<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_12_2159211</id>
	<title>Texas Approves Conservative Curriculum</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1268392620000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Macharius writes <i>"Today, the Texas Board of Education approved 11-4 a social studies curriculum that will <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html?scp=1&amp;sq=Texas\%20Approves\%20Curriculum\%20Revised\%20by\%20Conservatives&amp;st=cse">put a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks</a>, stressing the role of Christianity in American history and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light. The article goes on to mention that Texas's textbook approvals carry less influence than they used to due to digital localization technology, but is that even measurable given how many millions of these textbooks will still be used across the country?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Macharius writes " Today , the Texas Board of Education approved 11-4 a social studies curriculum that will put a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks , stressing the role of Christianity in American history and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light .
The article goes on to mention that Texas 's textbook approvals carry less influence than they used to due to digital localization technology , but is that even measurable given how many millions of these textbooks will still be used across the country ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Macharius writes "Today, the Texas Board of Education approved 11-4 a social studies curriculum that will put a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks, stressing the role of Christianity in American history and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light.
The article goes on to mention that Texas's textbook approvals carry less influence than they used to due to digital localization technology, but is that even measurable given how many millions of these textbooks will still be used across the country?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458944</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>jeff4747</author>
	<datestamp>1268398680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'm not sure how "conservatives" ever became associated with Christian values.</p></div></blockquote><p>Marketing.</p><p>Conservatives are aware that many of their policies are not supported by sufficient voters to win elections.  So they needed another angle to fool people* into voting for them so that they could enact their policies.  So Reagan brought the fundamentalist Christians into the Republican tent.  It got him elected and Republicans/Conservatives have been relying on that ever since.</p><p>* By 'fool people', I mean Reagan and similar Republicans would tell the fundamentalists what they want to hear, but never quite get around to enacting most of the fundamentalists's agenda.  However, in recent years the fundamentalists have managed to seize enough of the Republican party to start getting their agenda implemented, much to the detriment of the Republican party.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure how " conservatives " ever became associated with Christian values.Marketing.Conservatives are aware that many of their policies are not supported by sufficient voters to win elections .
So they needed another angle to fool people * into voting for them so that they could enact their policies .
So Reagan brought the fundamentalist Christians into the Republican tent .
It got him elected and Republicans/Conservatives have been relying on that ever since .
* By 'fool people ' , I mean Reagan and similar Republicans would tell the fundamentalists what they want to hear , but never quite get around to enacting most of the fundamentalists 's agenda .
However , in recent years the fundamentalists have managed to seize enough of the Republican party to start getting their agenda implemented , much to the detriment of the Republican party .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure how "conservatives" ever became associated with Christian values.Marketing.Conservatives are aware that many of their policies are not supported by sufficient voters to win elections.
So they needed another angle to fool people* into voting for them so that they could enact their policies.
So Reagan brought the fundamentalist Christians into the Republican tent.
It got him elected and Republicans/Conservatives have been relying on that ever since.
* By 'fool people', I mean Reagan and similar Republicans would tell the fundamentalists what they want to hear, but never quite get around to enacting most of the fundamentalists's agenda.
However, in recent years the fundamentalists have managed to seize enough of the Republican party to start getting their agenda implemented, much to the detriment of the Republican party.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461992</id>
	<title>Re:"I reject notion of separation of church and st</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268421060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The constitution does not ban establishing religions.  It prohibits the government from making laws that dictate terms to religions.  The government is unable to define what the principles of a religion are, to ban a religion or to assign an official state religion.  This does not mean that the country was not founded with christian values in mind, or that laws based on religious ideals are unconstitutional.  It only means that the government cannot involve itself in ones worship in any way.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...</p></div><p>It only prevents the government from making a law that deals with religion.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The constitution does not ban establishing religions .
It prohibits the government from making laws that dictate terms to religions .
The government is unable to define what the principles of a religion are , to ban a religion or to assign an official state religion .
This does not mean that the country was not founded with christian values in mind , or that laws based on religious ideals are unconstitutional .
It only means that the government can not involve itself in ones worship in any way.Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion , or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...It only prevents the government from making a law that deals with religion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The constitution does not ban establishing religions.
It prohibits the government from making laws that dictate terms to religions.
The government is unable to define what the principles of a religion are, to ban a religion or to assign an official state religion.
This does not mean that the country was not founded with christian values in mind, or that laws based on religious ideals are unconstitutional.
It only means that the government cannot involve itself in ones worship in any way.Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...It only prevents the government from making a law that deals with religion.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458688</id>
	<title>Re:"I reject notion of separation of church and st</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268397660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You might be thinking of telling him "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." and collecting on that bet.  But like all Republicans who say it's not in the constitution, he'll say "I said 'Separation of church and state' and your quote doesn't mention that at all."  They argue that just because they can't pass a law involving any religious institution in any way, doesn't imply they have to be separate.  They can mandate all sorts of things religion-related, it just says they can't pass a law!</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You might be thinking of telling him " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion , or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ; or abridging the freedom of speech , or of the press ; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble , and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances .
" and collecting on that bet .
But like all Republicans who say it 's not in the constitution , he 'll say " I said 'Separation of church and state ' and your quote does n't mention that at all .
" They argue that just because they ca n't pass a law involving any religious institution in any way , does n't imply they have to be separate .
They can mandate all sorts of things religion-related , it just says they ca n't pass a law !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You might be thinking of telling him "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
" and collecting on that bet.
But like all Republicans who say it's not in the constitution, he'll say "I said 'Separation of church and state' and your quote doesn't mention that at all.
"  They argue that just because they can't pass a law involving any religious institution in any way, doesn't imply they have to be separate.
They can mandate all sorts of things religion-related, it just says they can't pass a law!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459110</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone explain please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268399460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am not American, but will comment on a few things.<br> <br>

<i>One says publishers should &ldquo;describe the effects of increasing government regulation and taxation on economic development and business planning.&rdquo;</i> <br> <br>

I fail to see anything wrong with that. <br> <br>

<i>References to Ralph Nader and Ross Perot are proposed to be removed, </i> <br> <br>

Both of these characters (while more recent) have actually had very little political impact (less so than Stonewall Jackson). Ralf Nader is a minor political player and Ross Perot a failed presidential candidate (there are plenty of those around, e.g. Kerry, Al Gore, Dan Quale, etc...)<br> <br>

<i>while Stonewall Jackson, the Confederate general, is to be listed as a role model for effective leadership, </i> <br> <br>

Stonewall Jackson was a very famous (and effective) general in the Civil War. Whether you dislike him or not, the fact remains that he was an honourable man and a great leader. The same could be said for Robert E. Lee.<br> <br>

<i>&ldquo;Country and western music&rdquo; has been added to the list of cultural movements to be studied.</i> <br> <br>

Country music is much better than the modern clap-trap that people listen to (e.g. Hip-hop, rap, etc). It also had a significant social impact. I fail to see a problem here (although it would be nice if they also learn classical music).

<i>inaugural address are to be laid side by side with Abraham Lincoln&rsquo;s speeches.</i> <br> <br>

What amazes me about Americans is that they like leaders who start wars. Every leader is expected to start at least one good war. Quite a few wars have been popular in the USA and led to increased popularity of the president (e.g. Gulf War, Kosovo War, Clinton&rsquo;s bombing campaigns). The only reason GWB was unpopular was because he didn&rsquo;t win his wars.<br> <br>

I doubt that Lincoln would be remembered if he used his skills to avoid a disastrous civil war? Probably not. Thanks to that disastrous war he is a national hero. <br> <br>

<i>&ldquo;To deny the Judeo-Christian values of our founding fathers is just a lie to our kids,&rdquo; said Ken Mercer, a San Antonio Republican.
</i> <br> <br>

There is little doubt that Christianity had a large influence on the American politics. The founding fathers wanted a country where there is freedom of religion &ndash; not freedom from religion (as the far left portrays it).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not American , but will comment on a few things .
One says publishers should    describe the effects of increasing government regulation and taxation on economic development and business planning.    I fail to see anything wrong with that .
References to Ralph Nader and Ross Perot are proposed to be removed , Both of these characters ( while more recent ) have actually had very little political impact ( less so than Stonewall Jackson ) .
Ralf Nader is a minor political player and Ross Perot a failed presidential candidate ( there are plenty of those around , e.g .
Kerry , Al Gore , Dan Quale , etc... ) while Stonewall Jackson , the Confederate general , is to be listed as a role model for effective leadership , Stonewall Jackson was a very famous ( and effective ) general in the Civil War .
Whether you dislike him or not , the fact remains that he was an honourable man and a great leader .
The same could be said for Robert E. Lee .    Country and western music    has been added to the list of cultural movements to be studied .
Country music is much better than the modern clap-trap that people listen to ( e.g .
Hip-hop , rap , etc ) .
It also had a significant social impact .
I fail to see a problem here ( although it would be nice if they also learn classical music ) .
inaugural address are to be laid side by side with Abraham Lincoln    s speeches .
What amazes me about Americans is that they like leaders who start wars .
Every leader is expected to start at least one good war .
Quite a few wars have been popular in the USA and led to increased popularity of the president ( e.g .
Gulf War , Kosovo War , Clinton    s bombing campaigns ) .
The only reason GWB was unpopular was because he didn    t win his wars .
I doubt that Lincoln would be remembered if he used his skills to avoid a disastrous civil war ?
Probably not .
Thanks to that disastrous war he is a national hero .
   To deny the Judeo-Christian values of our founding fathers is just a lie to our kids ,    said Ken Mercer , a San Antonio Republican .
There is little doubt that Christianity had a large influence on the American politics .
The founding fathers wanted a country where there is freedom of religion    not freedom from religion ( as the far left portrays it ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not American, but will comment on a few things.
One says publishers should “describe the effects of increasing government regulation and taxation on economic development and business planning.”  

I fail to see anything wrong with that.
References to Ralph Nader and Ross Perot are proposed to be removed,   

Both of these characters (while more recent) have actually had very little political impact (less so than Stonewall Jackson).
Ralf Nader is a minor political player and Ross Perot a failed presidential candidate (there are plenty of those around, e.g.
Kerry, Al Gore, Dan Quale, etc...) 

while Stonewall Jackson, the Confederate general, is to be listed as a role model for effective leadership,   

Stonewall Jackson was a very famous (and effective) general in the Civil War.
Whether you dislike him or not, the fact remains that he was an honourable man and a great leader.
The same could be said for Robert E. Lee. 

