wait.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" with those discussions covering issues such as privacy , child protection , cybersecurity , copyright protection , and Internet governance .
" and freedom of speech .
Mother Fucker.Oh , wait .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"with those discussions covering issues such as privacy, child protection, cybersecurity, copyright protection, and Internet governance.
"and freedom of speech.
Mother Fucker.Oh, wait.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31307356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31325816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31308356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31311550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31308824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31309194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31310594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31307740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31309822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31309318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31308692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31308186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31312126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31312830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31307218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31311368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31307396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31310234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31307592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31340786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31308596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31313080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31311814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31309400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31309052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31309564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31307346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31308990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31307188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31308250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31308284
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31320832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31311296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31325806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31309002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31310156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31325676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31307326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31313100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31307342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31312488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31307406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31307710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31307720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31308486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31309600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31307356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31309264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31311478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31317210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31307978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2134204_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31312036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_2134204.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305144
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_2134204.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306064
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_2134204.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31307188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31307710
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_2134204.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306216
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_2134204.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306432
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_2134204.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31307978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305052
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305626
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305094
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31311814
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305434
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306494
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306072
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305554
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305558
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305326
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_2134204.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31309822
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_2134204.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305474
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306578
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306716
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31310156
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_2134204.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305272
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_2134204.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31307098
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_2134204.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305324
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_2134204.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306374
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_2134204.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306204
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_2134204.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31313100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31340786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31310234
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_2134204.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305368
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31312488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31311368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31309600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31307342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305432
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306062
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31312036
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305924
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31308186
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31312126
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306332
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31311478
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31325676
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305726
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31307356
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31325816
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31309264
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31307218
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31312830
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306452
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306068
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306478
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31307406
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306268
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306782
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306738
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31325806
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31307396
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_2134204.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305028
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_2134204.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31304994
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_2134204.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31309400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31307346
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_2134204.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305248
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_2134204.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305300
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31311296
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306192
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306816
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306258
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31309052
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31308990
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31320832
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31307592
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31309318
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31308486
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31307740
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31308356
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31309002
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31308596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31308824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305294
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31307326
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306686
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305228
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31309194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31308692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31310594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305768
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31308284
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_2134204.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31308250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31307720
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_2134204.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31305162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31306342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31317210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31309564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31313080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2134204.31311550
</commentlist>
</conversation>