“Country and western music” has been added to the list of cultural movements to be studied.
Country music is much better than the modern clap-trap that people listen to (e.g.
Hip-hop, rap, etc).
It also had a significant social impact.
I fail to see a problem here (although it would be nice if they also learn classical music).
inaugural address are to be laid side by side with Abraham Lincoln’s speeches.
What amazes me about Americans is that they like leaders who start wars.
Every leader is expected to start at least one good war.
Quite a few wars have been popular in the USA and led to increased popularity of the president (e.g.
Gulf War, Kosovo War, Clinton’s bombing campaigns).
The only reason GWB was unpopular was because he didn’t win his wars.
I doubt that Lincoln would be remembered if he used his skills to avoid a disastrous civil war?
Probably not.
Thanks to that disastrous war he is a national hero.
“To deny the Judeo-Christian values of our founding fathers is just a lie to our kids,” said Ken Mercer, a San Antonio Republican.
There is little doubt that Christianity had a large influence on the American politics.
The founding fathers wanted a country where there is freedom of religion – not freedom from religion (as the far left portrays it).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31522246</id>
	<title>Re:Regarding economics...</title>
	<author>Uberbah</author>
	<datestamp>1268924400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>First of all, good going on Milton Friedman who was important in ending the draft in the US, co-author of one of the best economic histories of the Great Depression, and has been very influential around the world.</p></div> </blockquote><p>And the implementation of his theories have helped cripple the middle class and blow up the world economy.</p><blockquote><div><p>Also good for adding F.A. Hayek, the most influential members of the Make Shit Up School of economics.</p></div></blockquote><p>Fixed that for you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all , good going on Milton Friedman who was important in ending the draft in the US , co-author of one of the best economic histories of the Great Depression , and has been very influential around the world .
And the implementation of his theories have helped cripple the middle class and blow up the world economy.Also good for adding F.A .
Hayek , the most influential members of the Make Shit Up School of economics.Fixed that for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all, good going on Milton Friedman who was important in ending the draft in the US, co-author of one of the best economic histories of the Great Depression, and has been very influential around the world.
And the implementation of his theories have helped cripple the middle class and blow up the world economy.Also good for adding F.A.
Hayek, the most influential members of the Make Shit Up School of economics.Fixed that for you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458490</id>
	<title>Oh Noes!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268396820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We can't have any respect for the non-liberal historical perspective in education! That would be terrible.
<br> <br>
Think of the kids wearing Che Guevara t-shirts who think he was a guy with a cool hat who rode a motorcycle in the name of Social Justice. It might upset them if their revisionist history lessons were revised, and that might make them sad.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We ca n't have any respect for the non-liberal historical perspective in education !
That would be terrible .
Think of the kids wearing Che Guevara t-shirts who think he was a guy with a cool hat who rode a motorcycle in the name of Social Justice .
It might upset them if their revisionist history lessons were revised , and that might make them sad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We can't have any respect for the non-liberal historical perspective in education!
That would be terrible.
Think of the kids wearing Che Guevara t-shirts who think he was a guy with a cool hat who rode a motorcycle in the name of Social Justice.
It might upset them if their revisionist history lessons were revised, and that might make them sad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459600</id>
	<title>I went to highschool in Texas</title>
	<author>Billly Gates</author>
	<datestamp>1268401500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Very very conservative. Had two teachers who were democrats who taught political science and debate the rest were republican. My english and history teachers worked for Nixon, and a few republican legislatures before becoming teachers. One even mentioned during a creative writing assignment that we should write something we are passionate about like Bob Dole.</p><p>My dad was shocked as I turned super conservative thanks to my view of teachers including one who was saying how Reagan saved America. The curriculum was at least supposed to be neutral even though the teachers mentioned their own conservative philosophy they at least taught the other side<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... a little.</p><p>I do not mind conservative curriculum if liberal is taught beside it so people can think for themselves. I do not get how these extremist feel threatened with anyone who does not think like them. I at least understand how other people and maybe thats what makes me different. Some people think ignorance is a bliss.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Very very conservative .
Had two teachers who were democrats who taught political science and debate the rest were republican .
My english and history teachers worked for Nixon , and a few republican legislatures before becoming teachers .
One even mentioned during a creative writing assignment that we should write something we are passionate about like Bob Dole.My dad was shocked as I turned super conservative thanks to my view of teachers including one who was saying how Reagan saved America .
The curriculum was at least supposed to be neutral even though the teachers mentioned their own conservative philosophy they at least taught the other side ... a little.I do not mind conservative curriculum if liberal is taught beside it so people can think for themselves .
I do not get how these extremist feel threatened with anyone who does not think like them .
I at least understand how other people and maybe thats what makes me different .
Some people think ignorance is a bliss .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very very conservative.
Had two teachers who were democrats who taught political science and debate the rest were republican.
My english and history teachers worked for Nixon, and a few republican legislatures before becoming teachers.
One even mentioned during a creative writing assignment that we should write something we are passionate about like Bob Dole.My dad was shocked as I turned super conservative thanks to my view of teachers including one who was saying how Reagan saved America.
The curriculum was at least supposed to be neutral even though the teachers mentioned their own conservative philosophy they at least taught the other side ... a little.I do not mind conservative curriculum if liberal is taught beside it so people can think for themselves.
I do not get how these extremist feel threatened with anyone who does not think like them.
I at least understand how other people and maybe thats what makes me different.
Some people think ignorance is a bliss.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459680</id>
	<title>Which is, of course,...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268401980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>why CA has such a wide array of "liberal" state laws (emissions, marijuana, firearm regulations, etc.)<br> <br>Please.</htmltext>
<tokenext>why CA has such a wide array of " liberal " state laws ( emissions , marijuana , firearm regulations , etc .
) Please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why CA has such a wide array of "liberal" state laws (emissions, marijuana, firearm regulations, etc.
) Please.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31523124</id>
	<title>Re:It was the answer to an important question.</title>
	<author>Uberbah</author>
	<datestamp>1268928540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>As if it wasn't already strange enough. I'm thinking there's a chance He'd berate the Left for striving to give *someone else's* money to the poor, rather than their own (ever hear the story of the Widow's mite?), and doing a bad job at that (for every dollar spent on social programs, the recipient only receives a quarter's worth of aid). </i></p><p>About as good a chance as you winning the Powerball, or as they say in the eTrade ad, being mauled by a grizzly bear and a polar bear in the same day.  Doonsbery had a nice strip a few weeks ago pointing out the one time Jesus ever got pissed off about anything: with the moneychangers.</p><p>So it's funny that you don't see Operation Rescue trying to shut down CitiGroup with massive protests, or assassinating payday loan providers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As if it was n't already strange enough .
I 'm thinking there 's a chance He 'd berate the Left for striving to give * someone else 's * money to the poor , rather than their own ( ever hear the story of the Widow 's mite ?
) , and doing a bad job at that ( for every dollar spent on social programs , the recipient only receives a quarter 's worth of aid ) .
About as good a chance as you winning the Powerball , or as they say in the eTrade ad , being mauled by a grizzly bear and a polar bear in the same day .
Doonsbery had a nice strip a few weeks ago pointing out the one time Jesus ever got pissed off about anything : with the moneychangers.So it 's funny that you do n't see Operation Rescue trying to shut down CitiGroup with massive protests , or assassinating payday loan providers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As if it wasn't already strange enough.
I'm thinking there's a chance He'd berate the Left for striving to give *someone else's* money to the poor, rather than their own (ever hear the story of the Widow's mite?
), and doing a bad job at that (for every dollar spent on social programs, the recipient only receives a quarter's worth of aid).
About as good a chance as you winning the Powerball, or as they say in the eTrade ad, being mauled by a grizzly bear and a polar bear in the same day.
Doonsbery had a nice strip a few weeks ago pointing out the one time Jesus ever got pissed off about anything: with the moneychangers.So it's funny that you don't see Operation Rescue trying to shut down CitiGroup with massive protests, or assassinating payday loan providers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31466414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460546</id>
	<title>Re:Give primary sources</title>
	<author>spiffmastercow</author>
	<datestamp>1268407740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The point is, when we give editors power over the source, we end up with bias one way or the other. Rather than having people -tell- us about things, why not read them ourselves?</p></div><p>Imagine you're 5 years old, and you ask a professor and a redneck what causes rain.  The professor spends hours telling you about weather patterns, condensation, etc., while the redneck tells you the rain is caused by God taking a piss.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The point is , when we give editors power over the source , we end up with bias one way or the other .
Rather than having people -tell- us about things , why not read them ourselves ? Imagine you 're 5 years old , and you ask a professor and a redneck what causes rain .
The professor spends hours telling you about weather patterns , condensation , etc. , while the redneck tells you the rain is caused by God taking a piss .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point is, when we give editors power over the source, we end up with bias one way or the other.
Rather than having people -tell- us about things, why not read them ourselves?Imagine you're 5 years old, and you ask a professor and a redneck what causes rain.
The professor spends hours telling you about weather patterns, condensation, etc., while the redneck tells you the rain is caused by God taking a piss.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31464438</id>
	<title>Re:Why Texas?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268500980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because you can find some pot smoking liberals in San Berdoo doesn't mean the place, on average, isn't one step left of Sheriff Joe Arpaio.  And besides, liberals aren't the only ones who toke.</p><p>Here's a more telling demographic indicator: The only NASCAR event on the West Coast is in SB.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because you can find some pot smoking liberals in San Berdoo does n't mean the place , on average , is n't one step left of Sheriff Joe Arpaio .
And besides , liberals are n't the only ones who toke.Here 's a more telling demographic indicator : The only NASCAR event on the West Coast is in SB .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because you can find some pot smoking liberals in San Berdoo doesn't mean the place, on average, isn't one step left of Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
And besides, liberals aren't the only ones who toke.Here's a more telling demographic indicator: The only NASCAR event on the West Coast is in SB.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458512</id>
	<title>Inappropriate Textbooks</title>
	<author>ChaosCon</author>
	<datestamp>1268396940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Reminds me of the old (ooooooooooooooooolllllllllllddddddd) textbook my calculus teacher has that managed to sneak through Texas book approval. It had four graphs printed right next to each other, the first of which was a step function, the second a parabola, the third was 2 sqrt functions forming a right-facing parabola, and the last was a right facing absolute function. This was the first time the graphs had been printed in color, too, so the *ahem* naughty word really popped.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Reminds me of the old ( ooooooooooooooooolllllllllllddddddd ) textbook my calculus teacher has that managed to sneak through Texas book approval .
It had four graphs printed right next to each other , the first of which was a step function , the second a parabola , the third was 2 sqrt functions forming a right-facing parabola , and the last was a right facing absolute function .
This was the first time the graphs had been printed in color , too , so the * ahem * naughty word really popped .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reminds me of the old (ooooooooooooooooolllllllllllddddddd) textbook my calculus teacher has that managed to sneak through Texas book approval.
It had four graphs printed right next to each other, the first of which was a step function, the second a parabola, the third was 2 sqrt functions forming a right-facing parabola, and the last was a right facing absolute function.
This was the first time the graphs had been printed in color, too, so the *ahem* naughty word really popped.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458420</id>
	<title>Can someone explain please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268396580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know much about this issue.  Can someone who does tell me what the conservatives wanted in the books, what the liberals wanted in the books, and what actually happened?  All I saw on the news was someone use the race card against the conservatives, which doesn't speak well of either side to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know much about this issue .
Can someone who does tell me what the conservatives wanted in the books , what the liberals wanted in the books , and what actually happened ?
All I saw on the news was someone use the race card against the conservatives , which does n't speak well of either side to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know much about this issue.
Can someone who does tell me what the conservatives wanted in the books, what the liberals wanted in the books, and what actually happened?
All I saw on the news was someone use the race card against the conservatives, which doesn't speak well of either side to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460450</id>
	<title>Re:Regarding economics...</title>
	<author>linguae</author>
	<datestamp>1268406840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the school district that my charter school was part of (regarded as one of the best school districts in my area), all high school students had to take a one-semester economics course.  I learned about Adam Smith, communism, and Keynesian economics in that class (I also learned about Marxism from a philosophy elective that I took that same semester), as well as mercantilism.  We even learned about supply-side economics, too.  Interestingly enough, my economics teacher was the wife of a businessman who was running for congress as a Republican that semester (he ended up losing, though; he was running in a place in California where the Democrat usually gets elected by a wide margin).  We did not learn about Chicago School or Austrian School economics, but my textbook did have sections featuring Milton Friedman and Walter Williams.  I learned about the Chicago School and about the Austrian School from reading Slashdot postings from libertarians and by subsequently reading books and articles from Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, and other similar economists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the school district that my charter school was part of ( regarded as one of the best school districts in my area ) , all high school students had to take a one-semester economics course .
I learned about Adam Smith , communism , and Keynesian economics in that class ( I also learned about Marxism from a philosophy elective that I took that same semester ) , as well as mercantilism .
We even learned about supply-side economics , too .
Interestingly enough , my economics teacher was the wife of a businessman who was running for congress as a Republican that semester ( he ended up losing , though ; he was running in a place in California where the Democrat usually gets elected by a wide margin ) .
We did not learn about Chicago School or Austrian School economics , but my textbook did have sections featuring Milton Friedman and Walter Williams .
I learned about the Chicago School and about the Austrian School from reading Slashdot postings from libertarians and by subsequently reading books and articles from Milton Friedman , Ludwig von Mises , Murray Rothbard , and other similar economists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the school district that my charter school was part of (regarded as one of the best school districts in my area), all high school students had to take a one-semester economics course.
I learned about Adam Smith, communism, and Keynesian economics in that class (I also learned about Marxism from a philosophy elective that I took that same semester), as well as mercantilism.
We even learned about supply-side economics, too.
Interestingly enough, my economics teacher was the wife of a businessman who was running for congress as a Republican that semester (he ended up losing, though; he was running in a place in California where the Democrat usually gets elected by a wide margin).
We did not learn about Chicago School or Austrian School economics, but my textbook did have sections featuring Milton Friedman and Walter Williams.
I learned about the Chicago School and about the Austrian School from reading Slashdot postings from libertarians and by subsequently reading books and articles from Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, and other similar economists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459270</id>
	<title>Re:It's about time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268400060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As modern humans progress through genuine scientific enlightenment, magic-believing, frightened and sadly deluded tribes of holdbacks such as yours are destined for extinction.  That's how natural selection works.</p><p>But do keep carving your primitive glyphs of your feeble cognitions into your cave walls.  In time, they will become the sole reminder of your primitive existence.</p><p>Goodbye from the future of mankind!  Sorry to hear that you were so deluded you couldn't make the trip.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As modern humans progress through genuine scientific enlightenment , magic-believing , frightened and sadly deluded tribes of holdbacks such as yours are destined for extinction .
That 's how natural selection works.But do keep carving your primitive glyphs of your feeble cognitions into your cave walls .
In time , they will become the sole reminder of your primitive existence.Goodbye from the future of mankind !
Sorry to hear that you were so deluded you could n't make the trip .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As modern humans progress through genuine scientific enlightenment, magic-believing, frightened and sadly deluded tribes of holdbacks such as yours are destined for extinction.
That's how natural selection works.But do keep carving your primitive glyphs of your feeble cognitions into your cave walls.
In time, they will become the sole reminder of your primitive existence.Goodbye from the future of mankind!
Sorry to hear that you were so deluded you couldn't make the trip.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459760</id>
	<title>Re:"I reject notion of separation of church and st</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268402340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>By proscribing the establishment of an official national religion, the Constitution implies that no single religion may be favored by the government over other religions. Generally this is interpreted as meaning you are free to practice the religion of your choice, but the government cannot coerce you into practicing any specific religion. Have atheists taken this too far in arguing against prayer or any kind of religious symbols in school? Yes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>By proscribing the establishment of an official national religion , the Constitution implies that no single religion may be favored by the government over other religions .
Generally this is interpreted as meaning you are free to practice the religion of your choice , but the government can not coerce you into practicing any specific religion .
Have atheists taken this too far in arguing against prayer or any kind of religious symbols in school ?
Yes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By proscribing the establishment of an official national religion, the Constitution implies that no single religion may be favored by the government over other religions.
Generally this is interpreted as meaning you are free to practice the religion of your choice, but the government cannot coerce you into practicing any specific religion.
Have atheists taken this too far in arguing against prayer or any kind of religious symbols in school?
Yes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459238</id>
	<title>BACKLASH against unchecked liberalism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268399940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is just one more data point.  Witness the conservative ascendancy: a historic untangling of progressive memes, politics, and policies.  No more feeling guilty about being American.  The pseudo-religions of statism, anthropomorphic global climate change, and collectivism recede.  The pretentious boomer generation withers - a generation of fools.  Well, MAKE WAY: the too-long-suppressed Generation X libertarians finally surge to prominence. Make way for the serious ones.</p><p>See you libs in 20 years when you finally recover and make your next serious run at power.  I'll be waiting for you with my venom.  For now, looks like we're about to close the book on your Carter 2.0, such a disappointment.  Poor baby, poor baby.  Oh!  And next time, please don't forget to acquire the consent of the governed before trying to serve your pablum; forcing your garbage is no way to govern, show some class and learn to sell.  kthxbye!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just one more data point .
Witness the conservative ascendancy : a historic untangling of progressive memes , politics , and policies .
No more feeling guilty about being American .
The pseudo-religions of statism , anthropomorphic global climate change , and collectivism recede .
The pretentious boomer generation withers - a generation of fools .
Well , MAKE WAY : the too-long-suppressed Generation X libertarians finally surge to prominence .
Make way for the serious ones.See you libs in 20 years when you finally recover and make your next serious run at power .
I 'll be waiting for you with my venom .
For now , looks like we 're about to close the book on your Carter 2.0 , such a disappointment .
Poor baby , poor baby .
Oh ! And next time , please do n't forget to acquire the consent of the governed before trying to serve your pablum ; forcing your garbage is no way to govern , show some class and learn to sell .
kthxbye !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just one more data point.
Witness the conservative ascendancy: a historic untangling of progressive memes, politics, and policies.
No more feeling guilty about being American.
The pseudo-religions of statism, anthropomorphic global climate change, and collectivism recede.
The pretentious boomer generation withers - a generation of fools.
Well, MAKE WAY: the too-long-suppressed Generation X libertarians finally surge to prominence.
Make way for the serious ones.See you libs in 20 years when you finally recover and make your next serious run at power.
I'll be waiting for you with my venom.
For now, looks like we're about to close the book on your Carter 2.0, such a disappointment.
Poor baby, poor baby.
Oh!  And next time, please don't forget to acquire the consent of the governed before trying to serve your pablum; forcing your garbage is no way to govern, show some class and learn to sell.
kthxbye!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31462198</id>
	<title>Re:Woah!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268510460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Do you dislike them because they are promoting Christian values?</p>  </div><p>I dislike the fact that they don't recognize their own necessarily imperfect understanding of the divine, and are trying to impose that imperfect understanding as if it were perfect, to the detriment of future generations.</p><p><i>&ldquo;Were you the first person ever born?<br>Were you born before the hills were made?<br>Were you listening at God&rsquo;s secret council?<br>Do you have a monopoly on wisdom?</i><br>-Job 15:7-8</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you dislike them because they are promoting Christian values ?
I dislike the fact that they do n't recognize their own necessarily imperfect understanding of the divine , and are trying to impose that imperfect understanding as if it were perfect , to the detriment of future generations.    Were you the first person ever born ? Were you born before the hills were made ? Were you listening at God    s secret council ? Do you have a monopoly on wisdom ? -Job 15 : 7-8</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you dislike them because they are promoting Christian values?
I dislike the fact that they don't recognize their own necessarily imperfect understanding of the divine, and are trying to impose that imperfect understanding as if it were perfect, to the detriment of future generations.“Were you the first person ever born?Were you born before the hills were made?Were you listening at God’s secret council?Do you have a monopoly on wisdom?-Job 15:7-8
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31462082</id>
	<title>Re:It was the answer to an important question.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268422440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, I'll bite.  I'm not evangelical, rather of the Catholic tradition that certain strains of evangelicals are fond of consider to be non-Christian.  That said, the Republican party is not as cut and dried as you describe it.  The evangelicals, are largely social conservatives, but they also have some fiscal conservatism in the sense of opposing government handouts.  This may not be in their own fiscal interests when viewed as a social class, but does accord with their largely blue collar views that a man should support himself.  They also (correctly in my opinion) belive that tax dollars are not charity.  As a group, evangelicals are quite generous in their charitable givings, but prefer to do so locally or at least privately.  I know a number of churches that took up special collections for Haiti for instance and many soup kitchens survive on the volunteer efforts and donations of these groups.  One reason they prefer the smaller programs is that they facilitate efforts to truly rehabilitate in body and spirit rather than simply perpetuating the cycle of poverty.  The salvation army for instance has historically had better results per dollar than government programs.</p><p>True, their pastors are quite influential in their voting habits, but this is largely due to their seeking to vote their values rather than their self interest, an altruistic act on their part, but one that they believe will benefit the nation as a whole by, for instance, outlawing abortion, which they perceive as murder by another name or the forced recognition of acts they perceive as sinful (gay rights issues).  You are free to disagree with their views and values, but voting based on those does not itself make them the ignorant sheep you describe.</p><p>I can't quite imagine Christ at a Tea Party rally himself, but only because he was more concerned with faith than politics, almost the same way most evangelicals were pre-Bush II.  That said, I also cannot really picture him taking the Tea Partiers to task for their actions.  True, he might admonish them that helping the poor directly to show that government was not the answer, but nothing in the Bible indicates that he felt the Roman Empire should have been helping widows and children.  The army as it existed at that time is too different from our own to really project what his attitudes would be towards it - the Roman army was that of the conqueror of his people, not its own army and even then he was more welcoming of them than society at large at the time.  He even accepted the anointing with expensive oils rather than selling them and giving the proceeds to the poor, admitting that "the poor will be with you always".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , I 'll bite .
I 'm not evangelical , rather of the Catholic tradition that certain strains of evangelicals are fond of consider to be non-Christian .
That said , the Republican party is not as cut and dried as you describe it .
The evangelicals , are largely social conservatives , but they also have some fiscal conservatism in the sense of opposing government handouts .
This may not be in their own fiscal interests when viewed as a social class , but does accord with their largely blue collar views that a man should support himself .
They also ( correctly in my opinion ) belive that tax dollars are not charity .
As a group , evangelicals are quite generous in their charitable givings , but prefer to do so locally or at least privately .
I know a number of churches that took up special collections for Haiti for instance and many soup kitchens survive on the volunteer efforts and donations of these groups .
One reason they prefer the smaller programs is that they facilitate efforts to truly rehabilitate in body and spirit rather than simply perpetuating the cycle of poverty .
The salvation army for instance has historically had better results per dollar than government programs.True , their pastors are quite influential in their voting habits , but this is largely due to their seeking to vote their values rather than their self interest , an altruistic act on their part , but one that they believe will benefit the nation as a whole by , for instance , outlawing abortion , which they perceive as murder by another name or the forced recognition of acts they perceive as sinful ( gay rights issues ) .
You are free to disagree with their views and values , but voting based on those does not itself make them the ignorant sheep you describe.I ca n't quite imagine Christ at a Tea Party rally himself , but only because he was more concerned with faith than politics , almost the same way most evangelicals were pre-Bush II .
That said , I also can not really picture him taking the Tea Partiers to task for their actions .
True , he might admonish them that helping the poor directly to show that government was not the answer , but nothing in the Bible indicates that he felt the Roman Empire should have been helping widows and children .
The army as it existed at that time is too different from our own to really project what his attitudes would be towards it - the Roman army was that of the conqueror of his people , not its own army and even then he was more welcoming of them than society at large at the time .
He even accepted the anointing with expensive oils rather than selling them and giving the proceeds to the poor , admitting that " the poor will be with you always " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, I'll bite.
I'm not evangelical, rather of the Catholic tradition that certain strains of evangelicals are fond of consider to be non-Christian.
That said, the Republican party is not as cut and dried as you describe it.
The evangelicals, are largely social conservatives, but they also have some fiscal conservatism in the sense of opposing government handouts.
This may not be in their own fiscal interests when viewed as a social class, but does accord with their largely blue collar views that a man should support himself.
They also (correctly in my opinion) belive that tax dollars are not charity.
As a group, evangelicals are quite generous in their charitable givings, but prefer to do so locally or at least privately.
I know a number of churches that took up special collections for Haiti for instance and many soup kitchens survive on the volunteer efforts and donations of these groups.
One reason they prefer the smaller programs is that they facilitate efforts to truly rehabilitate in body and spirit rather than simply perpetuating the cycle of poverty.
The salvation army for instance has historically had better results per dollar than government programs.True, their pastors are quite influential in their voting habits, but this is largely due to their seeking to vote their values rather than their self interest, an altruistic act on their part, but one that they believe will benefit the nation as a whole by, for instance, outlawing abortion, which they perceive as murder by another name or the forced recognition of acts they perceive as sinful (gay rights issues).
You are free to disagree with their views and values, but voting based on those does not itself make them the ignorant sheep you describe.I can't quite imagine Christ at a Tea Party rally himself, but only because he was more concerned with faith than politics, almost the same way most evangelicals were pre-Bush II.
That said, I also cannot really picture him taking the Tea Partiers to task for their actions.
True, he might admonish them that helping the poor directly to show that government was not the answer, but nothing in the Bible indicates that he felt the Roman Empire should have been helping widows and children.
The army as it existed at that time is too different from our own to really project what his attitudes would be towards it - the Roman army was that of the conqueror of his people, not its own army and even then he was more welcoming of them than society at large at the time.
He even accepted the anointing with expensive oils rather than selling them and giving the proceeds to the poor, admitting that "the poor will be with you always".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458440</id>
	<title>oh no!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268396640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>what if they teach about the constitution and shit?  THAT WOULD BE BAD!!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>what if they teach about the constitution and shit ?
THAT WOULD BE BAD ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what if they teach about the constitution and shit?
THAT WOULD BE BAD!!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458638</id>
	<title>Re: Really?</title>
	<author>Black Parrot</author>
	<datestamp>1268397420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm not sure how "conservatives" ever became associated with Christian values.</p></div><p>They're associated with the term, not with the values.</p><p>On that topic, FWIW, apparently a lot of churches / religious leaders are taking umbrage at Glenn Beck's rant against religion's traditional support for social justice.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure how " conservatives " ever became associated with Christian values.They 're associated with the term , not with the values.On that topic , FWIW , apparently a lot of churches / religious leaders are taking umbrage at Glenn Beck 's rant against religion 's traditional support for social justice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure how "conservatives" ever became associated with Christian values.They're associated with the term, not with the values.On that topic, FWIW, apparently a lot of churches / religious leaders are taking umbrage at Glenn Beck's rant against religion's traditional support for social justice.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460236</id>
	<title>Re:"I reject notion of separation of church and st</title>
	<author>riverat1</author>
	<datestamp>1268405520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The question I have for you is if you have schools that includes Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. what kind of prayer or religious symbols would you allow in the school.  Allowing a dominant Christian culture to take over may be intimidating to members of other religions and the non-religious, something the Federal Government is required to protect you against in public life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The question I have for you is if you have schools that includes Christians , Jews , Muslims , Hindus , etc .
what kind of prayer or religious symbols would you allow in the school .
Allowing a dominant Christian culture to take over may be intimidating to members of other religions and the non-religious , something the Federal Government is required to protect you against in public life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question I have for you is if you have schools that includes Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc.
what kind of prayer or religious symbols would you allow in the school.
Allowing a dominant Christian culture to take over may be intimidating to members of other religions and the non-religious, something the Federal Government is required to protect you against in public life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458802</id>
	<title>Re:Meh</title>
	<author>bckrispi</author>
	<datestamp>1268398080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe we care because the curriculum that gets established in Texas <i>often winds up being used in classrooms across the country</i>.
<p> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/magazine/14texbooks-t.html?pagewanted=all" title="nytimes.com">http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/magazine/14texbooks-t.html?pagewanted=all</a> [nytimes.com] </p><blockquote><div><p>The state's $22 billion education fund is among the largest educational endowments in the country. Texas uses some of that money to buy or distribute a staggering 48 million textbooks annually -- which rather strongly inclines educational publishers to tailor their products to fit the standards dictated by the Lone Star State. California is the largest textbook market, but besides being bankrupt, it tends to be so specific about what kinds of information its students should learn that few other states follow its lead. Texas, on the other hand, was one of the first states to adopt statewide curriculum guidelines, back in 1998, and the guidelines it came up with (which are referred to as TEKS -- pronounced "teaks" -- for Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills) were clear, broad and inclusive enough that many other states used them as a model in devising their own. And while technology is changing things, textbooks -- printed or online --are still the backbone of education.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe we care because the curriculum that gets established in Texas often winds up being used in classrooms across the country .
http : //www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/magazine/14texbooks-t.html ? pagewanted = all [ nytimes.com ] The state 's $ 22 billion education fund is among the largest educational endowments in the country .
Texas uses some of that money to buy or distribute a staggering 48 million textbooks annually -- which rather strongly inclines educational publishers to tailor their products to fit the standards dictated by the Lone Star State .
California is the largest textbook market , but besides being bankrupt , it tends to be so specific about what kinds of information its students should learn that few other states follow its lead .
Texas , on the other hand , was one of the first states to adopt statewide curriculum guidelines , back in 1998 , and the guidelines it came up with ( which are referred to as TEKS -- pronounced " teaks " -- for Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills ) were clear , broad and inclusive enough that many other states used them as a model in devising their own .
And while technology is changing things , textbooks -- printed or online --are still the backbone of education .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe we care because the curriculum that gets established in Texas often winds up being used in classrooms across the country.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/magazine/14texbooks-t.html?pagewanted=all [nytimes.com] The state's $22 billion education fund is among the largest educational endowments in the country.
Texas uses some of that money to buy or distribute a staggering 48 million textbooks annually -- which rather strongly inclines educational publishers to tailor their products to fit the standards dictated by the Lone Star State.
California is the largest textbook market, but besides being bankrupt, it tends to be so specific about what kinds of information its students should learn that few other states follow its lead.
Texas, on the other hand, was one of the first states to adopt statewide curriculum guidelines, back in 1998, and the guidelines it came up with (which are referred to as TEKS -- pronounced "teaks" -- for Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills) were clear, broad and inclusive enough that many other states used them as a model in devising their own.
And while technology is changing things, textbooks -- printed or online --are still the backbone of education.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459714</id>
	<title>Re:Why Texas?</title>
	<author>ErikZ</author>
	<datestamp>1268402100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So it was conservatives that have prevented the building of new power plants due to environmental reasons?</p><p>I seriously doubt CA is in a huge financial hole due to Conservatives. Maybe you're just hypersensitive to people who don't think like you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So it was conservatives that have prevented the building of new power plants due to environmental reasons ? I seriously doubt CA is in a huge financial hole due to Conservatives .
Maybe you 're just hypersensitive to people who do n't think like you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So it was conservatives that have prevented the building of new power plants due to environmental reasons?I seriously doubt CA is in a huge financial hole due to Conservatives.
Maybe you're just hypersensitive to people who don't think like you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31475388</id>
	<title>Re:Woah!</title>
	<author>magus\_melchior</author>
	<datestamp>1268565900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Why are you wanting people to kill themselves?</p></div></blockquote><p>Straw man. Show us, please, where critics of the Texas school board are asking people to kill themselves. Blog/forum comments don't count.</p><blockquote><div><p>Why do you dislike these people so much?</p></div></blockquote><p>Red herring. This has nothing to do with like or dislike, it has everything to do with good or poor public policy, especially concerning public education.</p><p>Full disclosure: I'm a Christian. I believe that I've sinned before a righteous and holy God, and that only the blood sacrifice of his Son can and has saved me. I also believe that Jesus is the penultimate example and instructor, who consistently told his followers to seek justice, especially for those who were politically disadvantaged and/or maligned (lepers, the disabled, the poor, tax collectors, prostitutes), and that those who raised the standards for labor, civil rights, and social support in government were the ones who heeded this message. So the irony that the very people who distrust government, who wish to pay fewer taxes (despite Jesus' command to "render unto Caesar"), who decry the expansion of government, and who panic that their freedom to worship is threatened despite zero evidence, would seek to rewrite history for the entire nation's children, is not lost on me. It seems to me that too many American Christians feel they are entitled to impose through any means, whatever policy they deem fit on the rest of the country, even if the Constitution itself opposes them. I feel that's childish, self-centered, and entirely un-Christ-like, and I am ashamed that so many in this country who call themselves Christian have this sense of entitlement.</p><p>Did Jesus ever go and lobby the Jewish Sanhedrin, let alone the Roman government, to lower taxes? Did he complain that his listeners weren't getting a "balanced view"? Did he complain that the historians of his day were "too liberal"?</p><p>Why are today's Christians blindly following conservative creeds as zealously as they should follow their Bibles? Where are the Christians decrying the huge wealth gap in this country, and the efforts of the wealthy to keep expanding that gap?</p><p>The rest of the rebuttal is trivial:</p><blockquote><div><p>Do you dislike them because they are promoting Christian values?<br>If you do, do you dislike that they believe that God so loved the world that he sent his only Son so that who ever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life?</p></div> </blockquote><p>Both are straw men. There are very few people who detest Christians for this very reason, but Jesus said those who hate Christians "hate me also". If you need to ask this question, either you don't know your Bible as well as you should, or you're grandstanding.</p><blockquote><div><p>Do you dislike them because they try to live like Christ but recognize that when they fail, which they inevitably do, they go back to God and ask for forgiveness?</p></div></blockquote><p>You've set up another silly argument, and one which Paul already answered: Even if you are forgiven and stumble, you're still responsible for stumbling. Otherwise, why not do whatever you want, since God considers all of your sin-- past present and future-- forgiven?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are you wanting people to kill themselves ? Straw man .
Show us , please , where critics of the Texas school board are asking people to kill themselves .
Blog/forum comments do n't count.Why do you dislike these people so much ? Red herring .
This has nothing to do with like or dislike , it has everything to do with good or poor public policy , especially concerning public education.Full disclosure : I 'm a Christian .
I believe that I 've sinned before a righteous and holy God , and that only the blood sacrifice of his Son can and has saved me .
I also believe that Jesus is the penultimate example and instructor , who consistently told his followers to seek justice , especially for those who were politically disadvantaged and/or maligned ( lepers , the disabled , the poor , tax collectors , prostitutes ) , and that those who raised the standards for labor , civil rights , and social support in government were the ones who heeded this message .
So the irony that the very people who distrust government , who wish to pay fewer taxes ( despite Jesus ' command to " render unto Caesar " ) , who decry the expansion of government , and who panic that their freedom to worship is threatened despite zero evidence , would seek to rewrite history for the entire nation 's children , is not lost on me .
It seems to me that too many American Christians feel they are entitled to impose through any means , whatever policy they deem fit on the rest of the country , even if the Constitution itself opposes them .
I feel that 's childish , self-centered , and entirely un-Christ-like , and I am ashamed that so many in this country who call themselves Christian have this sense of entitlement.Did Jesus ever go and lobby the Jewish Sanhedrin , let alone the Roman government , to lower taxes ?
Did he complain that his listeners were n't getting a " balanced view " ?
Did he complain that the historians of his day were " too liberal " ? Why are today 's Christians blindly following conservative creeds as zealously as they should follow their Bibles ?
Where are the Christians decrying the huge wealth gap in this country , and the efforts of the wealthy to keep expanding that gap ? The rest of the rebuttal is trivial : Do you dislike them because they are promoting Christian values ? If you do , do you dislike that they believe that God so loved the world that he sent his only Son so that who ever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life ?
Both are straw men .
There are very few people who detest Christians for this very reason , but Jesus said those who hate Christians " hate me also " .
If you need to ask this question , either you do n't know your Bible as well as you should , or you 're grandstanding.Do you dislike them because they try to live like Christ but recognize that when they fail , which they inevitably do , they go back to God and ask for forgiveness ? You 've set up another silly argument , and one which Paul already answered : Even if you are forgiven and stumble , you 're still responsible for stumbling .
Otherwise , why not do whatever you want , since God considers all of your sin-- past present and future-- forgiven ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are you wanting people to kill themselves?Straw man.
Show us, please, where critics of the Texas school board are asking people to kill themselves.
Blog/forum comments don't count.Why do you dislike these people so much?Red herring.
This has nothing to do with like or dislike, it has everything to do with good or poor public policy, especially concerning public education.Full disclosure: I'm a Christian.
I believe that I've sinned before a righteous and holy God, and that only the blood sacrifice of his Son can and has saved me.
I also believe that Jesus is the penultimate example and instructor, who consistently told his followers to seek justice, especially for those who were politically disadvantaged and/or maligned (lepers, the disabled, the poor, tax collectors, prostitutes), and that those who raised the standards for labor, civil rights, and social support in government were the ones who heeded this message.
So the irony that the very people who distrust government, who wish to pay fewer taxes (despite Jesus' command to "render unto Caesar"), who decry the expansion of government, and who panic that their freedom to worship is threatened despite zero evidence, would seek to rewrite history for the entire nation's children, is not lost on me.
It seems to me that too many American Christians feel they are entitled to impose through any means, whatever policy they deem fit on the rest of the country, even if the Constitution itself opposes them.
I feel that's childish, self-centered, and entirely un-Christ-like, and I am ashamed that so many in this country who call themselves Christian have this sense of entitlement.Did Jesus ever go and lobby the Jewish Sanhedrin, let alone the Roman government, to lower taxes?
Did he complain that his listeners weren't getting a "balanced view"?
Did he complain that the historians of his day were "too liberal"?Why are today's Christians blindly following conservative creeds as zealously as they should follow their Bibles?
Where are the Christians decrying the huge wealth gap in this country, and the efforts of the wealthy to keep expanding that gap?The rest of the rebuttal is trivial:Do you dislike them because they are promoting Christian values?If you do, do you dislike that they believe that God so loved the world that he sent his only Son so that who ever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life?
Both are straw men.
There are very few people who detest Christians for this very reason, but Jesus said those who hate Christians "hate me also".
If you need to ask this question, either you don't know your Bible as well as you should, or you're grandstanding.Do you dislike them because they try to live like Christ but recognize that when they fail, which they inevitably do, they go back to God and ask for forgiveness?You've set up another silly argument, and one which Paul already answered: Even if you are forgiven and stumble, you're still responsible for stumbling.
Otherwise, why not do whatever you want, since God considers all of your sin-- past present and future-- forgiven?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460164</id>
	<title>Text Books Useless Anyway</title>
	<author>oakwine</author>
	<datestamp>1268405100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I grew up in Dallas long ago when text books were even more conservative. I do not remember anyone being influenced by the views therein. Everyone knew that the text books were simple strokes for bears of little brain. The bears of little brain understood this as well, so in the end nobody paid much attention to text books.

By age 16 I had read Darwin's Origin of Species and The Voyage of the Beagle. I was surprised that neither those who were pro evolution nor those who were anti evolution had bothered to do so. So I ignored both camps. College in Massachusetts, much the same. Students might be on the side of "science" but had remarkable little knowledge of science itself.

Probably what is needed is text books that can also double as toilet paper. At least that way you could get some use out of them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I grew up in Dallas long ago when text books were even more conservative .
I do not remember anyone being influenced by the views therein .
Everyone knew that the text books were simple strokes for bears of little brain .
The bears of little brain understood this as well , so in the end nobody paid much attention to text books .
By age 16 I had read Darwin 's Origin of Species and The Voyage of the Beagle .
I was surprised that neither those who were pro evolution nor those who were anti evolution had bothered to do so .
So I ignored both camps .
College in Massachusetts , much the same .
Students might be on the side of " science " but had remarkable little knowledge of science itself .
Probably what is needed is text books that can also double as toilet paper .
At least that way you could get some use out of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I grew up in Dallas long ago when text books were even more conservative.
I do not remember anyone being influenced by the views therein.
Everyone knew that the text books were simple strokes for bears of little brain.
The bears of little brain understood this as well, so in the end nobody paid much attention to text books.
By age 16 I had read Darwin's Origin of Species and The Voyage of the Beagle.
I was surprised that neither those who were pro evolution nor those who were anti evolution had bothered to do so.
So I ignored both camps.
College in Massachusetts, much the same.
Students might be on the side of "science" but had remarkable little knowledge of science itself.
Probably what is needed is text books that can also double as toilet paper.
At least that way you could get some use out of them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459898</id>
	<title>Re:Why Texas?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268403180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Clearly you don't live in California. Only outside CA is the political system perceived as Liberal. Those of us who live within the state have learned that there are a few enclaves of urban liberalism, surrounded by by vast areas of rural conservatism rivaling those of Kansas or Texas.</i></p><p>LOL.  Nice to see someone point this out for a change.  And for those non-residents reading along at home, most Hollywood execs (from agents to production houses to studio heads) have political philosophies more in line with rural Kansas or Texas than those associated with our liberal enclaves.  You heard it right, folks.  Most of "Hollywood" is conservative.  Shouldn't be a surprise, given the amount of money at stake in a given deal or project.  The paeons working in the industry, on the other hand, well, creative types invariably and almost by definition espouse (often quite vocally) philosophies different from the mainstream.</p><p>I'd even go farther.  There's parts of Kansas, Texas and other states in the deep South are more hip, liberal and/or progressive than what's here in California.  I'm fortunate to live in a bohemian-ish enclave, but it's surrounded by miles of working-class, blue-collar neighbourhoods with American flags flying in their front yards, and Bush/Cheney stickers on their cars and trucks.  In the wealthier communities, the Bush/Cheney stickers are on SUVs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly you do n't live in California .
Only outside CA is the political system perceived as Liberal .
Those of us who live within the state have learned that there are a few enclaves of urban liberalism , surrounded by by vast areas of rural conservatism rivaling those of Kansas or Texas.LOL .
Nice to see someone point this out for a change .
And for those non-residents reading along at home , most Hollywood execs ( from agents to production houses to studio heads ) have political philosophies more in line with rural Kansas or Texas than those associated with our liberal enclaves .
You heard it right , folks .
Most of " Hollywood " is conservative .
Should n't be a surprise , given the amount of money at stake in a given deal or project .
The paeons working in the industry , on the other hand , well , creative types invariably and almost by definition espouse ( often quite vocally ) philosophies different from the mainstream.I 'd even go farther .
There 's parts of Kansas , Texas and other states in the deep South are more hip , liberal and/or progressive than what 's here in California .
I 'm fortunate to live in a bohemian-ish enclave , but it 's surrounded by miles of working-class , blue-collar neighbourhoods with American flags flying in their front yards , and Bush/Cheney stickers on their cars and trucks .
In the wealthier communities , the Bush/Cheney stickers are on SUVs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly you don't live in California.
Only outside CA is the political system perceived as Liberal.
Those of us who live within the state have learned that there are a few enclaves of urban liberalism, surrounded by by vast areas of rural conservatism rivaling those of Kansas or Texas.LOL.
Nice to see someone point this out for a change.
And for those non-residents reading along at home, most Hollywood execs (from agents to production houses to studio heads) have political philosophies more in line with rural Kansas or Texas than those associated with our liberal enclaves.
You heard it right, folks.
Most of "Hollywood" is conservative.
Shouldn't be a surprise, given the amount of money at stake in a given deal or project.
The paeons working in the industry, on the other hand, well, creative types invariably and almost by definition espouse (often quite vocally) philosophies different from the mainstream.I'd even go farther.
There's parts of Kansas, Texas and other states in the deep South are more hip, liberal and/or progressive than what's here in California.
I'm fortunate to live in a bohemian-ish enclave, but it's surrounded by miles of working-class, blue-collar neighbourhoods with American flags flying in their front yards, and Bush/Cheney stickers on their cars and trucks.
In the wealthier communities, the Bush/Cheney stickers are on SUVs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461792</id>
	<title>The Rich get Richer...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268418840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and the dumb get dumberer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and the dumb get dumberer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and the dumb get dumberer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458386</id>
	<title>It's about time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268396460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The left-wing cooks have been trying to spread their socialism and atheism through schools for a long time. It's about time we got back to good, old-fashioned American, Christian values</htmltext>
<tokenext>The left-wing cooks have been trying to spread their socialism and atheism through schools for a long time .
It 's about time we got back to good , old-fashioned American , Christian values</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The left-wing cooks have been trying to spread their socialism and atheism through schools for a long time.
It's about time we got back to good, old-fashioned American, Christian values</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459576</id>
	<title>Texas BOE Removes Jefferson From History Standard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268401380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>emphasis added</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The Texas Freedom Network continues to live blog the Texas State Board of Education hearings where the collection of ignorant dolts on that board debate and amend the social studies standards. And it's getting downright surreal. They actually removed Thomas Jefferson and the Enlightenment from the history standards. Seriously.</p><p>9:27 - The board is taking up remaining amendments on the high school world history course.</p><p>9:30 - Board member Cynthia Dunbar wants to change a standard having students study the impact of Enlightenment ideas on political revolutions from 1750 to the present. She wants to drop the reference to Enlightenment ideas (replacing with "the writings of") and to Thomas Jefferson. She adds Thomas Aquinas and others. Jefferson's ideas, she argues, were based on other political philosophers listed in the standards. We don't buy her argument at all. Board member Bob Craig of Lubbock points out that the curriculum writers clearly wanted to students to study Enlightenment ideas and Jefferson. Could Dunbar's problem be that Jefferson was a Deist? The board approves the amendment, taking Thomas Jefferson OUT of the world history standards.</p><p>9:40 - We're just picking ourselves up off the floor. The board's far-right faction has spent months now proclaiming the importance of emphasizing America's exceptionalism in social studies classrooms. But today they voted to remove one of the greatest of America's Founders, Thomas Jefferson, from a standard about the influence of great political philosophers on political revolutions from 1750 to today.</p><p>9:45 - Here's the amendment Dunbar changed: "explain the impact of Enlightenment ideas from John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Charles de Montesquieu, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Thomas Jefferson on political revolutions from 1750 to the present." Here's Dunbar's replacement standard, which passed: "explain the impact of the writings of John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Charles de Montesquieu, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and Sir William Blackstone." Not only does Dunbar's amendment completely change the thrust of the standard. It also appalling drops one of the most influential political philosophers in American history -- Thomas Jefferson.</p><p>9:51 - Dunbar's amendment striking Jefferson passed with the votes of the board's far-right members and board member Geraldine "Tincy" Miller of Dallas.</p><p><b>The standard was about the Enlightenment and political revolutions that led to modern liberal democracy. So they removed the Enlightenment references and Thomas Jefferson, who played a key role in the two most prominent revolutions in the history of the Western world, and replaced them with Thomas Aquinas, who lived 500 years before the Enlightenment, and John Calvin, who lived 200 years before the Enlightenment and was a major figure in an entirely different period of history, the Reformation, which preceded the Enlightenment.</b></p><p>Yes, you should, in fact, be mouthing the words "what the fuck" right about now.</p><p>And the stupidity continues:</p><p>11:21 - Board member <b>Barbara Cargill wants to insert a discussion of the right to bear arms in a standard that focuses on First Amendment rights and the expression of various points of view.</b> This is absurd. If they want students to study the right to bear arms, at least try to find an appropriate place in the standards for it. This is yet another example of politicians destroying the coherence of a curriculum document for no reason other than promoting ideological pet causes. Republican board member Bob Craig of Lubbock is suggesting a better place for such a standard. But the amendment passes anyway. The board's far-right faction is simply impervious to logic.</p><p>11:30 - Board member Pat Hardy notes that elsewhere the standards already require students to study each of the freedoms and rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. No one seems to care.</p><p>11:33 - Bob Craig tries, once again, to talk some sense into these folks. Board member Cynthia Dunbar argues that the original standard's focus on the rights of "petition, assembly, speech, and press in a democratic society" unfairly emphasizes the First Amendment over others. She suggests taking that out altogether if the Second Amendment isn't included. Board member Ken Mercer argues that the right to bear arms is too important not to include here. But it IS included in the standards. The purpose of the original standard is to have students understand the rights to free expression in a democratic society. The right to bear arms is not relevant to that purpose.</p><p>Yep, that one passed too. Oh, and this about church and state:</p><p>12:28 - Board member Mavis Knight offers the following amendment: "examine the reasons the Founding Fathers protected religious freedom in America by barring government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion over all others." Knight points out that students should understand that the Founders believed religious freedom was so important that they insisted on separation of church and state.</p><p>12:32 - Board member <b>Cynthia Dunbar argues that the Founders didn't intend for separation of church and state in America. And she's off on a long lecture about why the Founders intended to promote religion. She calls this amendment "not historically accurate."</b></p><p>12:35 - Knight's amendment fails on a straight party-line vote, 5-10. Republicans vote no, Democrats vote yes.</p><p>12:38 - Let the word go out here: <b>The Texas State Board of Education today refused to require that students learn that the Constitution prevents the U.S. government from promoting one religion over all others. They voted to lie to students by omission.</b></p><p>If you have children in school in Texas, I strongly suggest moving.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>emphasis addedThe Texas Freedom Network continues to live blog the Texas State Board of Education hearings where the collection of ignorant dolts on that board debate and amend the social studies standards .
And it 's getting downright surreal .
They actually removed Thomas Jefferson and the Enlightenment from the history standards .
Seriously.9 : 27 - The board is taking up remaining amendments on the high school world history course.9 : 30 - Board member Cynthia Dunbar wants to change a standard having students study the impact of Enlightenment ideas on political revolutions from 1750 to the present .
She wants to drop the reference to Enlightenment ideas ( replacing with " the writings of " ) and to Thomas Jefferson .
She adds Thomas Aquinas and others .
Jefferson 's ideas , she argues , were based on other political philosophers listed in the standards .
We do n't buy her argument at all .
Board member Bob Craig of Lubbock points out that the curriculum writers clearly wanted to students to study Enlightenment ideas and Jefferson .
Could Dunbar 's problem be that Jefferson was a Deist ?
The board approves the amendment , taking Thomas Jefferson OUT of the world history standards.9 : 40 - We 're just picking ourselves up off the floor .
The board 's far-right faction has spent months now proclaiming the importance of emphasizing America 's exceptionalism in social studies classrooms .
But today they voted to remove one of the greatest of America 's Founders , Thomas Jefferson , from a standard about the influence of great political philosophers on political revolutions from 1750 to today.9 : 45 - Here 's the amendment Dunbar changed : " explain the impact of Enlightenment ideas from John Locke , Thomas Hobbes , Voltaire , Charles de Montesquieu , Jean Jacques Rousseau , and Thomas Jefferson on political revolutions from 1750 to the present .
" Here 's Dunbar 's replacement standard , which passed : " explain the impact of the writings of John Locke , Thomas Hobbes , Voltaire , Charles de Montesquieu , Jean Jacques Rousseau , Thomas Aquinas , John Calvin and Sir William Blackstone .
" Not only does Dunbar 's amendment completely change the thrust of the standard .
It also appalling drops one of the most influential political philosophers in American history -- Thomas Jefferson.9 : 51 - Dunbar 's amendment striking Jefferson passed with the votes of the board 's far-right members and board member Geraldine " Tincy " Miller of Dallas.The standard was about the Enlightenment and political revolutions that led to modern liberal democracy .
So they removed the Enlightenment references and Thomas Jefferson , who played a key role in the two most prominent revolutions in the history of the Western world , and replaced them with Thomas Aquinas , who lived 500 years before the Enlightenment , and John Calvin , who lived 200 years before the Enlightenment and was a major figure in an entirely different period of history , the Reformation , which preceded the Enlightenment.Yes , you should , in fact , be mouthing the words " what the fuck " right about now.And the stupidity continues : 11 : 21 - Board member Barbara Cargill wants to insert a discussion of the right to bear arms in a standard that focuses on First Amendment rights and the expression of various points of view .
This is absurd .
If they want students to study the right to bear arms , at least try to find an appropriate place in the standards for it .
This is yet another example of politicians destroying the coherence of a curriculum document for no reason other than promoting ideological pet causes .
Republican board member Bob Craig of Lubbock is suggesting a better place for such a standard .
But the amendment passes anyway .
The board 's far-right faction is simply impervious to logic.11 : 30 - Board member Pat Hardy notes that elsewhere the standards already require students to study each of the freedoms and rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights .
No one seems to care.11 : 33 - Bob Craig tries , once again , to talk some sense into these folks .
Board member Cynthia Dunbar argues that the original standard 's focus on the rights of " petition , assembly , speech , and press in a democratic society " unfairly emphasizes the First Amendment over others .
She suggests taking that out altogether if the Second Amendment is n't included .
Board member Ken Mercer argues that the right to bear arms is too important not to include here .
But it IS included in the standards .
The purpose of the original standard is to have students understand the rights to free expression in a democratic society .
The right to bear arms is not relevant to that purpose.Yep , that one passed too .
Oh , and this about church and state : 12 : 28 - Board member Mavis Knight offers the following amendment : " examine the reasons the Founding Fathers protected religious freedom in America by barring government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion over all others .
" Knight points out that students should understand that the Founders believed religious freedom was so important that they insisted on separation of church and state.12 : 32 - Board member Cynthia Dunbar argues that the Founders did n't intend for separation of church and state in America .
And she 's off on a long lecture about why the Founders intended to promote religion .
She calls this amendment " not historically accurate .
" 12 : 35 - Knight 's amendment fails on a straight party-line vote , 5-10 .
Republicans vote no , Democrats vote yes.12 : 38 - Let the word go out here : The Texas State Board of Education today refused to require that students learn that the Constitution prevents the U.S. government from promoting one religion over all others .
They voted to lie to students by omission.If you have children in school in Texas , I strongly suggest moving .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>emphasis addedThe Texas Freedom Network continues to live blog the Texas State Board of Education hearings where the collection of ignorant dolts on that board debate and amend the social studies standards.
And it's getting downright surreal.
They actually removed Thomas Jefferson and the Enlightenment from the history standards.
Seriously.9:27 - The board is taking up remaining amendments on the high school world history course.9:30 - Board member Cynthia Dunbar wants to change a standard having students study the impact of Enlightenment ideas on political revolutions from 1750 to the present.
She wants to drop the reference to Enlightenment ideas (replacing with "the writings of") and to Thomas Jefferson.
She adds Thomas Aquinas and others.
Jefferson's ideas, she argues, were based on other political philosophers listed in the standards.
We don't buy her argument at all.
Board member Bob Craig of Lubbock points out that the curriculum writers clearly wanted to students to study Enlightenment ideas and Jefferson.
Could Dunbar's problem be that Jefferson was a Deist?
The board approves the amendment, taking Thomas Jefferson OUT of the world history standards.9:40 - We're just picking ourselves up off the floor.
The board's far-right faction has spent months now proclaiming the importance of emphasizing America's exceptionalism in social studies classrooms.
But today they voted to remove one of the greatest of America's Founders, Thomas Jefferson, from a standard about the influence of great political philosophers on political revolutions from 1750 to today.9:45 - Here's the amendment Dunbar changed: "explain the impact of Enlightenment ideas from John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Charles de Montesquieu, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Thomas Jefferson on political revolutions from 1750 to the present.
" Here's Dunbar's replacement standard, which passed: "explain the impact of the writings of John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Charles de Montesquieu, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and Sir William Blackstone.
" Not only does Dunbar's amendment completely change the thrust of the standard.
It also appalling drops one of the most influential political philosophers in American history -- Thomas Jefferson.9:51 - Dunbar's amendment striking Jefferson passed with the votes of the board's far-right members and board member Geraldine "Tincy" Miller of Dallas.The standard was about the Enlightenment and political revolutions that led to modern liberal democracy.
So they removed the Enlightenment references and Thomas Jefferson, who played a key role in the two most prominent revolutions in the history of the Western world, and replaced them with Thomas Aquinas, who lived 500 years before the Enlightenment, and John Calvin, who lived 200 years before the Enlightenment and was a major figure in an entirely different period of history, the Reformation, which preceded the Enlightenment.Yes, you should, in fact, be mouthing the words "what the fuck" right about now.And the stupidity continues:11:21 - Board member Barbara Cargill wants to insert a discussion of the right to bear arms in a standard that focuses on First Amendment rights and the expression of various points of view.
This is absurd.
If they want students to study the right to bear arms, at least try to find an appropriate place in the standards for it.
This is yet another example of politicians destroying the coherence of a curriculum document for no reason other than promoting ideological pet causes.
Republican board member Bob Craig of Lubbock is suggesting a better place for such a standard.
But the amendment passes anyway.
The board's far-right faction is simply impervious to logic.11:30 - Board member Pat Hardy notes that elsewhere the standards already require students to study each of the freedoms and rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
No one seems to care.11:33 - Bob Craig tries, once again, to talk some sense into these folks.
Board member Cynthia Dunbar argues that the original standard's focus on the rights of "petition, assembly, speech, and press in a democratic society" unfairly emphasizes the First Amendment over others.
She suggests taking that out altogether if the Second Amendment isn't included.
Board member Ken Mercer argues that the right to bear arms is too important not to include here.
But it IS included in the standards.
The purpose of the original standard is to have students understand the rights to free expression in a democratic society.
The right to bear arms is not relevant to that purpose.Yep, that one passed too.
Oh, and this about church and state:12:28 - Board member Mavis Knight offers the following amendment: "examine the reasons the Founding Fathers protected religious freedom in America by barring government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion over all others.
" Knight points out that students should understand that the Founders believed religious freedom was so important that they insisted on separation of church and state.12:32 - Board member Cynthia Dunbar argues that the Founders didn't intend for separation of church and state in America.
And she's off on a long lecture about why the Founders intended to promote religion.
She calls this amendment "not historically accurate.
"12:35 - Knight's amendment fails on a straight party-line vote, 5-10.
Republicans vote no, Democrats vote yes.12:38 - Let the word go out here: The Texas State Board of Education today refused to require that students learn that the Constitution prevents the U.S. government from promoting one religion over all others.
They voted to lie to students by omission.If you have children in school in Texas, I strongly suggest moving.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458372</id>
	<title>digital localisation</title>
	<author>fotoguzzi</author>
	<datestamp>1268396400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>they didn't have that when i was in school.</htmltext>
<tokenext>they did n't have that when i was in school .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they didn't have that when i was in school.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31487106</id>
	<title>Re:Why Texas?</title>
	<author>Bobb Sledd</author>
	<datestamp>1268644980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...kind of like Slashdot?</p><p>I don't understand your thinking.  If I wanted to know the answer to a database question, would I ask a teacher or would I ask someone who builds and supports databases as their career?  Then why would you think that a "trained teacher" is the best to ask on any other subject?</p><p>My father, mother, wife, two cousins, and several friends are all teachers and I can tell you from observation and from their stories that the vast majority of teachers are barely competent enough to recognize the best methodologies to use when teaching, let alone have any mastery of the content they teach on.</p><p>And it really isn't all their fault.  The problem is that you have such a large and diverse level of competency in your students --- in just one classroom -- and then are told you have to make everyone pass by some criteria.  You have kids that don't really want to be there, and refuse to learn, as well as kids who do.  So it often de-evolves into baby-sitting more than education.  And that robs the kids of their getting a good education.</p><p>Obviously not all the time.  I'm making a generalization, which has many exceptions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...kind of like Slashdot ? I do n't understand your thinking .
If I wanted to know the answer to a database question , would I ask a teacher or would I ask someone who builds and supports databases as their career ?
Then why would you think that a " trained teacher " is the best to ask on any other subject ? My father , mother , wife , two cousins , and several friends are all teachers and I can tell you from observation and from their stories that the vast majority of teachers are barely competent enough to recognize the best methodologies to use when teaching , let alone have any mastery of the content they teach on.And it really is n't all their fault .
The problem is that you have such a large and diverse level of competency in your students --- in just one classroom -- and then are told you have to make everyone pass by some criteria .
You have kids that do n't really want to be there , and refuse to learn , as well as kids who do .
So it often de-evolves into baby-sitting more than education .
And that robs the kids of their getting a good education.Obviously not all the time .
I 'm making a generalization , which has many exceptions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...kind of like Slashdot?I don't understand your thinking.
If I wanted to know the answer to a database question, would I ask a teacher or would I ask someone who builds and supports databases as their career?
Then why would you think that a "trained teacher" is the best to ask on any other subject?My father, mother, wife, two cousins, and several friends are all teachers and I can tell you from observation and from their stories that the vast majority of teachers are barely competent enough to recognize the best methodologies to use when teaching, let alone have any mastery of the content they teach on.And it really isn't all their fault.
The problem is that you have such a large and diverse level of competency in your students --- in just one classroom -- and then are told you have to make everyone pass by some criteria.
You have kids that don't really want to be there, and refuse to learn, as well as kids who do.
So it often de-evolves into baby-sitting more than education.
And that robs the kids of their getting a good education.Obviously not all the time.
I'm making a generalization, which has many exceptions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460550</id>
	<title>Re:It was the answer to an important question.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268407800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Just try to imagine Christ at a Tea Party rally, protesting tax dollars spent on the ill and the needy, and then signing up to join the Army the next day.</p></div><p>In no place does Christ endorse forced wealth redistribution. Christian's objections perhaps could be better heard if they were accompanied by a demonstrated, consistent and reliable ability to lay hands on the sick and have them recover.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just try to imagine Christ at a Tea Party rally , protesting tax dollars spent on the ill and the needy , and then signing up to join the Army the next day.In no place does Christ endorse forced wealth redistribution .
Christian 's objections perhaps could be better heard if they were accompanied by a demonstrated , consistent and reliable ability to lay hands on the sick and have them recover .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just try to imagine Christ at a Tea Party rally, protesting tax dollars spent on the ill and the needy, and then signing up to join the Army the next day.In no place does Christ endorse forced wealth redistribution.
Christian's objections perhaps could be better heard if they were accompanied by a demonstrated, consistent and reliable ability to lay hands on the sick and have them recover.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458926</id>
	<title>Give primary sources</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1268398620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>We could really eliminate any bias if we would have schools which would teach from the source materials. Want to learn about communism? Read The Communist Manifesto along with statistics about communist nations. Want to learn about capitalism? Read The Wealth of Nations and read statistics. Want to learn about evolution? Read the Origin of Species along with contemporary news. <br> <br>

The point is, when we give editors power over the source, we end up with bias one way or the other. Rather than having people -tell- us about things, why not read them ourselves?</htmltext>
<tokenext>We could really eliminate any bias if we would have schools which would teach from the source materials .
Want to learn about communism ?
Read The Communist Manifesto along with statistics about communist nations .
Want to learn about capitalism ?
Read The Wealth of Nations and read statistics .
Want to learn about evolution ?
Read the Origin of Species along with contemporary news .
The point is , when we give editors power over the source , we end up with bias one way or the other .
Rather than having people -tell- us about things , why not read them ourselves ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We could really eliminate any bias if we would have schools which would teach from the source materials.
Want to learn about communism?
Read The Communist Manifesto along with statistics about communist nations.
Want to learn about capitalism?
Read The Wealth of Nations and read statistics.
Want to learn about evolution?
Read the Origin of Species along with contemporary news.
The point is, when we give editors power over the source, we end up with bias one way or the other.
Rather than having people -tell- us about things, why not read them ourselves?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458984</id>
	<title>It's always good to comment, but...</title>
	<author>Finsterwald P Ogleth</author>
	<datestamp>1268398860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...sometimes it helps to know the issues on which you are commenting.</p><p>Granted, some of the points may have been distateful, but a majority of them had to do with watering down American history...to the point that history before 1900 was close to being irrelevant.</p><p>* Dropping out the "discovery" of America by Chris Columbus (I know, it's really the "West Indies" on which he landed)<br>* Removing references to "Christmas" as the celebration of Jesus' birth, BUT adding the Hindu holiday of "Diwali"<br>* Citizens of the US no longer...texts would talk of "global citizenry"<br>* Free Enterprise" = BAD ; "Capitalism" = BAD ; BAD = "Imperialism"<br>"Social Justice" = GOOD ; "Political Correctness" = GOOD</p><p>Yeah, many of us may not like all of the changes that were passed, but some of US history may have been salvaged.</p><p>Whatever you may think of the process or the results, our history, and that history of the founders of the US, is just as important as knowing how many provinces and territories make up Canada, or the complete lineage of Queen Elizabeth II, back to Harold himself.   Every country has it's history, and that's important, but not any more important than retaining the history of the U.S.A.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...sometimes it helps to know the issues on which you are commenting.Granted , some of the points may have been distateful , but a majority of them had to do with watering down American history...to the point that history before 1900 was close to being irrelevant .
* Dropping out the " discovery " of America by Chris Columbus ( I know , it 's really the " West Indies " on which he landed ) * Removing references to " Christmas " as the celebration of Jesus ' birth , BUT adding the Hindu holiday of " Diwali " * Citizens of the US no longer...texts would talk of " global citizenry " * Free Enterprise " = BAD ; " Capitalism " = BAD ; BAD = " Imperialism " " Social Justice " = GOOD ; " Political Correctness " = GOODYeah , many of us may not like all of the changes that were passed , but some of US history may have been salvaged.Whatever you may think of the process or the results , our history , and that history of the founders of the US , is just as important as knowing how many provinces and territories make up Canada , or the complete lineage of Queen Elizabeth II , back to Harold himself .
Every country has it 's history , and that 's important , but not any more important than retaining the history of the U.S.A .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...sometimes it helps to know the issues on which you are commenting.Granted, some of the points may have been distateful, but a majority of them had to do with watering down American history...to the point that history before 1900 was close to being irrelevant.
* Dropping out the "discovery" of America by Chris Columbus (I know, it's really the "West Indies" on which he landed)* Removing references to "Christmas" as the celebration of Jesus' birth, BUT adding the Hindu holiday of "Diwali"* Citizens of the US no longer...texts would talk of "global citizenry"* Free Enterprise" = BAD ; "Capitalism" = BAD ; BAD = "Imperialism""Social Justice" = GOOD ; "Political Correctness" = GOODYeah, many of us may not like all of the changes that were passed, but some of US history may have been salvaged.Whatever you may think of the process or the results, our history, and that history of the founders of the US, is just as important as knowing how many provinces and territories make up Canada, or the complete lineage of Queen Elizabeth II, back to Harold himself.
Every country has it's history, and that's important, but not any more important than retaining the history of the U.S.A.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458912</id>
	<title>Re:Why Texas?</title>
	<author>Nimey</author>
	<datestamp>1268398560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's the conservative anti-intellectual thing, I think.  In Texas any uneducated asshole can put in his two cents about educational standards, and he's given equal weight with trained, experienced teachers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the conservative anti-intellectual thing , I think .
In Texas any uneducated asshole can put in his two cents about educational standards , and he 's given equal weight with trained , experienced teachers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the conservative anti-intellectual thing, I think.
In Texas any uneducated asshole can put in his two cents about educational standards, and he's given equal weight with trained, experienced teachers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31475466</id>
	<title>Re:Regarding economics...</title>
	<author>magus\_melchior</author>
	<datestamp>1268566440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't recall Adam Smith, but there was discussion of Keynes and Keynesian economics in AP US History 14 years ago. I don't know if that was taught in the Honors or college prep levels, though.</p><p>And this was in conservative stronghold Orange County, CA. There were <i>students</i> who were conservative activists, who, if they knew enough about Keynes, would surely have objected to him being taught (good thing the teacher was a competitive type and a stickler for the AP test requirements). I'm sure there are a bunch there who love the new Texas standards, unless the percentage of Latinos increased.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't recall Adam Smith , but there was discussion of Keynes and Keynesian economics in AP US History 14 years ago .
I do n't know if that was taught in the Honors or college prep levels , though.And this was in conservative stronghold Orange County , CA .
There were students who were conservative activists , who , if they knew enough about Keynes , would surely have objected to him being taught ( good thing the teacher was a competitive type and a stickler for the AP test requirements ) .
I 'm sure there are a bunch there who love the new Texas standards , unless the percentage of Latinos increased .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't recall Adam Smith, but there was discussion of Keynes and Keynesian economics in AP US History 14 years ago.
I don't know if that was taught in the Honors or college prep levels, though.And this was in conservative stronghold Orange County, CA.
There were students who were conservative activists, who, if they knew enough about Keynes, would surely have objected to him being taught (good thing the teacher was a competitive type and a stickler for the AP test requirements).
I'm sure there are a bunch there who love the new Texas standards, unless the percentage of Latinos increased.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458396</id>
	<title>Republican political philosophies?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268396520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Today, the Texas Board of Education approved 11-4 a social studies curriculum that will put a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks, stressing the role of Christianity in American history and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light."</p><p>I wonder how they show the Republicans ending slavery in the US in a positive light?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Today , the Texas Board of Education approved 11-4 a social studies curriculum that will put a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks , stressing the role of Christianity in American history and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light .
" I wonder how they show the Republicans ending slavery in the US in a positive light ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Today, the Texas Board of Education approved 11-4 a social studies curriculum that will put a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks, stressing the role of Christianity in American history and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light.
"I wonder how they show the Republicans ending slavery in the US in a positive light?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461052</id>
	<title>Re:Why Texas?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268411400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>..and for those non-residents reading along at home, most Hollywood execs (from agents to production houses to studio heads) have political philosophies more in line with rural Kansas or Texas...</p></div><p>Your argument is flawed.</p><p>Hollywood execs must be chosen. They are a chosen people. Chosen from THE chosen people. I mean really, did you think anyone but Jews were in charge of money?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>..and for those non-residents reading along at home , most Hollywood execs ( from agents to production houses to studio heads ) have political philosophies more in line with rural Kansas or Texas...Your argument is flawed.Hollywood execs must be chosen .
They are a chosen people .
Chosen from THE chosen people .
I mean really , did you think anyone but Jews were in charge of money ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..and for those non-residents reading along at home, most Hollywood execs (from agents to production houses to studio heads) have political philosophies more in line with rural Kansas or Texas...Your argument is flawed.Hollywood execs must be chosen.
They are a chosen people.
Chosen from THE chosen people.
I mean really, did you think anyone but Jews were in charge of money?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458630</id>
	<title>Re:Republican political philosophies?</title>
	<author>je ne sais quoi</author>
	<datestamp>1268397420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What's ironic about your statement is that the "conservative stamp" these turkeys approved includes teaching the speeches of Jefferson Davis alongside those of Lincoln, who was a <a href="http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=D000113" title="congress.gov">Democrat</a> [congress.gov].  It just goes to show you that LBJ didn't overestimate when he said "there goes the south for a decade" while passing JFK's civil rights bill.  The realignment was so severe it now threatens to rewrite history, literally.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's ironic about your statement is that the " conservative stamp " these turkeys approved includes teaching the speeches of Jefferson Davis alongside those of Lincoln , who was a Democrat [ congress.gov ] .
It just goes to show you that LBJ did n't overestimate when he said " there goes the south for a decade " while passing JFK 's civil rights bill .
The realignment was so severe it now threatens to rewrite history , literally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's ironic about your statement is that the "conservative stamp" these turkeys approved includes teaching the speeches of Jefferson Davis alongside those of Lincoln, who was a Democrat [congress.gov].
It just goes to show you that LBJ didn't overestimate when he said "there goes the south for a decade" while passing JFK's civil rights bill.
The realignment was so severe it now threatens to rewrite history, literally.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31466166</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone explain please</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1268471340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Country music is much better than the modern clap-trap that people listen to (e.g. Hip-hop, rap, etc)</i></p><p>That is a matter of opinion not fact.</p><p><i>It also had a significant social impact.</i></p><p>And according to those who want to ban rap et al. it leads people to become criminals, treat women as dirt, and so on.</p><p><i>What amazes me about Americans is that they like leaders who start wars</i></p><p>Utter Bullshit!</p><p><i>There is little doubt that Christianity had a large influence on the American politics. The founding fathers wanted a country where there is freedom of religion - not freedom from religion (as the far left portrays it).</i></p><p>Yes Christianity had an influence but the USA was not founded on Judeo-Christian values.  Thomas Jefferson both wrote the Declaration of Independence, which does not contain any reference to a supreme deity, and coined the term "separation of church and state".  Actually many of the Founding Fathers were Deists not Christians.  TJ was one in the sense that he believed Jesus was a great teacher, but not in the sense that Jesus was the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:Son Of God".  As a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism" title="wikipedia.org">Deist</a> [wikipedia.org] himself he believed religion "can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world  alone, without the need for either faith or organized religion. Deists tend to, but do not necessarily, reject the notion that God intervenes in human affairs, for example through miracles and revelations."  That is probably why the school board dropped Thomas Jefferson from the list of people who's writings will not be studied.  They can't have it be taught that a Founding Father thought religion was a private matter and not something that should dictate public policy.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Country music is much better than the modern clap-trap that people listen to ( e.g .
Hip-hop , rap , etc ) That is a matter of opinion not fact.It also had a significant social impact.And according to those who want to ban rap et al .
it leads people to become criminals , treat women as dirt , and so on.What amazes me about Americans is that they like leaders who start warsUtter Bullshit ! There is little doubt that Christianity had a large influence on the American politics .
The founding fathers wanted a country where there is freedom of religion - not freedom from religion ( as the far left portrays it ) .Yes Christianity had an influence but the USA was not founded on Judeo-Christian values .
Thomas Jefferson both wrote the Declaration of Independence , which does not contain any reference to a supreme deity , and coined the term " separation of church and state " .
Actually many of the Founding Fathers were Deists not Christians .
TJ was one in the sense that he believed Jesus was a great teacher , but not in the sense that Jesus was the : Son Of God " .
As a Deist [ wikipedia.org ] himself he believed religion " can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone , without the need for either faith or organized religion .
Deists tend to , but do not necessarily , reject the notion that God intervenes in human affairs , for example through miracles and revelations .
" That is probably why the school board dropped Thomas Jefferson from the list of people who 's writings will not be studied .
They ca n't have it be taught that a Founding Father thought religion was a private matter and not something that should dictate public policy .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Country music is much better than the modern clap-trap that people listen to (e.g.
Hip-hop, rap, etc)That is a matter of opinion not fact.It also had a significant social impact.And according to those who want to ban rap et al.
it leads people to become criminals, treat women as dirt, and so on.What amazes me about Americans is that they like leaders who start warsUtter Bullshit!There is little doubt that Christianity had a large influence on the American politics.
The founding fathers wanted a country where there is freedom of religion - not freedom from religion (as the far left portrays it).Yes Christianity had an influence but the USA was not founded on Judeo-Christian values.
Thomas Jefferson both wrote the Declaration of Independence, which does not contain any reference to a supreme deity, and coined the term "separation of church and state".
Actually many of the Founding Fathers were Deists not Christians.
TJ was one in the sense that he believed Jesus was a great teacher, but not in the sense that Jesus was the :Son Of God".
As a Deist [wikipedia.org] himself he believed religion "can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world  alone, without the need for either faith or organized religion.
Deists tend to, but do not necessarily, reject the notion that God intervenes in human affairs, for example through miracles and revelations.
"  That is probably why the school board dropped Thomas Jefferson from the list of people who's writings will not be studied.
They can't have it be taught that a Founding Father thought religion was a private matter and not something that should dictate public policy.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31487582</id>
	<title>Re:Woah!</title>
	<author>Bobb Sledd</author>
	<datestamp>1268646840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, that isn't fair.</p><p>Yes, there are people and churches who did that.  There are probably people and churches who ARE doing that right now.</p><p>But you're throwing everything together and giving it a disgusting label.</p><p>MY church is a large church in Texas.  No one is extorting anything.  Our budget is open and members can critique, meet, and change it.  In our budget, (other than the salaries), our music/worship team gets exactly $0.  We rely solely on specific donations from individuals for equipment and music.  Those donations have a distinct purpose, and that purpose only.  None of the instrumentalists or singers are paid.  And as I said, we are a large church.</p><p>My church has never told anyone how to vote nor does it get involved in any politics whatsoever.  In fact, we're forbidden by law to do it and you could lose your non-profit status if you do.  The only thing I have ever seen was a 3rd party newspaper in the lobby that listed all the candidates for a governor race, and an objective list for how they were voting on an array of issues (some religiously controversial, some not at all).  And even I think that is pushing it.</p><p>So what does my church do with the money?  First, salaries of church employees (which is published).  Second, pay the light bill.  And the rest goes to missions.</p><p>We fund people in all sorts of capacities to help out humanity, whether it be our homeless ministry, or foreign country ministries.  When we send people to go downtown and distribute coats and blankets to the homeless people under the bridge, or when our youth go to Mexico to paint a church, or send a family to Africa to help build water wells, well I'm sorry but those actions ARE making a real and tangible difference.  And it simply would not get done if we didn't have a corporate church body to collectively fund from.</p><p>I'm not telling you we send our money to another group that then does those things.  I'm saying that we have people in our congregation that individually do all of those things with the money we fund them with, and these are good people I know personally.</p><p>You can dislike those that have done wrong as you stated, if you wish; I'm with you on that.  And I understand how that stuff leaves a rotten taste in your mouth.  But don't associate us with them, simply because they were called Christians also.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , that is n't fair.Yes , there are people and churches who did that .
There are probably people and churches who ARE doing that right now.But you 're throwing everything together and giving it a disgusting label.MY church is a large church in Texas .
No one is extorting anything .
Our budget is open and members can critique , meet , and change it .
In our budget , ( other than the salaries ) , our music/worship team gets exactly $ 0 .
We rely solely on specific donations from individuals for equipment and music .
Those donations have a distinct purpose , and that purpose only .
None of the instrumentalists or singers are paid .
And as I said , we are a large church.My church has never told anyone how to vote nor does it get involved in any politics whatsoever .
In fact , we 're forbidden by law to do it and you could lose your non-profit status if you do .
The only thing I have ever seen was a 3rd party newspaper in the lobby that listed all the candidates for a governor race , and an objective list for how they were voting on an array of issues ( some religiously controversial , some not at all ) .
And even I think that is pushing it.So what does my church do with the money ?
First , salaries of church employees ( which is published ) .
Second , pay the light bill .
And the rest goes to missions.We fund people in all sorts of capacities to help out humanity , whether it be our homeless ministry , or foreign country ministries .
When we send people to go downtown and distribute coats and blankets to the homeless people under the bridge , or when our youth go to Mexico to paint a church , or send a family to Africa to help build water wells , well I 'm sorry but those actions ARE making a real and tangible difference .
And it simply would not get done if we did n't have a corporate church body to collectively fund from.I 'm not telling you we send our money to another group that then does those things .
I 'm saying that we have people in our congregation that individually do all of those things with the money we fund them with , and these are good people I know personally.You can dislike those that have done wrong as you stated , if you wish ; I 'm with you on that .
And I understand how that stuff leaves a rotten taste in your mouth .
But do n't associate us with them , simply because they were called Christians also .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, that isn't fair.Yes, there are people and churches who did that.
There are probably people and churches who ARE doing that right now.But you're throwing everything together and giving it a disgusting label.MY church is a large church in Texas.
No one is extorting anything.
Our budget is open and members can critique, meet, and change it.
In our budget, (other than the salaries), our music/worship team gets exactly $0.
We rely solely on specific donations from individuals for equipment and music.
Those donations have a distinct purpose, and that purpose only.
None of the instrumentalists or singers are paid.
And as I said, we are a large church.My church has never told anyone how to vote nor does it get involved in any politics whatsoever.
In fact, we're forbidden by law to do it and you could lose your non-profit status if you do.
The only thing I have ever seen was a 3rd party newspaper in the lobby that listed all the candidates for a governor race, and an objective list for how they were voting on an array of issues (some religiously controversial, some not at all).
And even I think that is pushing it.So what does my church do with the money?
First, salaries of church employees (which is published).
Second, pay the light bill.
And the rest goes to missions.We fund people in all sorts of capacities to help out humanity, whether it be our homeless ministry, or foreign country ministries.
When we send people to go downtown and distribute coats and blankets to the homeless people under the bridge, or when our youth go to Mexico to paint a church, or send a family to Africa to help build water wells, well I'm sorry but those actions ARE making a real and tangible difference.
And it simply would not get done if we didn't have a corporate church body to collectively fund from.I'm not telling you we send our money to another group that then does those things.
I'm saying that we have people in our congregation that individually do all of those things with the money we fund them with, and these are good people I know personally.You can dislike those that have done wrong as you stated, if you wish; I'm with you on that.
And I understand how that stuff leaves a rotten taste in your mouth.
But don't associate us with them, simply because they were called Christians also.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459094</id>
	<title>The only reason this is an issue...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268399460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only reason this is an issue is because it's *government* school.</p><p>You want government to control aspects of your life... you're going to have to put up with fighting others for what you want. If you support majority rules or representative governments this is what you have to deal with.</p><p>Enjoy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only reason this is an issue is because it 's * government * school.You want government to control aspects of your life... you 're going to have to put up with fighting others for what you want .
If you support majority rules or representative governments this is what you have to deal with.Enjoy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only reason this is an issue is because it's *government* school.You want government to control aspects of your life... you're going to have to put up with fighting others for what you want.
If you support majority rules or representative governments this is what you have to deal with.Enjoy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460598</id>
	<title>Re:Why Texas?</title>
	<author>Courageous</author>
	<datestamp>1268408100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I seriously doubt CA is in a huge financial hole due to Conservatives.</i></p><p>Well. You don't understand our politics very well, then.</p><p>A huge chunk of Calfornia's mandatory spending (more than half, if I am to understand correctly) comes from the Voter Initiative system, which is by direct democracy and cannot be over ruled by the governor or the legislature.</p><p>One of the problems that California faces is that one of its Propositions, Proposition 13, which is famous for freezing property taxes, does a wee bit more than that. It also basically makes raising revenue through alternative mechanisms politically impractical. Prop 13 was the darling of the Right, as you might guess. So yes, conservatives are, in part, to blame for California's financial problems. The rest of it (the spending part) is to be blamed squarely on the voting public, not the politicians.</p><p>C//</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I seriously doubt CA is in a huge financial hole due to Conservatives.Well .
You do n't understand our politics very well , then.A huge chunk of Calfornia 's mandatory spending ( more than half , if I am to understand correctly ) comes from the Voter Initiative system , which is by direct democracy and can not be over ruled by the governor or the legislature.One of the problems that California faces is that one of its Propositions , Proposition 13 , which is famous for freezing property taxes , does a wee bit more than that .
It also basically makes raising revenue through alternative mechanisms politically impractical .
Prop 13 was the darling of the Right , as you might guess .
So yes , conservatives are , in part , to blame for California 's financial problems .
The rest of it ( the spending part ) is to be blamed squarely on the voting public , not the politicians.C//</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I seriously doubt CA is in a huge financial hole due to Conservatives.Well.
You don't understand our politics very well, then.A huge chunk of Calfornia's mandatory spending (more than half, if I am to understand correctly) comes from the Voter Initiative system, which is by direct democracy and cannot be over ruled by the governor or the legislature.One of the problems that California faces is that one of its Propositions, Proposition 13, which is famous for freezing property taxes, does a wee bit more than that.
It also basically makes raising revenue through alternative mechanisms politically impractical.
Prop 13 was the darling of the Right, as you might guess.
So yes, conservatives are, in part, to blame for California's financial problems.
The rest of it (the spending part) is to be blamed squarely on the voting public, not the politicians.C//</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458496</id>
	<title>Metaphorical assassination</title>
	<author>istartedi</author>
	<datestamp>1268396820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another shot from a school book repository.
The real God has an ironic sense of humor, I think.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another shot from a school book repository .
The real God has an ironic sense of humor , I think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another shot from a school book repository.
The real God has an ironic sense of humor, I think.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459102</id>
	<title>Re:Hahahahahah</title>
	<author>Skidborg</author>
	<datestamp>1268399460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hello? Do you know why the Mayflower landed on your shores in the first place?

"Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith and Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the First Colony in the Northern Parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one of another..."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hello ?
Do you know why the Mayflower landed on your shores in the first place ?
" Having undertaken , for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith and Honour of our King and Country , a Voyage to plant the First Colony in the Northern Parts of Virginia , do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one of another... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hello?
Do you know why the Mayflower landed on your shores in the first place?
"Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith and Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the First Colony in the Northern Parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one of another..."</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31467720</id>
	<title>Re:Why Texas?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268482860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a California State Approval for Textbooks, however the textbooks that come out of California are well known to have the most ridiculously liberal bias in the nation. Therefor we turn to Texas, which is balanced out because the school board is dominated by the more liberal-minded thinkers in a conservative state.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a California State Approval for Textbooks , however the textbooks that come out of California are well known to have the most ridiculously liberal bias in the nation .
Therefor we turn to Texas , which is balanced out because the school board is dominated by the more liberal-minded thinkers in a conservative state .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a California State Approval for Textbooks, however the textbooks that come out of California are well known to have the most ridiculously liberal bias in the nation.
Therefor we turn to Texas, which is balanced out because the school board is dominated by the more liberal-minded thinkers in a conservative state.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459048</id>
	<title>Good</title>
	<author>Ice Station Zebra</author>
	<datestamp>1268399220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only thing I learned in school was 1. Trust Science and Math and 2. Most non-science/math text books are full of shit.   If you want to learn history start with Howard Zinn and use the book the school gives you for doodling practice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only thing I learned in school was 1 .
Trust Science and Math and 2 .
Most non-science/math text books are full of shit .
If you want to learn history start with Howard Zinn and use the book the school gives you for doodling practice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only thing I learned in school was 1.
Trust Science and Math and 2.
Most non-science/math text books are full of shit.
If you want to learn history start with Howard Zinn and use the book the school gives you for doodling practice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458740</id>
	<title>Re:Once I was worried.</title>
	<author>ich1</author>
	<datestamp>1268397840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But the kids can't be expected to sit through 12 years of this and not pick up SOME of it....

The reason, in case anyone is too lazy to read the article, that this matters to anyone outside of Texas is that many school districts follow Texas's lead concerning which textbooks to purchase.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But the kids ca n't be expected to sit through 12 years of this and not pick up SOME of it... . The reason , in case anyone is too lazy to read the article , that this matters to anyone outside of Texas is that many school districts follow Texas 's lead concerning which textbooks to purchase .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the kids can't be expected to sit through 12 years of this and not pick up SOME of it....

The reason, in case anyone is too lazy to read the article, that this matters to anyone outside of Texas is that many school districts follow Texas's lead concerning which textbooks to purchase.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458504</id>
	<title>Meh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268396880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The fact that anyone else in the rest of the country gives a damn is an example of how eroded state's rights have become. Why should I care? I don't live in Texas. What if this were another country? Would it be our business? No. It's really not any other state's. Local decisions like this will help or harm them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that anyone else in the rest of the country gives a damn is an example of how eroded state 's rights have become .
Why should I care ?
I do n't live in Texas .
What if this were another country ?
Would it be our business ?
No. It 's really not any other state 's .
Local decisions like this will help or harm them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that anyone else in the rest of the country gives a damn is an example of how eroded state's rights have become.
Why should I care?
I don't live in Texas.
What if this were another country?
Would it be our business?
No. It's really not any other state's.
Local decisions like this will help or harm them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460058</id>
	<title>MC Hawkings is right...</title>
	<author>skinlayers</author>
	<datestamp>1268404380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WHAT WE NEED MORE OF IS SCIENCE!</p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89jt7zJzkNQ" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89jt7zJzkNQ</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WHAT WE NEED MORE OF IS SCIENCE ! http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = 89jt7zJzkNQ [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WHAT WE NEED MORE OF IS SCIENCE!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89jt7zJzkNQ [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31462088</id>
	<title>Re:Woah!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268422500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Atheistic socialists are just as happy to force their values on everyone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Atheistic socialists are just as happy to force their values on everyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Atheistic socialists are just as happy to force their values on everyone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458968</id>
	<title>Thank God</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268398800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least it is better than the rewriting history to appease the liberals. Taking Boone out of the Alamo was just plain stupid on the part of the liberals. What is wrong with leaving history alone and just teaching it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least it is better than the rewriting history to appease the liberals .
Taking Boone out of the Alamo was just plain stupid on the part of the liberals .
What is wrong with leaving history alone and just teaching it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least it is better than the rewriting history to appease the liberals.
Taking Boone out of the Alamo was just plain stupid on the part of the liberals.
What is wrong with leaving history alone and just teaching it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461172</id>
	<title>Re:Why Texas?</title>
	<author>DesScorp</author>
	<datestamp>1268412240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"<b>Clearly you don't live in California. Only outside CA is the political system perceived as Liberal. Those of us who live within the state have learned that there are a few enclaves of urban liberalism, surrounded by by vast areas of rural conservatism rivaling those of Kansas or Texas.</b>"</p><p>True, and yet absolutely meaningless. Kansas doesn't have a San Francisco or Los Angeles. California's population has a much heavier urban concentration than either of those states, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of population.  It doesn't matter if large rural areas in California are conservative when their biggest cities with the bulk of the state's population is leftist. California is a liberal state because California liberals have King Numbers on their side. The conservatives do not.</p><p>Funny you should mention New York, as a NYC area legislator pressed to have the NYC area secede from the rest of the state. They were too conservative for his tastes. And he's right in that if you take NYC away, NY suddenly becomes a purple state that's up for grabs every election.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Clearly you do n't live in California .
Only outside CA is the political system perceived as Liberal .
Those of us who live within the state have learned that there are a few enclaves of urban liberalism , surrounded by by vast areas of rural conservatism rivaling those of Kansas or Texas .
" True , and yet absolutely meaningless .
Kansas does n't have a San Francisco or Los Angeles .
California 's population has a much heavier urban concentration than either of those states , both in absolute terms and as a percentage of population .
It does n't matter if large rural areas in California are conservative when their biggest cities with the bulk of the state 's population is leftist .
California is a liberal state because California liberals have King Numbers on their side .
The conservatives do not.Funny you should mention New York , as a NYC area legislator pressed to have the NYC area secede from the rest of the state .
They were too conservative for his tastes .
And he 's right in that if you take NYC away , NY suddenly becomes a purple state that 's up for grabs every election .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Clearly you don't live in California.
Only outside CA is the political system perceived as Liberal.
Those of us who live within the state have learned that there are a few enclaves of urban liberalism, surrounded by by vast areas of rural conservatism rivaling those of Kansas or Texas.
"True, and yet absolutely meaningless.
Kansas doesn't have a San Francisco or Los Angeles.
California's population has a much heavier urban concentration than either of those states, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of population.
It doesn't matter if large rural areas in California are conservative when their biggest cities with the bulk of the state's population is leftist.
California is a liberal state because California liberals have King Numbers on their side.
The conservatives do not.Funny you should mention New York, as a NYC area legislator pressed to have the NYC area secede from the rest of the state.
They were too conservative for his tastes.
And he's right in that if you take NYC away, NY suddenly becomes a purple state that's up for grabs every election.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458448</id>
	<title>It hurts reading these:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268396700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Crap, might influence more than just Texas:<p><div class="quote"><p>[..] influence beyond Texas because the state is one of the largest purchasers of textbooks.</p></div><p>And our wannabe historians:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>&ldquo;The Enlightenment was not the only philosophy on which these revolutions were based,&rdquo;</p> </div><p>plus</p><p><div class="quote"><p>&ldquo;I reject the notion by the left of a constitutional separation of church and state&rdquo;</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Crap , might influence more than just Texas : [ .. ] influence beyond Texas because the state is one of the largest purchasers of textbooks.And our wannabe historians :    The Enlightenment was not the only philosophy on which these revolutions were based ,    plus    I reject the notion by the left of a constitutional separation of church and state   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Crap, might influence more than just Texas:[..] influence beyond Texas because the state is one of the largest purchasers of textbooks.And our wannabe historians:“The Enlightenment was not the only philosophy on which these revolutions were based,” plus“I reject the notion by the left of a constitutional separation of church and state”
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460532</id>
	<title>Education in the USA</title>
	<author>Maclir</author>
	<datestamp>1268407560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And people  wonder why the standard of education provided in the USA is slipping compared to the rest of the world, and the country is rapidly losing its technology lead.  How long before the USA is a country of Luddites and ignorant bumpkins?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And people wonder why the standard of education provided in the USA is slipping compared to the rest of the world , and the country is rapidly losing its technology lead .
How long before the USA is a country of Luddites and ignorant bumpkins ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And people  wonder why the standard of education provided in the USA is slipping compared to the rest of the world, and the country is rapidly losing its technology lead.
How long before the USA is a country of Luddites and ignorant bumpkins?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458860</id>
	<title>Re:It's about time</title>
	<author>pitchpipe</author>
	<datestamp>1268398320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's about time we got back to good, old-fashioned American, Christian values</p></div><p>Now I know that the Mormons claim that Jesus visited North America after he was "resurrected," but I wasn't aware that they actually converted.  It's like the person that said they only used the King James version of the bible, because if "[Middle English] was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's about time we got back to good , old-fashioned American , Christian valuesNow I know that the Mormons claim that Jesus visited North America after he was " resurrected , " but I was n't aware that they actually converted .
It 's like the person that said they only used the King James version of the bible , because if " [ Middle English ] was good enough for Jesus , it 's good enough for me !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's about time we got back to good, old-fashioned American, Christian valuesNow I know that the Mormons claim that Jesus visited North America after he was "resurrected," but I wasn't aware that they actually converted.
It's like the person that said they only used the King James version of the bible, because if "[Middle English] was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31463058</id>
	<title>Re:Hahahahahah</title>
	<author>hitmark</author>
	<datestamp>1268483820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i could have sworn protestantism is based on luther, not calvin. If you want to talk about calvin, there is a calvinism. A take on christianity that basically made modern banking possible, and considers being rich a sign that god have a place set aside for you in heaven.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i could have sworn protestantism is based on luther , not calvin .
If you want to talk about calvin , there is a calvinism .
A take on christianity that basically made modern banking possible , and considers being rich a sign that god have a place set aside for you in heaven .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i could have sworn protestantism is based on luther, not calvin.
If you want to talk about calvin, there is a calvinism.
A take on christianity that basically made modern banking possible, and considers being rich a sign that god have a place set aside for you in heaven.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458898</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>wealthychef</author>
	<datestamp>1268398500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>I'm not sure how "conservatives" ever became associated with Christian values.</i> </p><p>
Really?  Could it be because they talk about Christianity a lot, and Democrats, not so much?  I'm not saying Christian Republicans are "more Christian" than Christian Democrats,  but obviously Democrats don't talk about Christian values very often.  Republicans do a lot more.  So people with lots of religious concerns tend to be Republicans.  Isn't that obvious?  Which part am I getting wrong? <br>
By the way, "becoming associated" is something that happens in an individual's brain, not in reality.  So the association seems to be one that YOU buy into.  Are you sure most people share that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure how " conservatives " ever became associated with Christian values .
Really ? Could it be because they talk about Christianity a lot , and Democrats , not so much ?
I 'm not saying Christian Republicans are " more Christian " than Christian Democrats , but obviously Democrats do n't talk about Christian values very often .
Republicans do a lot more .
So people with lots of religious concerns tend to be Republicans .
Is n't that obvious ?
Which part am I getting wrong ?
By the way , " becoming associated " is something that happens in an individual 's brain , not in reality .
So the association seems to be one that YOU buy into .
Are you sure most people share that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I'm not sure how "conservatives" ever became associated with Christian values.
Really?  Could it be because they talk about Christianity a lot, and Democrats, not so much?
I'm not saying Christian Republicans are "more Christian" than Christian Democrats,  but obviously Democrats don't talk about Christian values very often.
Republicans do a lot more.
So people with lots of religious concerns tend to be Republicans.
Isn't that obvious?
Which part am I getting wrong?
By the way, "becoming associated" is something that happens in an individual's brain, not in reality.
So the association seems to be one that YOU buy into.
Are you sure most people share that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458724</id>
	<title>Re:Meh</title>
	<author>McBeer</author>
	<datestamp>1268397780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The fact that anyone else in the rest of the country gives a damn is an example of how eroded state's rights have become. Why should I care? I don't live in Texas.</p></div><p>People care because textbook manufacturers try to create copies that appeal to the largest markets possible.  Thus when Texas, a very large market in and of itself, cooks up a crazy curriculum for itself, the textbooks used nationwide get sucked down with it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that anyone else in the rest of the country gives a damn is an example of how eroded state 's rights have become .
Why should I care ?
I do n't live in Texas.People care because textbook manufacturers try to create copies that appeal to the largest markets possible .
Thus when Texas , a very large market in and of itself , cooks up a crazy curriculum for itself , the textbooks used nationwide get sucked down with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that anyone else in the rest of the country gives a damn is an example of how eroded state's rights have become.
Why should I care?
I don't live in Texas.People care because textbook manufacturers try to create copies that appeal to the largest markets possible.
Thus when Texas, a very large market in and of itself, cooks up a crazy curriculum for itself, the textbooks used nationwide get sucked down with it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459130</id>
	<title>Re:Why Texas?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268399520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>California isn't half so liberal as you apparently believe it is. While the legislature is dominated by Democrats, there is a very strong Republican political machine in the state that's able to deadlock the legislative process. They've also elected quite a few governors,  Nixon, Reagan, Wilson. The state school board is rather conservative. Overall, it looks a lot like Washington does now: the Dems, though in the majority, are ineffective. The Republicans are obstructionist. The policies that are implemented are not strongly liberal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>California is n't half so liberal as you apparently believe it is .
While the legislature is dominated by Democrats , there is a very strong Republican political machine in the state that 's able to deadlock the legislative process .
They 've also elected quite a few governors , Nixon , Reagan , Wilson .
The state school board is rather conservative .
Overall , it looks a lot like Washington does now : the Dems , though in the majority , are ineffective .
The Republicans are obstructionist .
The policies that are implemented are not strongly liberal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>California isn't half so liberal as you apparently believe it is.
While the legislature is dominated by Democrats, there is a very strong Republican political machine in the state that's able to deadlock the legislative process.
They've also elected quite a few governors,  Nixon, Reagan, Wilson.
The state school board is rather conservative.
Overall, it looks a lot like Washington does now: the Dems, though in the majority, are ineffective.
The Republicans are obstructionist.
The policies that are implemented are not strongly liberal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459076</id>
	<title>Frankly, who cares about textbooks?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268399400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hear me out on this.</p><p>I would suggest that the contents of a high school government or history textbook are unlikely to guide the development of political ideas within the minds of youths. Most people develop political ideas similar to those around them that they trust -- friends, family.</p><p>Another way political ideas are developed are through personal experiences -- for example, someone in their 30s still paying off the $50,000 in student loans they ran up at age 18-22 may be more likely to support free public higher education or someone that lost their job (and health care) and then discovered cancer may be inclined to support publicly-funded health care. Someone that experienced an IRS audit or witnessed a bungled federal program first-hand may be less likely to support generous support of public institutions.</p><p>In my experience, I have spoken to few people that have reasoned their way to a political view, which would be the process by which such a textbook would impact political leanings. Just a thought...</p><p>I also want to note that high school kids are cynical as hell and are not unwilling to call bullshit on things that don't pass the smell test.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hear me out on this.I would suggest that the contents of a high school government or history textbook are unlikely to guide the development of political ideas within the minds of youths .
Most people develop political ideas similar to those around them that they trust -- friends , family.Another way political ideas are developed are through personal experiences -- for example , someone in their 30s still paying off the $ 50,000 in student loans they ran up at age 18-22 may be more likely to support free public higher education or someone that lost their job ( and health care ) and then discovered cancer may be inclined to support publicly-funded health care .
Someone that experienced an IRS audit or witnessed a bungled federal program first-hand may be less likely to support generous support of public institutions.In my experience , I have spoken to few people that have reasoned their way to a political view , which would be the process by which such a textbook would impact political leanings .
Just a thought...I also want to note that high school kids are cynical as hell and are not unwilling to call bullshit on things that do n't pass the smell test .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hear me out on this.I would suggest that the contents of a high school government or history textbook are unlikely to guide the development of political ideas within the minds of youths.
Most people develop political ideas similar to those around them that they trust -- friends, family.Another way political ideas are developed are through personal experiences -- for example, someone in their 30s still paying off the $50,000 in student loans they ran up at age 18-22 may be more likely to support free public higher education or someone that lost their job (and health care) and then discovered cancer may be inclined to support publicly-funded health care.
Someone that experienced an IRS audit or witnessed a bungled federal program first-hand may be less likely to support generous support of public institutions.In my experience, I have spoken to few people that have reasoned their way to a political view, which would be the process by which such a textbook would impact political leanings.
Just a thought...I also want to note that high school kids are cynical as hell and are not unwilling to call bullshit on things that don't pass the smell test.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459304</id>
	<title>It's the Adjective that matters</title>
	<author>gryf</author>
	<datestamp>1268400240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've yet to see any proposed change that doesn't undo some unnecessary change made in the past twenty years. Was there a hue and cry when the textbook interpretation of the civil rights movement went from being a color blind society to being an ethnically obsessed and divisive movement?
<p>
If someone can point to an article in the NY Times or Washington Post about how CA or some similar state put a <em>liberal</em> stamp on the nation's textbooks, then I'll begin assuming this article might be something more than an idiotic culture war volley.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've yet to see any proposed change that does n't undo some unnecessary change made in the past twenty years .
Was there a hue and cry when the textbook interpretation of the civil rights movement went from being a color blind society to being an ethnically obsessed and divisive movement ?
If someone can point to an article in the NY Times or Washington Post about how CA or some similar state put a liberal stamp on the nation 's textbooks , then I 'll begin assuming this article might be something more than an idiotic culture war volley .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've yet to see any proposed change that doesn't undo some unnecessary change made in the past twenty years.
Was there a hue and cry when the textbook interpretation of the civil rights movement went from being a color blind society to being an ethnically obsessed and divisive movement?
If someone can point to an article in the NY Times or Washington Post about how CA or some similar state put a liberal stamp on the nation's textbooks, then I'll begin assuming this article might be something more than an idiotic culture war volley.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458478</id>
	<title>Orwell Gets it Again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268396820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>FTFA: "They are going overboard, they are not experts, they are not historians," she said. "They are rewriting history, not only of Texas but of the United States and the world."

"Who controls the past, controls the future.
Who controls the present, controls the past."

---- 1984 by George Orwell</htmltext>
<tokenext>FTFA : " They are going overboard , they are not experts , they are not historians , " she said .
" They are rewriting history , not only of Texas but of the United States and the world .
" " Who controls the past , controls the future .
Who controls the present , controls the past .
" ---- 1984 by George Orwell</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTFA: "They are going overboard, they are not experts, they are not historians," she said.
"They are rewriting history, not only of Texas but of the United States and the world.
"

"Who controls the past, controls the future.
Who controls the present, controls the past.
"

---- 1984 by George Orwell</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460990</id>
	<title>Re:Inappropriate Textbooks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268410920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what?  No way.  What was the book?  I don't believe an author would put something like that in there.  (Now, maybe a grad student who work on the book...)<br>That sounds like an urban legend.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what ?
No way .
What was the book ?
I do n't believe an author would put something like that in there .
( Now , maybe a grad student who work on the book... ) That sounds like an urban legend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what?
No way.
What was the book?
I don't believe an author would put something like that in there.
(Now, maybe a grad student who work on the book...)That sounds like an urban legend.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458748</id>
	<title>Re:It's about time</title>
	<author>MightyMartian</author>
	<datestamp>1268397840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, that First Amendment is for atheists and pinko liberals anyways.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , that First Amendment is for atheists and pinko liberals anyways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, that First Amendment is for atheists and pinko liberals anyways.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31469478</id>
	<title>Re:Inappropriate Textbooks</title>
	<author>Eli Gottlieb</author>
	<datestamp>1268498160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Squiggle-UCV?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Squiggle-UCV ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Squiggle-UCV?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461550</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone explain please</title>
	<author>im\_thatoneguy</author>
	<datestamp>1268416260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Both of these characters (while more recent) have actually had very little political impact</p></div><p>Try looking back a couple of decades.  As a candidate Ralph Nader may have been insignificant but his consumer activism and continuing legacy in his foundations is pretty significant.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Both of these characters ( while more recent ) have actually had very little political impactTry looking back a couple of decades .
As a candidate Ralph Nader may have been insignificant but his consumer activism and continuing legacy in his foundations is pretty significant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both of these characters (while more recent) have actually had very little political impactTry looking back a couple of decades.
As a candidate Ralph Nader may have been insignificant but his consumer activism and continuing legacy in his foundations is pretty significant.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461404</id>
	<title>Re:Give primary sources</title>
	<author>rochberg</author>
	<datestamp>1268414340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you serious?  You do understand that all of those subjects have evolved extensively since the publication of those books.  Reading Marx &amp; Engels, Smith, and Darwin gives you a start, but you cannot possibly grasp the nuances of these systems without learning about Lenin, Trotsky, Keynes, Friedman, Mendel, Watson &amp; Crick, etc.</p><p>Yes, editors do have power to introduce bias.  But conscientious editors strive for objectivity.  Furthermore, most textbooks involve some element of peer review where the editors invite colleagues to read and critique the material.</p><p>There simply is <b>too much material</b> on any one of these topics to read all of the original sources ever produced.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you serious ?
You do understand that all of those subjects have evolved extensively since the publication of those books .
Reading Marx &amp; Engels , Smith , and Darwin gives you a start , but you can not possibly grasp the nuances of these systems without learning about Lenin , Trotsky , Keynes , Friedman , Mendel , Watson &amp; Crick , etc.Yes , editors do have power to introduce bias .
But conscientious editors strive for objectivity .
Furthermore , most textbooks involve some element of peer review where the editors invite colleagues to read and critique the material.There simply is too much material on any one of these topics to read all of the original sources ever produced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you serious?
You do understand that all of those subjects have evolved extensively since the publication of those books.
Reading Marx &amp; Engels, Smith, and Darwin gives you a start, but you cannot possibly grasp the nuances of these systems without learning about Lenin, Trotsky, Keynes, Friedman, Mendel, Watson &amp; Crick, etc.Yes, editors do have power to introduce bias.
But conscientious editors strive for objectivity.
Furthermore, most textbooks involve some element of peer review where the editors invite colleagues to read and critique the material.There simply is too much material on any one of these topics to read all of the original sources ever produced.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31475058</id>
	<title>Re:This debate is Ridiculous!</title>
	<author>magus\_melchior</author>
	<datestamp>1268563980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless there's a publisher's rebellion, Texas textbook standards become the United States standards due to sheer size.</p><p>I wish I were joking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless there 's a publisher 's rebellion , Texas textbook standards become the United States standards due to sheer size.I wish I were joking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless there's a publisher's rebellion, Texas textbook standards become the United States standards due to sheer size.I wish I were joking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461392</id>
	<title>Re:It was the answer to an important question.</title>
	<author>DesScorp</author>
	<datestamp>1268414280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"<b> Just try to imagine Christ at a Tea Party rally, protesting tax dollars spent on the ill and the needy, and then signing up to join the Army the next day. The evangelicals have no idea which way is north. They don't even have a coherent set of values left. They are just following orders.<br></b>"</p><p>Funny, conservatives... including religious conservatives... say the same thing about liberals. "<i>They just take orders from their leaders</i>". Not only is that silly, but GOP strategists probably hope that you really believe that, and that you trumpet it loudly. It makes their jobs much easier when its time to try and motivate voters.</p><p>They're not mindless, not in any way. Sounds like you're irked because, if anything, they are more organized and dedicated that you'd like. But if you can't counter their efforts with your own, then that's your problem, not theirs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Just try to imagine Christ at a Tea Party rally , protesting tax dollars spent on the ill and the needy , and then signing up to join the Army the next day .
The evangelicals have no idea which way is north .
They do n't even have a coherent set of values left .
They are just following orders .
" Funny , conservatives... including religious conservatives... say the same thing about liberals .
" They just take orders from their leaders " .
Not only is that silly , but GOP strategists probably hope that you really believe that , and that you trumpet it loudly .
It makes their jobs much easier when its time to try and motivate voters.They 're not mindless , not in any way .
Sounds like you 're irked because , if anything , they are more organized and dedicated that you 'd like .
But if you ca n't counter their efforts with your own , then that 's your problem , not theirs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" Just try to imagine Christ at a Tea Party rally, protesting tax dollars spent on the ill and the needy, and then signing up to join the Army the next day.
The evangelicals have no idea which way is north.
They don't even have a coherent set of values left.
They are just following orders.
"Funny, conservatives... including religious conservatives... say the same thing about liberals.
"They just take orders from their leaders".
Not only is that silly, but GOP strategists probably hope that you really believe that, and that you trumpet it loudly.
It makes their jobs much easier when its time to try and motivate voters.They're not mindless, not in any way.
Sounds like you're irked because, if anything, they are more organized and dedicated that you'd like.
But if you can't counter their efforts with your own, then that's your problem, not theirs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459164</id>
	<title>Republicans are stupid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268399640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And so are all the other political parties.  Is it too much to ask for text books to stick to the facts and not drown kids in their parents stupid political ideologies and long term party strategery?</p><p>Its enough to describe economic philosophy without asserting which ones are better than the others.</p><p>Its enough to describe what happened in history without cherry picking events to highlight a political interpretation.  STICK TO THE FACTS.</p><p>I have friends who think the world is 6000 years old and Jesus was white.  I think their stupid.  The only way to win WRT politics is not to play.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And so are all the other political parties .
Is it too much to ask for text books to stick to the facts and not drown kids in their parents stupid political ideologies and long term party strategery ? Its enough to describe economic philosophy without asserting which ones are better than the others.Its enough to describe what happened in history without cherry picking events to highlight a political interpretation .
STICK TO THE FACTS.I have friends who think the world is 6000 years old and Jesus was white .
I think their stupid .
The only way to win WRT politics is not to play .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And so are all the other political parties.
Is it too much to ask for text books to stick to the facts and not drown kids in their parents stupid political ideologies and long term party strategery?Its enough to describe economic philosophy without asserting which ones are better than the others.Its enough to describe what happened in history without cherry picking events to highlight a political interpretation.
STICK TO THE FACTS.I have friends who think the world is 6000 years old and Jesus was white.
I think their stupid.
The only way to win WRT politics is not to play.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460016</id>
	<title>Re:Give primary sources</title>
	<author>quantaman</author>
	<datestamp>1268404140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Going to have them read Mein Kampf when they learn about Nazism? What about the diaries of Ann Frank?</p><p>My guess is everyone reading Mein Kampf may create some Nazi sympathizers, everyone reading Ann Frank will de-convert some Nazi sympathizers.</p><p>Have them read the Selfish Gene in biology? What about an ID book? Do you really expect them to have the expertise to tell which one is science and which is BS?</p><p>Primary sources work when you have a lot of time to perform a thorough survey and become an expert in the subject. For HS students they only have time to read one, maybe two primary sources, and they don't have the background to evaluate anything complicated.</p><p>It's much much tougher to eliminate bias in your selection of primary sources than it is to write a bias free textbook.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Going to have them read Mein Kampf when they learn about Nazism ?
What about the diaries of Ann Frank ? My guess is everyone reading Mein Kampf may create some Nazi sympathizers , everyone reading Ann Frank will de-convert some Nazi sympathizers.Have them read the Selfish Gene in biology ?
What about an ID book ?
Do you really expect them to have the expertise to tell which one is science and which is BS ? Primary sources work when you have a lot of time to perform a thorough survey and become an expert in the subject .
For HS students they only have time to read one , maybe two primary sources , and they do n't have the background to evaluate anything complicated.It 's much much tougher to eliminate bias in your selection of primary sources than it is to write a bias free textbook .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Going to have them read Mein Kampf when they learn about Nazism?
What about the diaries of Ann Frank?My guess is everyone reading Mein Kampf may create some Nazi sympathizers, everyone reading Ann Frank will de-convert some Nazi sympathizers.Have them read the Selfish Gene in biology?
What about an ID book?
Do you really expect them to have the expertise to tell which one is science and which is BS?Primary sources work when you have a lot of time to perform a thorough survey and become an expert in the subject.
For HS students they only have time to read one, maybe two primary sources, and they don't have the background to evaluate anything complicated.It's much much tougher to eliminate bias in your selection of primary sources than it is to write a bias free textbook.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31466598</id>
	<title>Re:"I reject notion of separation of church and st</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1268474280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Generally this is interpreted as meaning you are free to practice the religion of your choice, but the government cannot coerce you into practicing any specific religion. Have atheists taken this too far in arguing against prayer or any kind of religious symbols in school? Yes.</i></p><p>Allowing prayer in school is forcing religion on students in one way or another.  In elementary school I went to a public, not private church rule, school and I had a wooden ruler forcibly applied to my hands when I refused to pray in school.  The same for "under God".  Heck I even knew Christians who refused to say it, to them it was taking God's name in vain.  I also saw others who could not handle the peer pressure of others to pray in school.  If you want to allow a moment of silence that's fine with me but no led prayers.</p><p><i>Have atheists taken this too far in arguing against prayer or any kind of religious symbols in school? Yes.</i></p><p>Would those same Christians who want to take religious symbols to school and have prayer allow Muslims their prayer?  Or a Wiccan take their pentagram and pray?</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Generally this is interpreted as meaning you are free to practice the religion of your choice , but the government can not coerce you into practicing any specific religion .
Have atheists taken this too far in arguing against prayer or any kind of religious symbols in school ?
Yes.Allowing prayer in school is forcing religion on students in one way or another .
In elementary school I went to a public , not private church rule , school and I had a wooden ruler forcibly applied to my hands when I refused to pray in school .
The same for " under God " .
Heck I even knew Christians who refused to say it , to them it was taking God 's name in vain .
I also saw others who could not handle the peer pressure of others to pray in school .
If you want to allow a moment of silence that 's fine with me but no led prayers.Have atheists taken this too far in arguing against prayer or any kind of religious symbols in school ?
Yes.Would those same Christians who want to take religious symbols to school and have prayer allow Muslims their prayer ?
Or a Wiccan take their pentagram and pray ?
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Generally this is interpreted as meaning you are free to practice the religion of your choice, but the government cannot coerce you into practicing any specific religion.
Have atheists taken this too far in arguing against prayer or any kind of religious symbols in school?
Yes.Allowing prayer in school is forcing religion on students in one way or another.
In elementary school I went to a public, not private church rule, school and I had a wooden ruler forcibly applied to my hands when I refused to pray in school.
The same for "under God".
Heck I even knew Christians who refused to say it, to them it was taking God's name in vain.
I also saw others who could not handle the peer pressure of others to pray in school.
If you want to allow a moment of silence that's fine with me but no led prayers.Have atheists taken this too far in arguing against prayer or any kind of religious symbols in school?
Yes.Would those same Christians who want to take religious symbols to school and have prayer allow Muslims their prayer?
Or a Wiccan take their pentagram and pray?
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458556</id>
	<title>Hah!</title>
	<author>Black Parrot</author>
	<datestamp>1268397120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Take that, O reality with your liberal bias!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Take that , O reality with your liberal bias !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take that, O reality with your liberal bias!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31463066</id>
	<title>Re:It was the answer to an important question.</title>
	<author>tiqui</author>
	<datestamp>1268483940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your entire post is drivel</p><p>First, the Willie Horton attack originated in the primary,  and was launched by Democrat Al Gore, who lacked the guts to use Horton's name...he attacked the Dukakis program for which "Willie" was the ideal "poster child". When the TV ad naming Horton ran, it was aired by an independent group and all the left-wing protests aside, that level of insulation is the same as the insulation between many Democrat campaigns and many liberal groups</p><p>Secondly, most non-black churches in the USA are terrified of bringing-up politics. Approx 20 years ago when an abortion issue was hot a bunch of churches allowed outside "pro-life" groups to hand-out flyers in the parking lots listing candidate positions on abortion No rallies, no speeches, nothing inside the churches... just permission for an outside group to hand-out papers, and as a result liberals attacked with lawsuits and complaints to the federal government and churches had their tax-exempt status threatened. As a result, you do not find politics from the pulpit in white churches. Black churches get more of a pass because no Republicans have the guts to threaten them with legal action and Democrats take advantage of that and openly campaign and collect money there. The so-called evangelical vote in the USA does not vote in such a predictable way because a bunch of preachers are telling them who to vote for... they vote the way they do for the same reason other blocks vote in the ways that they do: groups with common beliefs and values will tend to make similar choices</p><p>Did you miss the part where a follower of Jesus complains to him that a woman has wasted resources on Jesus that could have been spent on the poor... and Jesus replies that the woman has done the right thing and that the poor will be with us always? Yeah... all those who worship the poor and use the poor as justification for bizarre robin hood schemes seem to miss that one... just a coincidence I'm sure.</p><p>You also hit another note that frustrates the extreme left... the idea that conservative voters are SO DUMB they get talked into voting against their own interests! {GASP!} The simple fact is that SOME people value certain things more than money... Social conservatives will often vote for something because it is the right thing even though voting the other way would benefit them financially. This is NOT dumb, it is admirable, and it's not because they are programmed robots but rather because they have thought about things on more than just a simple money level. Those evangelical you disdain so freely have the most-consistent set of principled positions of any voting block in the country, and they do not shift their positions with the shifting winds because the positions are anchored in principles.</p><p>Your post makes as much sense as I would make if I said that people who believe in evolution are all a bunch of mindless morons who believe anything Stephan Jay Gould told them to believe. Dumb and simplistic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your entire post is drivelFirst , the Willie Horton attack originated in the primary , and was launched by Democrat Al Gore , who lacked the guts to use Horton 's name...he attacked the Dukakis program for which " Willie " was the ideal " poster child " .
When the TV ad naming Horton ran , it was aired by an independent group and all the left-wing protests aside , that level of insulation is the same as the insulation between many Democrat campaigns and many liberal groupsSecondly , most non-black churches in the USA are terrified of bringing-up politics .
Approx 20 years ago when an abortion issue was hot a bunch of churches allowed outside " pro-life " groups to hand-out flyers in the parking lots listing candidate positions on abortion No rallies , no speeches , nothing inside the churches... just permission for an outside group to hand-out papers , and as a result liberals attacked with lawsuits and complaints to the federal government and churches had their tax-exempt status threatened .
As a result , you do not find politics from the pulpit in white churches .
Black churches get more of a pass because no Republicans have the guts to threaten them with legal action and Democrats take advantage of that and openly campaign and collect money there .
The so-called evangelical vote in the USA does not vote in such a predictable way because a bunch of preachers are telling them who to vote for... they vote the way they do for the same reason other blocks vote in the ways that they do : groups with common beliefs and values will tend to make similar choicesDid you miss the part where a follower of Jesus complains to him that a woman has wasted resources on Jesus that could have been spent on the poor... and Jesus replies that the woman has done the right thing and that the poor will be with us always ?
Yeah... all those who worship the poor and use the poor as justification for bizarre robin hood schemes seem to miss that one... just a coincidence I 'm sure.You also hit another note that frustrates the extreme left... the idea that conservative voters are SO DUMB they get talked into voting against their own interests !
{ GASP ! } The simple fact is that SOME people value certain things more than money... Social conservatives will often vote for something because it is the right thing even though voting the other way would benefit them financially .
This is NOT dumb , it is admirable , and it 's not because they are programmed robots but rather because they have thought about things on more than just a simple money level .
Those evangelical you disdain so freely have the most-consistent set of principled positions of any voting block in the country , and they do not shift their positions with the shifting winds because the positions are anchored in principles.Your post makes as much sense as I would make if I said that people who believe in evolution are all a bunch of mindless morons who believe anything Stephan Jay Gould told them to believe .
Dumb and simplistic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your entire post is drivelFirst, the Willie Horton attack originated in the primary,  and was launched by Democrat Al Gore, who lacked the guts to use Horton's name...he attacked the Dukakis program for which "Willie" was the ideal "poster child".
When the TV ad naming Horton ran, it was aired by an independent group and all the left-wing protests aside, that level of insulation is the same as the insulation between many Democrat campaigns and many liberal groupsSecondly, most non-black churches in the USA are terrified of bringing-up politics.
Approx 20 years ago when an abortion issue was hot a bunch of churches allowed outside "pro-life" groups to hand-out flyers in the parking lots listing candidate positions on abortion No rallies, no speeches, nothing inside the churches... just permission for an outside group to hand-out papers, and as a result liberals attacked with lawsuits and complaints to the federal government and churches had their tax-exempt status threatened.
As a result, you do not find politics from the pulpit in white churches.
Black churches get more of a pass because no Republicans have the guts to threaten them with legal action and Democrats take advantage of that and openly campaign and collect money there.
The so-called evangelical vote in the USA does not vote in such a predictable way because a bunch of preachers are telling them who to vote for... they vote the way they do for the same reason other blocks vote in the ways that they do: groups with common beliefs and values will tend to make similar choicesDid you miss the part where a follower of Jesus complains to him that a woman has wasted resources on Jesus that could have been spent on the poor... and Jesus replies that the woman has done the right thing and that the poor will be with us always?
Yeah... all those who worship the poor and use the poor as justification for bizarre robin hood schemes seem to miss that one... just a coincidence I'm sure.You also hit another note that frustrates the extreme left... the idea that conservative voters are SO DUMB they get talked into voting against their own interests!
{GASP!} The simple fact is that SOME people value certain things more than money... Social conservatives will often vote for something because it is the right thing even though voting the other way would benefit them financially.
This is NOT dumb, it is admirable, and it's not because they are programmed robots but rather because they have thought about things on more than just a simple money level.
Those evangelical you disdain so freely have the most-consistent set of principled positions of any voting block in the country, and they do not shift their positions with the shifting winds because the positions are anchored in principles.Your post makes as much sense as I would make if I said that people who believe in evolution are all a bunch of mindless morons who believe anything Stephan Jay Gould told them to believe.
Dumb and simplistic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460242</id>
	<title>Re:It was the answer to an important question.</title>
	<author>ajlisows</author>
	<datestamp>1268405580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>George H.W. Bush "barely won" against Dukakis? That is a dubious statement at best.  He tallied 8\% more of the popular vote (over 7 Million votes), carried 40 states to Dukakis' 11 (with DC), and tallied 426 electoral votes to Dukakis' 111.  Now, this wasn't a Reagan vs. Mondale class drubbing, but that is a pretty sound defeat.  No president after him (5 elections) has reached his percentage of popular votes...although the Clinton elections are skewed by the Ross Perot numbers.</p><p>In the 4 elections I have been old enough for, I did note vote for a Republican President once.  I am not trying to trump up George H.W. Bush.  But seriously, lets not skew facts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>George H.W .
Bush " barely won " against Dukakis ?
That is a dubious statement at best .
He tallied 8 \ % more of the popular vote ( over 7 Million votes ) , carried 40 states to Dukakis ' 11 ( with DC ) , and tallied 426 electoral votes to Dukakis ' 111 .
Now , this was n't a Reagan vs. Mondale class drubbing , but that is a pretty sound defeat .
No president after him ( 5 elections ) has reached his percentage of popular votes...although the Clinton elections are skewed by the Ross Perot numbers.In the 4 elections I have been old enough for , I did note vote for a Republican President once .
I am not trying to trump up George H.W .
Bush. But seriously , lets not skew facts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>George H.W.
Bush "barely won" against Dukakis?
That is a dubious statement at best.
He tallied 8\% more of the popular vote (over 7 Million votes), carried 40 states to Dukakis' 11 (with DC), and tallied 426 electoral votes to Dukakis' 111.
Now, this wasn't a Reagan vs. Mondale class drubbing, but that is a pretty sound defeat.
No president after him (5 elections) has reached his percentage of popular votes...although the Clinton elections are skewed by the Ross Perot numbers.In the 4 elections I have been old enough for, I did note vote for a Republican President once.
I am not trying to trump up George H.W.
Bush.  But seriously, lets not skew facts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460084</id>
	<title>"I reject notion of separation of church and st</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268404620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.</p><p>The key word here is "respecting".  They cannot make a law that RESPECTS an establishment of religion.  Some people try and claim that the Constitution prohibits the ESTABLISHMENT of a religion, but that is obviously not the case.</p></div><p>The word 'respecting' as used in the above context of the US Constitution means 'considering' or 'in view of.' Consider, "Congress shall make no law <b>considering</b> an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" and "Congress shall make no law <b>in view of</b> an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This is quite different than your interpretation of the word 'respect.'</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion , or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.The key word here is " respecting " .
They can not make a law that RESPECTS an establishment of religion .
Some people try and claim that the Constitution prohibits the ESTABLISHMENT of a religion , but that is obviously not the case.The word 'respecting ' as used in the above context of the US Constitution means 'considering ' or 'in view of .
' Consider , " Congress shall make no law considering an establishment of religion , or prohibiting the free exercise thereof " and " Congress shall make no law in view of an establishment of religion , or prohibiting the free exercise thereof .
" This is quite different than your interpretation of the word 'respect .
'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.The key word here is "respecting".
They cannot make a law that RESPECTS an establishment of religion.
Some people try and claim that the Constitution prohibits the ESTABLISHMENT of a religion, but that is obviously not the case.The word 'respecting' as used in the above context of the US Constitution means 'considering' or 'in view of.
' Consider, "Congress shall make no law considering an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" and "Congress shall make no law in view of an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
" This is quite different than your interpretation of the word 'respect.
'
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31466414</id>
	<title>Re:It was the answer to an important question.</title>
	<author>gillbates</author>
	<datestamp>1268472900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Jesus Christ at a Tea Party?
</p><p>
As if it wasn't already strange enough.  I'm thinking there's a chance He'd berate the Left for striving to give *someone else's* money to the poor, rather than their own (ever hear the story of the Widow's mite?), and doing a bad job at that (for every dollar spent on social programs, the recipient only receives a quarter's worth of aid).
</p><p>
Not to belabor the point, but the difference between Conservatives and Liberals is not so much in their attitude toward the poor, but rather, the manner in which it is done.  The Conservative position - relying on individual responsibility - holds *every* citizen responsible for the plight of the less fortunate.  It is centered around personal charity, which has the added benefit of uniting diverse racial, socioeconomic, and ethnic groups, and building stronger communities.  The Liberal position - that the poor are the responsibility of the Government - removes personal responsibility and charity from the individual, and instead results in a class of people dependent upon their government, rather than each other.  Furthermore, the increased taxation necessary to support such programs often leaves citizens without the means of supporting their fellow Americans, only further deepening the divide along racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic boundaries.
</p><p>
The problem, though, is that most Republicans are no longer Conservative, and cannot articulate how lower taxes help America.  Instead, they seem to be fascinated with stirring up hatred toward the Left, rather than building a vision for a better tomorrow.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jesus Christ at a Tea Party ?
As if it was n't already strange enough .
I 'm thinking there 's a chance He 'd berate the Left for striving to give * someone else 's * money to the poor , rather than their own ( ever hear the story of the Widow 's mite ?
) , and doing a bad job at that ( for every dollar spent on social programs , the recipient only receives a quarter 's worth of aid ) .
Not to belabor the point , but the difference between Conservatives and Liberals is not so much in their attitude toward the poor , but rather , the manner in which it is done .
The Conservative position - relying on individual responsibility - holds * every * citizen responsible for the plight of the less fortunate .
It is centered around personal charity , which has the added benefit of uniting diverse racial , socioeconomic , and ethnic groups , and building stronger communities .
The Liberal position - that the poor are the responsibility of the Government - removes personal responsibility and charity from the individual , and instead results in a class of people dependent upon their government , rather than each other .
Furthermore , the increased taxation necessary to support such programs often leaves citizens without the means of supporting their fellow Americans , only further deepening the divide along racial , ethnic , and socioeconomic boundaries .
The problem , though , is that most Republicans are no longer Conservative , and can not articulate how lower taxes help America .
Instead , they seem to be fascinated with stirring up hatred toward the Left , rather than building a vision for a better tomorrow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Jesus Christ at a Tea Party?
As if it wasn't already strange enough.
I'm thinking there's a chance He'd berate the Left for striving to give *someone else's* money to the poor, rather than their own (ever hear the story of the Widow's mite?
), and doing a bad job at that (for every dollar spent on social programs, the recipient only receives a quarter's worth of aid).
Not to belabor the point, but the difference between Conservatives and Liberals is not so much in their attitude toward the poor, but rather, the manner in which it is done.
The Conservative position - relying on individual responsibility - holds *every* citizen responsible for the plight of the less fortunate.
It is centered around personal charity, which has the added benefit of uniting diverse racial, socioeconomic, and ethnic groups, and building stronger communities.
The Liberal position - that the poor are the responsibility of the Government - removes personal responsibility and charity from the individual, and instead results in a class of people dependent upon their government, rather than each other.
Furthermore, the increased taxation necessary to support such programs often leaves citizens without the means of supporting their fellow Americans, only further deepening the divide along racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic boundaries.
The problem, though, is that most Republicans are no longer Conservative, and cannot articulate how lower taxes help America.
Instead, they seem to be fascinated with stirring up hatred toward the Left, rather than building a vision for a better tomorrow.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459916</id>
	<title>Re:Woah!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268403240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I dislike them because:</p><p>For all their vaunted Christian morals and breastbeating on the importance of marriage, they have a <a href="http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/137829/evangelicals\_why\_do\_we\_have\_the\_highest.html" title="associatedcontent.com">higher divorce rate than the national average</a> [associatedcontent.com], and even 50\% higher than the atheists and agnostics they despise.</p><p>After they fail and ask God for forgiveness, they go right back to the hookers with whom they got caught (c.f., Jimmy Swaggart).</p><p>They embezzle millions from their mega-churches, which makes me think they're in it for the money more than the God (c.f., Jim Baker).</p><p>They extort millions from their followers by claiming God will kill them if the sheep don't pay up (c.f., Oral Roberts).</p><p>They spend their Christian lives doing everything they can to make homosexuals suffer, only to get busted offering to pay guys at truck stops to receive blowjobs from them (c.f., Bob Allen), or tapping their foot in an airport restroom (c.f., Larry Craig), or using their ministry's travel budget to fund methamphetamine and gay sex party weekends (c.f., Ted Haggard).</p><p>In other words, I dislike them because they're hypocrites who claim they're better than everyone else when in fact, they're usually worse, but they're very happy to try to force their morals on me through laws and textbooks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dislike them because : For all their vaunted Christian morals and breastbeating on the importance of marriage , they have a higher divorce rate than the national average [ associatedcontent.com ] , and even 50 \ % higher than the atheists and agnostics they despise.After they fail and ask God for forgiveness , they go right back to the hookers with whom they got caught ( c.f. , Jimmy Swaggart ) .They embezzle millions from their mega-churches , which makes me think they 're in it for the money more than the God ( c.f. , Jim Baker ) .They extort millions from their followers by claiming God will kill them if the sheep do n't pay up ( c.f. , Oral Roberts ) .They spend their Christian lives doing everything they can to make homosexuals suffer , only to get busted offering to pay guys at truck stops to receive blowjobs from them ( c.f. , Bob Allen ) , or tapping their foot in an airport restroom ( c.f. , Larry Craig ) , or using their ministry 's travel budget to fund methamphetamine and gay sex party weekends ( c.f. , Ted Haggard ) .In other words , I dislike them because they 're hypocrites who claim they 're better than everyone else when in fact , they 're usually worse , but they 're very happy to try to force their morals on me through laws and textbooks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dislike them because:For all their vaunted Christian morals and breastbeating on the importance of marriage, they have a higher divorce rate than the national average [associatedcontent.com], and even 50\% higher than the atheists and agnostics they despise.After they fail and ask God for forgiveness, they go right back to the hookers with whom they got caught (c.f., Jimmy Swaggart).They embezzle millions from their mega-churches, which makes me think they're in it for the money more than the God (c.f., Jim Baker).They extort millions from their followers by claiming God will kill them if the sheep don't pay up (c.f., Oral Roberts).They spend their Christian lives doing everything they can to make homosexuals suffer, only to get busted offering to pay guys at truck stops to receive blowjobs from them (c.f., Bob Allen), or tapping their foot in an airport restroom (c.f., Larry Craig), or using their ministry's travel budget to fund methamphetamine and gay sex party weekends (c.f., Ted Haggard).In other words, I dislike them because they're hypocrites who claim they're better than everyone else when in fact, they're usually worse, but they're very happy to try to force their morals on me through laws and textbooks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460266</id>
	<title>Re:"I reject notion of separation of church and st</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268405700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It is clear what the founders meant in their papers and notes, as well.</p></div><p>But their papers and notes are not in the Constitution and thus superceded by the debatable wording of the Constitution itself.</p><p>For more tortured constitutional phrasing see:<br>"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;"<br>With the positioning of the commas in that sentence it says that you had to be alive at the time the Constutitution was adopted (circa 1787) in order to be eligible to be president.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is clear what the founders meant in their papers and notes , as well.But their papers and notes are not in the Constitution and thus superceded by the debatable wording of the Constitution itself.For more tortured constitutional phrasing see : " No person except a natural born Citizen , or a Citizen of the United States , at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution , shall be eligible to the Office of President ; " With the positioning of the commas in that sentence it says that you had to be alive at the time the Constutitution was adopted ( circa 1787 ) in order to be eligible to be president .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is clear what the founders meant in their papers and notes, as well.But their papers and notes are not in the Constitution and thus superceded by the debatable wording of the Constitution itself.For more tortured constitutional phrasing see:"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;"With the positioning of the commas in that sentence it says that you had to be alive at the time the Constutitution was adopted (circa 1787) in order to be eligible to be president.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460322</id>
	<title>They have no idea....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268405940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>At first blush, this seemed like it was going to something terrible for the children. Then I thought about it a moment and realized that the students they intend to indoctrinate with christian-biased books are most likely going to be using the internet to assist their assignment research<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....good luck with that Texas!
<br>
<br>
-Oz</htmltext>
<tokenext>At first blush , this seemed like it was going to something terrible for the children .
Then I thought about it a moment and realized that the students they intend to indoctrinate with christian-biased books are most likely going to be using the internet to assist their assignment research ....good luck with that Texas !
-Oz</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At first blush, this seemed like it was going to something terrible for the children.
Then I thought about it a moment and realized that the students they intend to indoctrinate with christian-biased books are most likely going to be using the internet to assist their assignment research ....good luck with that Texas!
-Oz</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459410</id>
	<title>Religion in the Classroom</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268400600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein both believed in God.<br>The rest of you should stay busy with your engineering projects!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein both believed in God.The rest of you should stay busy with your engineering projects ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein both believed in God.The rest of you should stay busy with your engineering projects!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459492</id>
	<title>Great, keep up the good work!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268401020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The rest of the world loves it when the US shoots itself in Texas, er, the ass, I mean foot.</p><p>Another lost generation of Red Necks?  You Betcha!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;^)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The rest of the world loves it when the US shoots itself in Texas , er , the ass , I mean foot.Another lost generation of Red Necks ?
You Betcha !
; ^ )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The rest of the world loves it when the US shoots itself in Texas, er, the ass, I mean foot.Another lost generation of Red Necks?
You Betcha!
;^)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460240</id>
	<title>Best not complain about it</title>
	<author>presidenteloco</author>
	<datestamp>1268405520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>or it'll be our goddamned god-given right to shoot you full of holes and pump the oil out of you, boy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>or it 'll be our goddamned god-given right to shoot you full of holes and pump the oil out of you , boy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or it'll be our goddamned god-given right to shoot you full of holes and pump the oil out of you, boy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458922</id>
	<title>Re:It's about time</title>
	<author>Zen Hash</author>
	<datestamp>1268398620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The left-wing cooks have been trying to spread their socialism and atheism through schools for a long time. It's about time we got back to good, old-fashioned American, Christian values</p></div><p>Wow, and all of this time I thought the idea behind cheap school lunches was simply to ensure that all of the students were fed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The left-wing cooks have been trying to spread their socialism and atheism through schools for a long time .
It 's about time we got back to good , old-fashioned American , Christian valuesWow , and all of this time I thought the idea behind cheap school lunches was simply to ensure that all of the students were fed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The left-wing cooks have been trying to spread their socialism and atheism through schools for a long time.
It's about time we got back to good, old-fashioned American, Christian valuesWow, and all of this time I thought the idea behind cheap school lunches was simply to ensure that all of the students were fed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461410</id>
	<title>Re:Woah!</title>
	<author>DigiShaman</author>
	<datestamp>1268414460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see how it is. Don't set yourself up for a fall, and all will be forgiven. In other words, in your view we shouldn't even *try* to live a christian life! Never mind the fact most (more than 50\%) don't have the fortitude and perseverance to do so. Riiighhhtt..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see how it is .
Do n't set yourself up for a fall , and all will be forgiven .
In other words , in your view we should n't even * try * to live a christian life !
Never mind the fact most ( more than 50 \ % ) do n't have the fortitude and perseverance to do so .
Riiighhhtt. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see how it is.
Don't set yourself up for a fall, and all will be forgiven.
In other words, in your view we shouldn't even *try* to live a christian life!
Never mind the fact most (more than 50\%) don't have the fortitude and perseverance to do so.
Riiighhhtt..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460342</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone explain please</title>
	<author>e9th</author>
	<datestamp>1268406000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do you believe that the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John\_D.\_Barry" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">officer</a> [wikipedia.org] who ordered his troops to fire on Jackson's party knew who they were?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you believe that the officer [ wikipedia.org ] who ordered his troops to fire on Jackson 's party knew who they were ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you believe that the officer [wikipedia.org] who ordered his troops to fire on Jackson's party knew who they were?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459502</id>
	<title>Re:"I reject notion of separation of church and st</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268401020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It says:<br>
<br>
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof<br>
<br>
The key word here is "respecting".  They cannot make a law that RESPECTS an establishment of religion.  Some people try and claim that the Constitution prohibits the ESTABLISHMENT of a religion, but that is obviously not the case.  To understand why, simply change the first part of the sentence to something like:<br>
<br>
Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof<br>
<br>
Notice now that what this sentence prohibits the establishment of a state religion AND laws that prohibit the free exercise of state religions.... but that doesn't make sense, because why would you make sure that people have free exercise of a religion that can't exist because of the first statement?<br>
<br>
It is clear what the founders meant in their papers and notes, as well.  The first amendment establishes a clear and complete separation between church and state, for the mutual benefit of both.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It says : Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion , or prohibiting the free exercise thereof The key word here is " respecting " .
They can not make a law that RESPECTS an establishment of religion .
Some people try and claim that the Constitution prohibits the ESTABLISHMENT of a religion , but that is obviously not the case .
To understand why , simply change the first part of the sentence to something like : Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion , or prohibiting the free exercise thereof Notice now that what this sentence prohibits the establishment of a state religion AND laws that prohibit the free exercise of state religions.... but that does n't make sense , because why would you make sure that people have free exercise of a religion that ca n't exist because of the first statement ?
It is clear what the founders meant in their papers and notes , as well .
The first amendment establishes a clear and complete separation between church and state , for the mutual benefit of both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

The key word here is "respecting".
They cannot make a law that RESPECTS an establishment of religion.
Some people try and claim that the Constitution prohibits the ESTABLISHMENT of a religion, but that is obviously not the case.
To understand why, simply change the first part of the sentence to something like:

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Notice now that what this sentence prohibits the establishment of a state religion AND laws that prohibit the free exercise of state religions.... but that doesn't make sense, because why would you make sure that people have free exercise of a religion that can't exist because of the first statement?
It is clear what the founders meant in their papers and notes, as well.
The first amendment establishes a clear and complete separation between church and state, for the mutual benefit of both.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458946</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone explain please</title>
	<author>Bemopolis</author>
	<datestamp>1268398680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>...Stonewall Jackson, the Confederate general, is to be listed as a role model for effective leadership.</p></div></blockquote><p>
They get 100 percent support from me to follow that example, seeing how Jackson was shot and killed by his own troops.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...Stonewall Jackson , the Confederate general , is to be listed as a role model for effective leadership .
They get 100 percent support from me to follow that example , seeing how Jackson was shot and killed by his own troops .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...Stonewall Jackson, the Confederate general, is to be listed as a role model for effective leadership.
They get 100 percent support from me to follow that example, seeing how Jackson was shot and killed by his own troops.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459196</id>
	<title>Re:"I reject notion of separation of church and st</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268399760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mr Bradley was kind enough to provide contact information so we can inform him of his and his fellow American's first amendment rights. I just sent him an email with the First as the body...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-P</p><p>David Bradley (R)<br>2165 North Street<br>Beaumont, TX 77701<br>(409) 835-3808<br>sboesupport@tea.state.tx.us</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mr Bradley was kind enough to provide contact information so we can inform him of his and his fellow American 's first amendment rights .
I just sent him an email with the First as the body... : -PDavid Bradley ( R ) 2165 North StreetBeaumont , TX 77701 ( 409 ) 835-3808sboesupport @ tea.state.tx.us</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mr Bradley was kind enough to provide contact information so we can inform him of his and his fellow American's first amendment rights.
I just sent him an email with the First as the body... :-PDavid Bradley (R)2165 North StreetBeaumont, TX 77701(409) 835-3808sboesupport@tea.state.tx.us</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461832</id>
	<title>Re:Why Texas?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268419320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was able to contract in San Jose for a few months last year. (My permanent residence was in NC.)</p><p>I found that the people that I met between San Jose and SF were not as "liberal" as I would have imagined. Though some those who are liberal are screaamingly so. I also noticed that Raleigh is more "progressive" in matters such as recycling, land development and environmental issues-- at least that's how it appeared. (Action vs. talk anyway.)</p><p>California is a very beautiful state.... And I am happy to have spent some time there. I had a great time.</p><p>On the other hand, I met quite a few people who, once they knew I lived in "The South" openly assumed I was an illiterate small-town hick. "This must be quite a culture shock for you, coming from NC" was pretty common. It was *very* obvious that some people from the bay area in particular think that they are on the leading edge in all fronts. And while the bay area is known for being progressive leaders, they really are not that far ahead.</p><p>(Interestingly, nobody noticed that I do not have a Southern accent. I am not *from* the South; I just lived there at the time.)</p><p>On the negative side: I was pretty disappointed with the arrogance of some of my associates; they seemd to have low expectations of me and of all things outside of northern California. Even casual debate quickly led to shallow "Bay-Area progressive opinion" without any real logical argument to back it up or support it as a *conclusion.* It was a bitch to get anyone to understand that (mostly liberal) bay-area politics and California politics doesn't necessarily translate well to other parts of the country, even if they are perfectly acceptable in SF. People are are different. The values of communities across the country are different. You would think that people who are quick to promote diversity would be able to accept that there are people who disagree with them. But the recurring theme was simply that they are right, and everyone who disagreed s wrong, and probably uneducated. So I never really got a good insider explanation of why the bay area politics are the way the are. I figure it might be as simple as a group of like-minded people migrating to the area in search of like-minded people.</p><p>In the worst cases (on-line especially), it was like trying to argue with a campus bible-thumper, except that bible-thumbers rarely make personal attacks. (Telling me I'm going to hell isn't that personal. Calling me an uneducated knuckle-dragger or "mouth breather" is personal.)</p><p>And I'm not even conservative on social issues....</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was able to contract in San Jose for a few months last year .
( My permanent residence was in NC .
) I found that the people that I met between San Jose and SF were not as " liberal " as I would have imagined .
Though some those who are liberal are screaamingly so .
I also noticed that Raleigh is more " progressive " in matters such as recycling , land development and environmental issues-- at least that 's how it appeared .
( Action vs. talk anyway .
) California is a very beautiful state.... And I am happy to have spent some time there .
I had a great time.On the other hand , I met quite a few people who , once they knew I lived in " The South " openly assumed I was an illiterate small-town hick .
" This must be quite a culture shock for you , coming from NC " was pretty common .
It was * very * obvious that some people from the bay area in particular think that they are on the leading edge in all fronts .
And while the bay area is known for being progressive leaders , they really are not that far ahead .
( Interestingly , nobody noticed that I do not have a Southern accent .
I am not * from * the South ; I just lived there at the time .
) On the negative side : I was pretty disappointed with the arrogance of some of my associates ; they seemd to have low expectations of me and of all things outside of northern California .
Even casual debate quickly led to shallow " Bay-Area progressive opinion " without any real logical argument to back it up or support it as a * conclusion .
* It was a bitch to get anyone to understand that ( mostly liberal ) bay-area politics and California politics does n't necessarily translate well to other parts of the country , even if they are perfectly acceptable in SF .
People are are different .
The values of communities across the country are different .
You would think that people who are quick to promote diversity would be able to accept that there are people who disagree with them .
But the recurring theme was simply that they are right , and everyone who disagreed s wrong , and probably uneducated .
So I never really got a good insider explanation of why the bay area politics are the way the are .
I figure it might be as simple as a group of like-minded people migrating to the area in search of like-minded people.In the worst cases ( on-line especially ) , it was like trying to argue with a campus bible-thumper , except that bible-thumbers rarely make personal attacks .
( Telling me I 'm going to hell is n't that personal .
Calling me an uneducated knuckle-dragger or " mouth breather " is personal .
) And I 'm not even conservative on social issues... .  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was able to contract in San Jose for a few months last year.
(My permanent residence was in NC.
)I found that the people that I met between San Jose and SF were not as "liberal" as I would have imagined.
Though some those who are liberal are screaamingly so.
I also noticed that Raleigh is more "progressive" in matters such as recycling, land development and environmental issues-- at least that's how it appeared.
(Action vs. talk anyway.
)California is a very beautiful state.... And I am happy to have spent some time there.
I had a great time.On the other hand, I met quite a few people who, once they knew I lived in "The South" openly assumed I was an illiterate small-town hick.
"This must be quite a culture shock for you, coming from NC" was pretty common.
It was *very* obvious that some people from the bay area in particular think that they are on the leading edge in all fronts.
And while the bay area is known for being progressive leaders, they really are not that far ahead.
(Interestingly, nobody noticed that I do not have a Southern accent.
I am not *from* the South; I just lived there at the time.
)On the negative side: I was pretty disappointed with the arrogance of some of my associates; they seemd to have low expectations of me and of all things outside of northern California.
Even casual debate quickly led to shallow "Bay-Area progressive opinion" without any real logical argument to back it up or support it as a *conclusion.
* It was a bitch to get anyone to understand that (mostly liberal) bay-area politics and California politics doesn't necessarily translate well to other parts of the country, even if they are perfectly acceptable in SF.
People are are different.
The values of communities across the country are different.
You would think that people who are quick to promote diversity would be able to accept that there are people who disagree with them.
But the recurring theme was simply that they are right, and everyone who disagreed s wrong, and probably uneducated.
So I never really got a good insider explanation of why the bay area politics are the way the are.
I figure it might be as simple as a group of like-minded people migrating to the area in search of like-minded people.In the worst cases (on-line especially), it was like trying to argue with a campus bible-thumper, except that bible-thumbers rarely make personal attacks.
(Telling me I'm going to hell isn't that personal.
Calling me an uneducated knuckle-dragger or "mouth breather" is personal.
)And I'm not even conservative on social issues....
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31462926</id>
	<title>Re:Woah!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268480460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I dislike them because the views they have to force on others are extremely dangerous to the country and the world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dislike them because the views they have to force on others are extremely dangerous to the country and the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dislike them because the views they have to force on others are extremely dangerous to the country and the world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459020</id>
	<title>Re:This debate is Ridiculous!</title>
	<author>T Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1268399100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Given current geography knowledge, I don't think students need to learn the provinces of Canada right now. They can't find all 50 states of their own country on a map or label a few dozen countries. In high school we had to find recent news articles about non-US countries, and the teacher asked people to find the country on the map. The teacher had to help students find Iraq, and even help one student find Russia. This was in one of the better public school districts in the country, so I have no idea how depressing the national average student is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Given current geography knowledge , I do n't think students need to learn the provinces of Canada right now .
They ca n't find all 50 states of their own country on a map or label a few dozen countries .
In high school we had to find recent news articles about non-US countries , and the teacher asked people to find the country on the map .
The teacher had to help students find Iraq , and even help one student find Russia .
This was in one of the better public school districts in the country , so I have no idea how depressing the national average student is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given current geography knowledge, I don't think students need to learn the provinces of Canada right now.
They can't find all 50 states of their own country on a map or label a few dozen countries.
In high school we had to find recent news articles about non-US countries, and the teacher asked people to find the country on the map.
The teacher had to help students find Iraq, and even help one student find Russia.
This was in one of the better public school districts in the country, so I have no idea how depressing the national average student is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461590</id>
	<title>Re:Woah!</title>
	<author>the\_raptor</author>
	<datestamp>1268416680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any "Christian" who says they are better than a non-Christian isn't a Christian. The fundamental divergence between Judaism and Christianity is that Christians believe that following moral laws doesn't save you. Even St Paul who had a massive influence on early Christianity decried himself as the worst of all sinners. Everyone is a sinner, any Christian who says they aren't or holds themselves as being morally superior is even further from God than Richard Dawkins.</p><p>The reason for the massive screw ups in American "Christianity" is because people want to be superior and giving them a way to work towards it (and constantly fail because they are sinners) is a great way to extract lots of money from them. L. Ron. Hubbard probably would have never figured this out if he had been born in another country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any " Christian " who says they are better than a non-Christian is n't a Christian .
The fundamental divergence between Judaism and Christianity is that Christians believe that following moral laws does n't save you .
Even St Paul who had a massive influence on early Christianity decried himself as the worst of all sinners .
Everyone is a sinner , any Christian who says they are n't or holds themselves as being morally superior is even further from God than Richard Dawkins.The reason for the massive screw ups in American " Christianity " is because people want to be superior and giving them a way to work towards it ( and constantly fail because they are sinners ) is a great way to extract lots of money from them .
L. Ron .
Hubbard probably would have never figured this out if he had been born in another country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any "Christian" who says they are better than a non-Christian isn't a Christian.
The fundamental divergence between Judaism and Christianity is that Christians believe that following moral laws doesn't save you.
Even St Paul who had a massive influence on early Christianity decried himself as the worst of all sinners.
Everyone is a sinner, any Christian who says they aren't or holds themselves as being morally superior is even further from God than Richard Dawkins.The reason for the massive screw ups in American "Christianity" is because people want to be superior and giving them a way to work towards it (and constantly fail because they are sinners) is a great way to extract lots of money from them.
L. Ron.
Hubbard probably would have never figured this out if he had been born in another country.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458436</id>
	<title>Conservative stamp</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268396640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Conservative stamp = Red badge of gayness</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Conservative stamp = Red badge of gayness</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Conservative stamp = Red badge of gayness</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31481142</id>
	<title>Re:History outside of Texas?</title>
	<author>Chili-71</author>
	<datestamp>1268663640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>by mattwad (1643895) writes: Alter Relationship   on Friday March 12, @09:33PM (#31460586) <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...most Texans are still silently plotting how we can secede from the Union.</p></div><p>
Damn, I knew there was a reason I was thinking of moving to Texas.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>by mattwad ( 1643895 ) writes : Alter Relationship on Friday March 12 , @ 09 : 33PM ( # 31460586 ) ...most Texans are still silently plotting how we can secede from the Union .
Damn , I knew there was a reason I was thinking of moving to Texas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>by mattwad (1643895) writes: Alter Relationship   on Friday March 12, @09:33PM (#31460586)  ...most Texans are still silently plotting how we can secede from the Union.
Damn, I knew there was a reason I was thinking of moving to Texas.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461468</id>
	<title>Re:Give primary sources</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268415240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"We could really eliminate any bias if we would have schools which would teach from the source materials."</p><p>You are incorrect.  You would merely shift the bias to a different source.  Bias CANNOT be eliminated.  In the case of many standards, BIAS IS DELIBERATE.</p><p>Textbooks are summaries.  How good a summary depends upon the content editors and the state standards they are written to.  Your proposal is a great idea.  But you do realize that it would be rejected in a state like Texas?  Bias in textbooks is NOT A MISTAKE.  I won't even mention the outcry from the parents and students from having to work...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" We could really eliminate any bias if we would have schools which would teach from the source materials .
" You are incorrect .
You would merely shift the bias to a different source .
Bias CAN NOT be eliminated .
In the case of many standards , BIAS IS DELIBERATE.Textbooks are summaries .
How good a summary depends upon the content editors and the state standards they are written to .
Your proposal is a great idea .
But you do realize that it would be rejected in a state like Texas ?
Bias in textbooks is NOT A MISTAKE .
I wo n't even mention the outcry from the parents and students from having to work.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We could really eliminate any bias if we would have schools which would teach from the source materials.
"You are incorrect.
You would merely shift the bias to a different source.
Bias CANNOT be eliminated.
In the case of many standards, BIAS IS DELIBERATE.Textbooks are summaries.
How good a summary depends upon the content editors and the state standards they are written to.
Your proposal is a great idea.
But you do realize that it would be rejected in a state like Texas?
Bias in textbooks is NOT A MISTAKE.
I won't even mention the outcry from the parents and students from having to work...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460042</id>
	<title>Re:Why Texas?</title>
	<author>Khyber</author>
	<datestamp>1268404320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"And then there are a number of conservative urban areas"</p><p>"San Bernardino,"</p><p>I live here, and it is nowhere as conservative as you make it sound. We just had a CANNABIS CUP held here, for crying out loud! Cypress Hill, vape bags flying around, the works!</p><p>Conservative? Only with the elected officials, and they're not going to be around much longer now that the area has tasted the money legalized and regulated medical marijuana brings in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" And then there are a number of conservative urban areas " " San Bernardino , " I live here , and it is nowhere as conservative as you make it sound .
We just had a CANNABIS CUP held here , for crying out loud !
Cypress Hill , vape bags flying around , the works ! Conservative ?
Only with the elected officials , and they 're not going to be around much longer now that the area has tasted the money legalized and regulated medical marijuana brings in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"And then there are a number of conservative urban areas""San Bernardino,"I live here, and it is nowhere as conservative as you make it sound.
We just had a CANNABIS CUP held here, for crying out loud!
Cypress Hill, vape bags flying around, the works!Conservative?
Only with the elected officials, and they're not going to be around much longer now that the area has tasted the money legalized and regulated medical marijuana brings in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459762</id>
	<title>Re:Why Texas?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268402340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hate to break it to you, but NY is exactly the same way. The second you are more than 25 minutes from a city, everyone is just as conservative as anywhere else in this country.  Where my mom grew up in a rural NY town, I could drive past 5 houses with confederate flags in the windows on any given street .  Ever look at the country by county map of the US in terms of what party they voted in national elections? It is totally red, with a few spots of blue in cities.</p><p>It is too bad that conservatism has totally created a parallel intellectual world that is totally fallacious. Conservapedia, Fox [psuedo] News network, and so on.  When even your definition of science and logic is skewed, your perception of current events is totally bull, how can we expect them to possibly be brought out of such a world? Who wants to listen to someone they consider a demon?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate to break it to you , but NY is exactly the same way .
The second you are more than 25 minutes from a city , everyone is just as conservative as anywhere else in this country .
Where my mom grew up in a rural NY town , I could drive past 5 houses with confederate flags in the windows on any given street .
Ever look at the country by county map of the US in terms of what party they voted in national elections ?
It is totally red , with a few spots of blue in cities.It is too bad that conservatism has totally created a parallel intellectual world that is totally fallacious .
Conservapedia , Fox [ psuedo ] News network , and so on .
When even your definition of science and logic is skewed , your perception of current events is totally bull , how can we expect them to possibly be brought out of such a world ?
Who wants to listen to someone they consider a demon ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate to break it to you, but NY is exactly the same way.
The second you are more than 25 minutes from a city, everyone is just as conservative as anywhere else in this country.
Where my mom grew up in a rural NY town, I could drive past 5 houses with confederate flags in the windows on any given street .
Ever look at the country by county map of the US in terms of what party they voted in national elections?
It is totally red, with a few spots of blue in cities.It is too bad that conservatism has totally created a parallel intellectual world that is totally fallacious.
Conservapedia, Fox [psuedo] News network, and so on.
When even your definition of science and logic is skewed, your perception of current events is totally bull, how can we expect them to possibly be brought out of such a world?
Who wants to listen to someone they consider a demon?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459146</id>
	<title>Texas textbooks.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268399580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is this a problem for anyone not living in Texas?</p><p>If an employer wants a candidate with a full, rounded education, they need only look to where the individual got their education.</p><p>If it's Texas, no problem, automatic social Darwinism, and on to the next candidate.</p><p>For others, a real interview (with someone intelligent enough to understand the nature of the qualifications) may be in order. If they've been educated with a Texas textbook, that's easily discernible.</p><p>They've just condemned themselves to second-class citizenship, unless Texas secedes from the Union. Then, they're foreign.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is this a problem for anyone not living in Texas ? If an employer wants a candidate with a full , rounded education , they need only look to where the individual got their education.If it 's Texas , no problem , automatic social Darwinism , and on to the next candidate.For others , a real interview ( with someone intelligent enough to understand the nature of the qualifications ) may be in order .
If they 've been educated with a Texas textbook , that 's easily discernible.They 've just condemned themselves to second-class citizenship , unless Texas secedes from the Union .
Then , they 're foreign .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is this a problem for anyone not living in Texas?If an employer wants a candidate with a full, rounded education, they need only look to where the individual got their education.If it's Texas, no problem, automatic social Darwinism, and on to the next candidate.For others, a real interview (with someone intelligent enough to understand the nature of the qualifications) may be in order.
If they've been educated with a Texas textbook, that's easily discernible.They've just condemned themselves to second-class citizenship, unless Texas secedes from the Union.
Then, they're foreign.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459866</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone explain please</title>
	<author>fiannaFailMan</author>
	<datestamp>1268402940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>References to Ralph Nader and Ross Perot are proposed to be removed,</p><p>Both of these characters (while more recent) have actually had very little political impact (less so than Stonewall Jackson). Ralf Nader is a minor political player and Ross Perot a failed presidential candidate (there are plenty of those around, e.g. Kerry, Al Gore, Dan Quale, etc...)</p></div></blockquote><p>Didn't pay much attention to the 2000 election or those shenanigans in Florida, did you?</p><blockquote><div><p>The only reason GWB was unpopular was because he didn&rsquo;t win his wars.</p></div></blockquote><p>Sure. The fact that he ransacked the economy, broke all spending records to double the deficit, alienated just about everybody else in the world, and was an unapologetic idiot had nothing to do with it.</p><p>"Insightful" my ass.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>References to Ralph Nader and Ross Perot are proposed to be removed,Both of these characters ( while more recent ) have actually had very little political impact ( less so than Stonewall Jackson ) .
Ralf Nader is a minor political player and Ross Perot a failed presidential candidate ( there are plenty of those around , e.g .
Kerry , Al Gore , Dan Quale , etc... ) Did n't pay much attention to the 2000 election or those shenanigans in Florida , did you ? The only reason GWB was unpopular was because he didn    t win his wars.Sure .
The fact that he ransacked the economy , broke all spending records to double the deficit , alienated just about everybody else in the world , and was an unapologetic idiot had nothing to do with it .
" Insightful " my ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>References to Ralph Nader and Ross Perot are proposed to be removed,Both of these characters (while more recent) have actually had very little political impact (less so than Stonewall Jackson).
Ralf Nader is a minor political player and Ross Perot a failed presidential candidate (there are plenty of those around, e.g.
Kerry, Al Gore, Dan Quale, etc...)Didn't pay much attention to the 2000 election or those shenanigans in Florida, did you?The only reason GWB was unpopular was because he didn’t win his wars.Sure.
The fact that he ransacked the economy, broke all spending records to double the deficit, alienated just about everybody else in the world, and was an unapologetic idiot had nothing to do with it.
"Insightful" my ass.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458818</id>
	<title>Re:"I reject notion of separation of church and st</title>
	<author>wealthychef</author>
	<datestamp>1268398140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm an atheist, but he's right.  The Constitution does not mention separation of Church and state -- it merely forbids the establishment of any religion.  Or am I wrong here?  What does it mean really to "separate Church and state?"   The idea of a secular state is an excellent one, but I wish the Constitution were clearer on some of these points.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm an atheist , but he 's right .
The Constitution does not mention separation of Church and state -- it merely forbids the establishment of any religion .
Or am I wrong here ?
What does it mean really to " separate Church and state ?
" The idea of a secular state is an excellent one , but I wish the Constitution were clearer on some of these points .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm an atheist, but he's right.
The Constitution does not mention separation of Church and state -- it merely forbids the establishment of any religion.
Or am I wrong here?
What does it mean really to "separate Church and state?
"   The idea of a secular state is an excellent one, but I wish the Constitution were clearer on some of these points.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461306</id>
	<title>Re:Why Texas?</title>
	<author>DesScorp</author>
	<datestamp>1268413620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"<b>While the legislature is dominated by Democrats, there is a very strong Republican political machine in the state that's able to deadlock the legislative process.</b>"</p><p>That has little to do with numbers of Republicans, and everything to do with the very structure of government in California.</p><p>"<b>They've also elected quite a few governors, Nixon, Reagan, Wilson.</b>"</p><p>In the distant past, yes. And Wilson was a pro-choice moderate. New England was once staunchly Republican. Changing demographics and changing politics change elections.</p><p>"<b>The policies that are implemented are not strongly liberal.</b>"</p><p>Really, how are you coming to this conclusion? California has their <i>own blends of gasoline</i> because of the state government.  The state government is, by far, the largest employer in the state. Look also at <a href="http://www.acinet.org/acinet/oview6.asp?soccode=&amp;stfips=06&amp;from=State&amp;id=&amp;nodeid=12" title="acinet.org">individual employers</a> [acinet.org]. The list is also heavily dominated by state and local agencies, or institutions paid for with state tax dollars, like universities. The single fastest growing employment sector, by percentage of employment, is for government. Only Connecticut is outpacing CA in growth of government jobs vs. private sector jobs by percentage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" While the legislature is dominated by Democrats , there is a very strong Republican political machine in the state that 's able to deadlock the legislative process .
" That has little to do with numbers of Republicans , and everything to do with the very structure of government in California .
" They 've also elected quite a few governors , Nixon , Reagan , Wilson .
" In the distant past , yes .
And Wilson was a pro-choice moderate .
New England was once staunchly Republican .
Changing demographics and changing politics change elections .
" The policies that are implemented are not strongly liberal .
" Really , how are you coming to this conclusion ?
California has their own blends of gasoline because of the state government .
The state government is , by far , the largest employer in the state .
Look also at individual employers [ acinet.org ] .
The list is also heavily dominated by state and local agencies , or institutions paid for with state tax dollars , like universities .
The single fastest growing employment sector , by percentage of employment , is for government .
Only Connecticut is outpacing CA in growth of government jobs vs. private sector jobs by percentage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"While the legislature is dominated by Democrats, there is a very strong Republican political machine in the state that's able to deadlock the legislative process.
"That has little to do with numbers of Republicans, and everything to do with the very structure of government in California.
"They've also elected quite a few governors, Nixon, Reagan, Wilson.
"In the distant past, yes.
And Wilson was a pro-choice moderate.
New England was once staunchly Republican.
Changing demographics and changing politics change elections.
"The policies that are implemented are not strongly liberal.
"Really, how are you coming to this conclusion?
California has their own blends of gasoline because of the state government.
The state government is, by far, the largest employer in the state.
Look also at individual employers [acinet.org].
The list is also heavily dominated by state and local agencies, or institutions paid for with state tax dollars, like universities.
The single fastest growing employment sector, by percentage of employment, is for government.
Only Connecticut is outpacing CA in growth of government jobs vs. private sector jobs by percentage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461620</id>
	<title>Conservatives are even REWRITING Bible:</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1268416980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://econ-ecoff.blogspot.com/2010/01/king-james-was-liberal-media.html" title="blogspot.com">http://econ-ecoff.blogspot.com/2010/01/king-james-was-liberal-media.html</a> [blogspot.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //econ-ecoff.blogspot.com/2010/01/king-james-was-liberal-media.html [ blogspot.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://econ-ecoff.blogspot.com/2010/01/king-james-was-liberal-media.html [blogspot.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31462010</id>
	<title>Re:"I reject notion of separation of church and st</title>
	<author>Theswager</author>
	<datestamp>1268421240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>if you read the first amendment in a historical vacuum then yes is forbids an establishment and does not explicitly speak about 'separation'. However if you read what almost all of the major 'founding father' figures were writing at the time, and what they said about it afterwards it is obvious that they intended to separate church and state affairs. Of the major 'founding fathers' that everyone hears about (Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, Paine, Madison, Adams, etc.) they were all secularists at the very least but many of them were outspoken Deists who were nothing if not hateful of organized religion both philosophically and as it relates to governance. Furthermore 'separation' is an arbitrary distinction from a lack of establishment, both of those words have different meanings depending on who is arguing at a given moment and those meanings always meld to fit whatever agenda they are pushing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>if you read the first amendment in a historical vacuum then yes is forbids an establishment and does not explicitly speak about 'separation' .
However if you read what almost all of the major 'founding father ' figures were writing at the time , and what they said about it afterwards it is obvious that they intended to separate church and state affairs .
Of the major 'founding fathers ' that everyone hears about ( Franklin , Jefferson , Washington , Paine , Madison , Adams , etc .
) they were all secularists at the very least but many of them were outspoken Deists who were nothing if not hateful of organized religion both philosophically and as it relates to governance .
Furthermore 'separation ' is an arbitrary distinction from a lack of establishment , both of those words have different meanings depending on who is arguing at a given moment and those meanings always meld to fit whatever agenda they are pushing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if you read the first amendment in a historical vacuum then yes is forbids an establishment and does not explicitly speak about 'separation'.
However if you read what almost all of the major 'founding father' figures were writing at the time, and what they said about it afterwards it is obvious that they intended to separate church and state affairs.
Of the major 'founding fathers' that everyone hears about (Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, Paine, Madison, Adams, etc.
) they were all secularists at the very least but many of them were outspoken Deists who were nothing if not hateful of organized religion both philosophically and as it relates to governance.
Furthermore 'separation' is an arbitrary distinction from a lack of establishment, both of those words have different meanings depending on who is arguing at a given moment and those meanings always meld to fit whatever agenda they are pushing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460752</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone explain please</title>
	<author>BergZ</author>
	<datestamp>1268409240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not teaching evolution is a symptom of moving further away from, not closer to, the facts and fact based reasoning.

Why this should concern you is that people with little or no sense of fact based reasoning are known for imposing their mystical thinking on everyone else.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not teaching evolution is a symptom of moving further away from , not closer to , the facts and fact based reasoning .
Why this should concern you is that people with little or no sense of fact based reasoning are known for imposing their mystical thinking on everyone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not teaching evolution is a symptom of moving further away from, not closer to, the facts and fact based reasoning.
Why this should concern you is that people with little or no sense of fact based reasoning are known for imposing their mystical thinking on everyone else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458388</id>
	<title>Note To Self:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268396460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't hire kids from Texas, they they do not have a real education</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't hire kids from Texas , they they do not have a real education</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't hire kids from Texas, they they do not have a real education</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31482414</id>
	<title>Re:It was the answer to an important question.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268670360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I coulda sworn Bush I lost cause of that whole "Read my lips, no new taxes" and then adding taxes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I coulda sworn Bush I lost cause of that whole " Read my lips , no new taxes " and then adding taxes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I coulda sworn Bush I lost cause of that whole "Read my lips, no new taxes" and then adding taxes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458374</id>
	<title>What?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268396400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>They have books in Texas?</htmltext>
<tokenext>They have books in Texas ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have books in Texas?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458928</id>
	<title>Re:Meh</title>
	<author>MightyMartian</author>
	<datestamp>1268398620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Last time I checked, the 1st Amendment applies to the states as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Last time I checked , the 1st Amendment applies to the states as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last time I checked, the 1st Amendment applies to the states as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31462204</id>
	<title>Re:It was the answer to an important question.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268510700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Just try to imagine Christ at a Tea Party rally</i> </p><p>It is interesting that there is this huge highly public effort to connect the Tea Party with conservative Christians. Yes, there is a lot of overlap with regards to fiscal policy. But there are many Tea Party supporters who could give a crap about Jesus or the Bible, or social conservatism in general.</p><p>I don't go to the rallys, buy I am happy that they exist. Because to me it means that people are looking past the Democrat party and the Republican party.Yes, the Republicans are trying to capitalize on Tea Party protests. But they are not Tea partiers. They are Republicans. And where the Democrats could be trying to woo on-the-fence Republicans and Independents, they are *really* coming on strong with broad negative generalizations and insults directed at tea partiers. It's pretty shallow. And it leads independents like me to think again about why I would support democrats.</p><p>For the record: I support the Tea Party in some of their efforts. And like many other Tea Party supporters, I have no problem with taxes. I have no problems with spending tax dollars on the "ill and the needy" -- in contrast with your attempt to villify the *entire party*. What I do not support is having to pay *more* in taxes knowing how much of the money is wasted-- knowing how much of the money is not really going to the "ill and needy." Hell, if the federal government could reliably and honestly show that their spending was cost effective, I would not object to higher taxes.</p><p>Why would *anyone* accept having to pay more for any product or service that is probably not going to improve? Would you pay a higher price for a 2008 model car with zero miles now that it is 2010? Would you pay significantly more to send your kids to school knowing that they are not learning any more than they would in a school that had no computers and a higher student/teacher ratio? (Like my schools way back...) Is the government going to start consistently hiring the best-and-brightest across the board in its neverending expansion?</p><p>If you could put 50\%-100\% of your tax liability in the hands of the people that need it, wouldn't that be more efficient way of supporting those who *need* it, while bypassing the red-tape and layers of administration of the government and IRS? Why is this kind of thinking deemed evil, or conservative, or otherwise from the mind of a someone with no values? I think Jesus would see it as an improvement.</p><p>For a given tax liability, I see there being a lot more "moral value" in tax payers being able to direct a percentage their tax dollars to whatever they would like to see money spent on than to have the goverment simply seize it and spend it on whatever buys votes.</p><p>But a meaningful change like that would require some sort of organized effort to push tax reform....</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just try to imagine Christ at a Tea Party rally It is interesting that there is this huge highly public effort to connect the Tea Party with conservative Christians .
Yes , there is a lot of overlap with regards to fiscal policy .
But there are many Tea Party supporters who could give a crap about Jesus or the Bible , or social conservatism in general.I do n't go to the rallys , buy I am happy that they exist .
Because to me it means that people are looking past the Democrat party and the Republican party.Yes , the Republicans are trying to capitalize on Tea Party protests .
But they are not Tea partiers .
They are Republicans .
And where the Democrats could be trying to woo on-the-fence Republicans and Independents , they are * really * coming on strong with broad negative generalizations and insults directed at tea partiers .
It 's pretty shallow .
And it leads independents like me to think again about why I would support democrats.For the record : I support the Tea Party in some of their efforts .
And like many other Tea Party supporters , I have no problem with taxes .
I have no problems with spending tax dollars on the " ill and the needy " -- in contrast with your attempt to villify the * entire party * .
What I do not support is having to pay * more * in taxes knowing how much of the money is wasted-- knowing how much of the money is not really going to the " ill and needy .
" Hell , if the federal government could reliably and honestly show that their spending was cost effective , I would not object to higher taxes.Why would * anyone * accept having to pay more for any product or service that is probably not going to improve ?
Would you pay a higher price for a 2008 model car with zero miles now that it is 2010 ?
Would you pay significantly more to send your kids to school knowing that they are not learning any more than they would in a school that had no computers and a higher student/teacher ratio ?
( Like my schools way back... ) Is the government going to start consistently hiring the best-and-brightest across the board in its neverending expansion ? If you could put 50 \ % -100 \ % of your tax liability in the hands of the people that need it , would n't that be more efficient way of supporting those who * need * it , while bypassing the red-tape and layers of administration of the government and IRS ?
Why is this kind of thinking deemed evil , or conservative , or otherwise from the mind of a someone with no values ?
I think Jesus would see it as an improvement.For a given tax liability , I see there being a lot more " moral value " in tax payers being able to direct a percentage their tax dollars to whatever they would like to see money spent on than to have the goverment simply seize it and spend it on whatever buys votes.But a meaningful change like that would require some sort of organized effort to push tax reform... .  </tokentext>
<sentencetext> Just try to imagine Christ at a Tea Party rally It is interesting that there is this huge highly public effort to connect the Tea Party with conservative Christians.
Yes, there is a lot of overlap with regards to fiscal policy.
But there are many Tea Party supporters who could give a crap about Jesus or the Bible, or social conservatism in general.I don't go to the rallys, buy I am happy that they exist.
Because to me it means that people are looking past the Democrat party and the Republican party.Yes, the Republicans are trying to capitalize on Tea Party protests.
But they are not Tea partiers.
They are Republicans.
And where the Democrats could be trying to woo on-the-fence Republicans and Independents, they are *really* coming on strong with broad negative generalizations and insults directed at tea partiers.
It's pretty shallow.
And it leads independents like me to think again about why I would support democrats.For the record: I support the Tea Party in some of their efforts.
And like many other Tea Party supporters, I have no problem with taxes.
I have no problems with spending tax dollars on the "ill and the needy" -- in contrast with your attempt to villify the *entire party*.
What I do not support is having to pay *more* in taxes knowing how much of the money is wasted-- knowing how much of the money is not really going to the "ill and needy.
" Hell, if the federal government could reliably and honestly show that their spending was cost effective, I would not object to higher taxes.Why would *anyone* accept having to pay more for any product or service that is probably not going to improve?
Would you pay a higher price for a 2008 model car with zero miles now that it is 2010?
Would you pay significantly more to send your kids to school knowing that they are not learning any more than they would in a school that had no computers and a higher student/teacher ratio?
(Like my schools way back...) Is the government going to start consistently hiring the best-and-brightest across the board in its neverending expansion?If you could put 50\%-100\% of your tax liability in the hands of the people that need it, wouldn't that be more efficient way of supporting those who *need* it, while bypassing the red-tape and layers of administration of the government and IRS?
Why is this kind of thinking deemed evil, or conservative, or otherwise from the mind of a someone with no values?
I think Jesus would see it as an improvement.For a given tax liability, I see there being a lot more "moral value" in tax payers being able to direct a percentage their tax dollars to whatever they would like to see money spent on than to have the goverment simply seize it and spend it on whatever buys votes.But a meaningful change like that would require some sort of organized effort to push tax reform....
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31465500</id>
	<title>Re:It was the answer to an important question.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268509920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As much as people complain about Gore losing the 2000 election because of Nader splitting liberal voting population, Bush lost the 1992 election because of Perot splitting the fiscal conservative and social conservatives base.  Per the wiki article on the 1992 election.</p><p>Clinton 43\%<br>Bush: 37.5\%<br>Perot 18.9\%</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_States\_presidential\_election,\_1992</p><p>But don't let facts get in the way of your rant.  Carry on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As much as people complain about Gore losing the 2000 election because of Nader splitting liberal voting population , Bush lost the 1992 election because of Perot splitting the fiscal conservative and social conservatives base .
Per the wiki article on the 1992 election.Clinton 43 \ % Bush : 37.5 \ % Perot 18.9 \ % http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United \ _States \ _presidential \ _election , \ _1992But do n't let facts get in the way of your rant .
Carry on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As much as people complain about Gore losing the 2000 election because of Nader splitting liberal voting population, Bush lost the 1992 election because of Perot splitting the fiscal conservative and social conservatives base.
Per the wiki article on the 1992 election.Clinton 43\%Bush: 37.5\%Perot 18.9\%http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_States\_presidential\_election,\_1992But don't let facts get in the way of your rant.
Carry on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459086</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268399400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It started way before Reagan. It's been going on at least as far back as Goldwater.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It started way before Reagan .
It 's been going on at least as far back as Goldwater .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It started way before Reagan.
It's been going on at least as far back as Goldwater.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460414</id>
	<title>Re:"I reject notion of separation of church and st</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1268406600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>His e-mail is: sboesupport@tea.state.tx.us<br> <br>
The part of the constitution he would be looking for would be the first ammendment.<br>

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"<br> <br>
And the charity I asked him to support is: <a href="http://www.au.org/" title="au.org">Americans United for Separation of Church and State</a> [au.org] <br> <br>I hope many of you join me in e-mailing him.</htmltext>
<tokenext>His e-mail is : sboesupport @ tea.state.tx.us The part of the constitution he would be looking for would be the first ammendment .
" Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion , or prohibiting the free exercise thereof " And the charity I asked him to support is : Americans United for Separation of Church and State [ au.org ] I hope many of you join me in e-mailing him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>His e-mail is: sboesupport@tea.state.tx.us 
The part of the constitution he would be looking for would be the first ammendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" 
And the charity I asked him to support is: Americans United for Separation of Church and State [au.org]  I hope many of you join me in e-mailing him.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458542</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268397060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm not sure how "conservatives" ever became associated with Christian values.</p></div><p>I believe it was a fairly well documented strategic move by the Regan administration. Or was it Bush senior? Either way, the Republicans did it to counter act the image of them being all about the rich protecting the rich and grab some extra working class votes.</p><p>Panned out pretty well, much to the annoyance of anyone who believes in conservative economic policies, but not in Jesus.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure how " conservatives " ever became associated with Christian values.I believe it was a fairly well documented strategic move by the Regan administration .
Or was it Bush senior ?
Either way , the Republicans did it to counter act the image of them being all about the rich protecting the rich and grab some extra working class votes.Panned out pretty well , much to the annoyance of anyone who believes in conservative economic policies , but not in Jesus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure how "conservatives" ever became associated with Christian values.I believe it was a fairly well documented strategic move by the Regan administration.
Or was it Bush senior?
Either way, the Republicans did it to counter act the image of them being all about the rich protecting the rich and grab some extra working class votes.Panned out pretty well, much to the annoyance of anyone who believes in conservative economic policies, but not in Jesus.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459026</id>
	<title>It was the answer to an important question.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268399100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the late 80s, the republican base was slipping. Bush I barely won against Dukakis. Keep in mind, Bush was at the center of political power his whole life, headed the CIA, and had just completed 8 years as Vice President. His campaign had to resort to a racist attack ad about <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io9KMSSEZ0Y" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">Willie Horton</a> [youtube.com].</p><p>In 1992, Bush lost to Clinton, and many believe it was because he refused to identify himself as a "born again" Christian. Most evangelicals had been uninvolved in politics, until they were discovered by the dying Republican movement. As long as you professed to be evangelical and pro-life, you'd have local preachers pushing their followers to vote for you. Bush II toed the line, and got elected twice for it. The only problem is now the evangelical movements want one of their own in the White House - Sarah Palin - and that's something the ruling business party cannot allow. They brought her in for the VP job, but she couldn't pull the moderate record of McCain. Palin could have been the sideshow, but the business party is greedy, not crazy, and they'll never let her within ten miles of the big red button.</p><p>The evangelicals are an enormous and active voting bloc. They do exactly as their pastor or preacher tells them, and nearly half of them are in church every single sunday. Now they are being used up by two seats of power: Republicans and their own church leaders. The Republicans get a voting bloc that will campaign against their own interests, and the church leaders get access to power and a fanatical flock that now worships money, and gives them a bunch of it.</p><p>Just try to imagine Christ at a Tea Party rally, protesting tax dollars spent on the ill and the needy, and then signing up to join the Army the next day. The evangelicals have no idea which way is north. They don't even have a coherent set of values left. They are just following orders.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the late 80s , the republican base was slipping .
Bush I barely won against Dukakis .
Keep in mind , Bush was at the center of political power his whole life , headed the CIA , and had just completed 8 years as Vice President .
His campaign had to resort to a racist attack ad about Willie Horton [ youtube.com ] .In 1992 , Bush lost to Clinton , and many believe it was because he refused to identify himself as a " born again " Christian .
Most evangelicals had been uninvolved in politics , until they were discovered by the dying Republican movement .
As long as you professed to be evangelical and pro-life , you 'd have local preachers pushing their followers to vote for you .
Bush II toed the line , and got elected twice for it .
The only problem is now the evangelical movements want one of their own in the White House - Sarah Palin - and that 's something the ruling business party can not allow .
They brought her in for the VP job , but she could n't pull the moderate record of McCain .
Palin could have been the sideshow , but the business party is greedy , not crazy , and they 'll never let her within ten miles of the big red button.The evangelicals are an enormous and active voting bloc .
They do exactly as their pastor or preacher tells them , and nearly half of them are in church every single sunday .
Now they are being used up by two seats of power : Republicans and their own church leaders .
The Republicans get a voting bloc that will campaign against their own interests , and the church leaders get access to power and a fanatical flock that now worships money , and gives them a bunch of it.Just try to imagine Christ at a Tea Party rally , protesting tax dollars spent on the ill and the needy , and then signing up to join the Army the next day .
The evangelicals have no idea which way is north .
They do n't even have a coherent set of values left .
They are just following orders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the late 80s, the republican base was slipping.
Bush I barely won against Dukakis.
Keep in mind, Bush was at the center of political power his whole life, headed the CIA, and had just completed 8 years as Vice President.
His campaign had to resort to a racist attack ad about Willie Horton [youtube.com].In 1992, Bush lost to Clinton, and many believe it was because he refused to identify himself as a "born again" Christian.
Most evangelicals had been uninvolved in politics, until they were discovered by the dying Republican movement.
As long as you professed to be evangelical and pro-life, you'd have local preachers pushing their followers to vote for you.
Bush II toed the line, and got elected twice for it.
The only problem is now the evangelical movements want one of their own in the White House - Sarah Palin - and that's something the ruling business party cannot allow.
They brought her in for the VP job, but she couldn't pull the moderate record of McCain.
Palin could have been the sideshow, but the business party is greedy, not crazy, and they'll never let her within ten miles of the big red button.The evangelicals are an enormous and active voting bloc.
They do exactly as their pastor or preacher tells them, and nearly half of them are in church every single sunday.
Now they are being used up by two seats of power: Republicans and their own church leaders.
The Republicans get a voting bloc that will campaign against their own interests, and the church leaders get access to power and a fanatical flock that now worships money, and gives them a bunch of it.Just try to imagine Christ at a Tea Party rally, protesting tax dollars spent on the ill and the needy, and then signing up to join the Army the next day.
The evangelicals have no idea which way is north.
They don't even have a coherent set of values left.
They are just following orders.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461400</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone explain please</title>
	<author>CronoCloud</author>
	<datestamp>1268414340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Stonewall Jackson was a very famous (and effective) general in the Civil War. Whether you dislike him or not, the fact remains that he was an honourable man and a great leader. The same could be said for Robert E. Lee</p></div></blockquote><p>An honourable man would not have taken up arms against the consititution he was sworn to defend.  In fact, both men were Traitors with a capital T.  Lee refused Lincoln's offer to command the Union Army and in fact commanded the Army opposing it.  Had I been Lincoln, I would have had Lee executed on the spot when captured, the bastard.</p><p>Lets put it another way.  Suppose GWB had offered me the command of the Army in Afghanistan.  Suppose instead I took up command of the Taliban instead.  That would make me a Traitor, right?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stonewall Jackson was a very famous ( and effective ) general in the Civil War .
Whether you dislike him or not , the fact remains that he was an honourable man and a great leader .
The same could be said for Robert E. LeeAn honourable man would not have taken up arms against the consititution he was sworn to defend .
In fact , both men were Traitors with a capital T. Lee refused Lincoln 's offer to command the Union Army and in fact commanded the Army opposing it .
Had I been Lincoln , I would have had Lee executed on the spot when captured , the bastard.Lets put it another way .
Suppose GWB had offered me the command of the Army in Afghanistan .
Suppose instead I took up command of the Taliban instead .
That would make me a Traitor , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stonewall Jackson was a very famous (and effective) general in the Civil War.
Whether you dislike him or not, the fact remains that he was an honourable man and a great leader.
The same could be said for Robert E. LeeAn honourable man would not have taken up arms against the consititution he was sworn to defend.
In fact, both men were Traitors with a capital T.  Lee refused Lincoln's offer to command the Union Army and in fact commanded the Army opposing it.
Had I been Lincoln, I would have had Lee executed on the spot when captured, the bastard.Lets put it another way.
Suppose GWB had offered me the command of the Army in Afghanistan.
Suppose instead I took up command of the Taliban instead.
That would make me a Traitor, right?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459400</id>
	<title>Re:"I reject notion of separation of church and st</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268400540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It also goes farther than "forbid[ing] the establishment of any religion." "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or <b>prohibiting the free exercise thereof</b>." The government cannot establish an official state religion AND it cannot prohibit the free exercise of any religion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It also goes farther than " forbid [ ing ] the establishment of any religion .
" " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion , or prohibiting the free exercise thereof .
" The government can not establish an official state religion AND it can not prohibit the free exercise of any religion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It also goes farther than "forbid[ing] the establishment of any religion.
" "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
" The government cannot establish an official state religion AND it cannot prohibit the free exercise of any religion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460586</id>
	<title>History outside of Texas?</title>
	<author>mattwad</author>
	<datestamp>1268407980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I graduated HS in 2003 and until the 8th grade in San Antonio, we were taught Texas History, and something called "Social Studies", which was mostly about contemporary national politics. The curriculum may be biased, but a first step should include teaching kids earlier on about the rest of the world. Seriously, before arguing, all you non-Texans should first realize that most Texans are still silently plotting how we can secede from the Union.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I graduated HS in 2003 and until the 8th grade in San Antonio , we were taught Texas History , and something called " Social Studies " , which was mostly about contemporary national politics .
The curriculum may be biased , but a first step should include teaching kids earlier on about the rest of the world .
Seriously , before arguing , all you non-Texans should first realize that most Texans are still silently plotting how we can secede from the Union .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I graduated HS in 2003 and until the 8th grade in San Antonio, we were taught Texas History, and something called "Social Studies", which was mostly about contemporary national politics.
The curriculum may be biased, but a first step should include teaching kids earlier on about the rest of the world.
Seriously, before arguing, all you non-Texans should first realize that most Texans are still silently plotting how we can secede from the Union.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458566</id>
	<title>Once I was worried.</title>
	<author>hyperion2010</author>
	<datestamp>1268397180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As much as this concerns me, the underlying assumption here is that kids actually learn things from textbooks. I find that assumption lacking giving the complete failure of our educational system no matter what they are trying to teach other than that school sucks and the government gives you money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As much as this concerns me , the underlying assumption here is that kids actually learn things from textbooks .
I find that assumption lacking giving the complete failure of our educational system no matter what they are trying to teach other than that school sucks and the government gives you money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As much as this concerns me, the underlying assumption here is that kids actually learn things from textbooks.
I find that assumption lacking giving the complete failure of our educational system no matter what they are trying to teach other than that school sucks and the government gives you money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460198</id>
	<title>Re:"I reject notion of separation of church and st</title>
	<author>Jawn98685</author>
	<datestamp>1268405280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a trick question. Bradley knows full well that words the specifically say that, are not in The Constitution itself. Oh, they <i>are</i> a matter of record, and yes, in just so many words. Just not in that particular document. That's what Bradley and his ilk bank on - ignorance. They know that that the drooling dittoheads they play to are disinclined, if not incapable, of reading for themselves and learning what the framers of The Constitution had in mind when the drafted that great work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a trick question .
Bradley knows full well that words the specifically say that , are not in The Constitution itself .
Oh , they are a matter of record , and yes , in just so many words .
Just not in that particular document .
That 's what Bradley and his ilk bank on - ignorance .
They know that that the drooling dittoheads they play to are disinclined , if not incapable , of reading for themselves and learning what the framers of The Constitution had in mind when the drafted that great work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a trick question.
Bradley knows full well that words the specifically say that, are not in The Constitution itself.
Oh, they are a matter of record, and yes, in just so many words.
Just not in that particular document.
That's what Bradley and his ilk bank on - ignorance.
They know that that the drooling dittoheads they play to are disinclined, if not incapable, of reading for themselves and learning what the framers of The Constitution had in mind when the drafted that great work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461848</id>
	<title>Re:Woah!</title>
	<author>ProfanityHead</author>
	<datestamp>1268419620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well now! Nice post!

Couldn't have said it better myself.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well now !
Nice post !
Could n't have said it better myself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well now!
Nice post!
Couldn't have said it better myself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459972</id>
	<title>Conservative California</title>
	<author>Pfhorrest</author>
	<datestamp>1268403660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Clearly you don't live in California. Only outside CA is the political system perceived as Liberal. Those of us who live within the state have learned that there are a few enclaves of urban liberalism, surrounded by by vast areas of rural conservatism rivaling those of Kansas or Texas.
<br> <br>
And then there are a number of conservative urban areas, too, like San Diego, San Bernardino, Bakersfield and Orange County.</p></div><p>Case in point: look at the <a href="http://images.google.com/images?q=prop8+county+results" title="google.com">county by county results</a> [google.com] for proposition 8 (banning gay marriage). Outside Alpine, Mono, and Santa Barbara counties, and the greater Bay Area (a shoe-in), the entire state voted "yes" to ban gay marriage. Honestly I'm rather surprised by Alpine and Mono, being some of the most inland counties, where inland is traditionally more conservative.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly you do n't live in California .
Only outside CA is the political system perceived as Liberal .
Those of us who live within the state have learned that there are a few enclaves of urban liberalism , surrounded by by vast areas of rural conservatism rivaling those of Kansas or Texas .
And then there are a number of conservative urban areas , too , like San Diego , San Bernardino , Bakersfield and Orange County.Case in point : look at the county by county results [ google.com ] for proposition 8 ( banning gay marriage ) .
Outside Alpine , Mono , and Santa Barbara counties , and the greater Bay Area ( a shoe-in ) , the entire state voted " yes " to ban gay marriage .
Honestly I 'm rather surprised by Alpine and Mono , being some of the most inland counties , where inland is traditionally more conservative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly you don't live in California.
Only outside CA is the political system perceived as Liberal.
Those of us who live within the state have learned that there are a few enclaves of urban liberalism, surrounded by by vast areas of rural conservatism rivaling those of Kansas or Texas.
And then there are a number of conservative urban areas, too, like San Diego, San Bernardino, Bakersfield and Orange County.Case in point: look at the county by county results [google.com] for proposition 8 (banning gay marriage).
Outside Alpine, Mono, and Santa Barbara counties, and the greater Bay Area (a shoe-in), the entire state voted "yes" to ban gay marriage.
Honestly I'm rather surprised by Alpine and Mono, being some of the most inland counties, where inland is traditionally more conservative.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458742</id>
	<title>Re:Why Texas?</title>
	<author>The Archon V2.0</author>
	<datestamp>1268397840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>California has half again the population of Texas. Is there no CA state approval for textbooks? Seems that CA and TX should balance each other out, politically.</p></div><p>Like matter and antimatter? So if we move one next to the other, they'll annihilate each other? </p><p>

Oh, please, oh please be true.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>California has half again the population of Texas .
Is there no CA state approval for textbooks ?
Seems that CA and TX should balance each other out , politically.Like matter and antimatter ?
So if we move one next to the other , they 'll annihilate each other ?
Oh , please , oh please be true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>California has half again the population of Texas.
Is there no CA state approval for textbooks?
Seems that CA and TX should balance each other out, politically.Like matter and antimatter?
So if we move one next to the other, they'll annihilate each other?
Oh, please, oh please be true.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459912</id>
	<title>Re:Woah!</title>
	<author>whistlingtony</author>
	<datestamp>1268403240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why are you wanting people to kill themselves?<br>Huh? Who said that?</p><p>Why do you dislike these people so much?<br>Because they push their values on me.</p><p>Do you dislike them because they are promoting Christian values?<br>Don't lie, don't steal, don't kill, honor your parents, etc... These are Christian values, yes... but they're pretty much every religion's values. They're pretty much HUMAN values. Christianity doesn't own them. I dislike Christians because they tell me that the meek shall inherit the earth and that god loves everyone and then in the same sentence they tell me that God is going to send homosexuals to hell for all eternity and the poor can go !@#$ themselves.</p><p>If you do, do you dislike that they believe that God so loved the world that he sent his only Son so that who ever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life?<br>Uhm... whatever.</p><p>Do you dislike them because they try to live like Christ but recognize that when they fail, which they inevitably do, they go back to God and ask for forgiveness?<br>Dude, if they had that kind of humility, I'd like them a LOT more. And I've met some who do, and they are AWESOME people.</p><p>Do you dislike them because they believe in a God that you don't believe exists?<br>Worship the family cat for all I care. Just keep it on your side of the fence.</p><p>Or do you dislike them because simply because you do not like others who don't believe in what you believe?<br>I don't care what someone believes, as long as they keep it to themselves. The beauty of a liberal society is that you're free to be as conservative as you want. If you decide you must wear a funny hat to hide your head from God... Hey, no worries. Have at it. Everyone wins. Now if we flip it, I get stoned for existing..... !@#$ that.</p><p>-Tony</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are you wanting people to kill themselves ? Huh ?
Who said that ? Why do you dislike these people so much ? Because they push their values on me.Do you dislike them because they are promoting Christian values ? Do n't lie , do n't steal , do n't kill , honor your parents , etc... These are Christian values , yes... but they 're pretty much every religion 's values .
They 're pretty much HUMAN values .
Christianity does n't own them .
I dislike Christians because they tell me that the meek shall inherit the earth and that god loves everyone and then in the same sentence they tell me that God is going to send homosexuals to hell for all eternity and the poor can go !
@ # $ themselves.If you do , do you dislike that they believe that God so loved the world that he sent his only Son so that who ever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life ? Uhm... whatever.Do you dislike them because they try to live like Christ but recognize that when they fail , which they inevitably do , they go back to God and ask for forgiveness ? Dude , if they had that kind of humility , I 'd like them a LOT more .
And I 've met some who do , and they are AWESOME people.Do you dislike them because they believe in a God that you do n't believe exists ? Worship the family cat for all I care .
Just keep it on your side of the fence.Or do you dislike them because simply because you do not like others who do n't believe in what you believe ? I do n't care what someone believes , as long as they keep it to themselves .
The beauty of a liberal society is that you 're free to be as conservative as you want .
If you decide you must wear a funny hat to hide your head from God... Hey , no worries .
Have at it .
Everyone wins .
Now if we flip it , I get stoned for existing.... .
! @ # $ that.-Tony</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are you wanting people to kill themselves?Huh?
Who said that?Why do you dislike these people so much?Because they push their values on me.Do you dislike them because they are promoting Christian values?Don't lie, don't steal, don't kill, honor your parents, etc... These are Christian values, yes... but they're pretty much every religion's values.
They're pretty much HUMAN values.
Christianity doesn't own them.
I dislike Christians because they tell me that the meek shall inherit the earth and that god loves everyone and then in the same sentence they tell me that God is going to send homosexuals to hell for all eternity and the poor can go !
@#$ themselves.If you do, do you dislike that they believe that God so loved the world that he sent his only Son so that who ever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life?Uhm... whatever.Do you dislike them because they try to live like Christ but recognize that when they fail, which they inevitably do, they go back to God and ask for forgiveness?Dude, if they had that kind of humility, I'd like them a LOT more.
And I've met some who do, and they are AWESOME people.Do you dislike them because they believe in a God that you don't believe exists?Worship the family cat for all I care.
Just keep it on your side of the fence.Or do you dislike them because simply because you do not like others who don't believe in what you believe?I don't care what someone believes, as long as they keep it to themselves.
The beauty of a liberal society is that you're free to be as conservative as you want.
If you decide you must wear a funny hat to hide your head from God... Hey, no worries.
Have at it.
Everyone wins.
Now if we flip it, I get stoned for existing.....
!@#$ that.-Tony</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460100</id>
	<title>Yawn...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268404740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And in other breaking news, China has decided to censor the internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And in other breaking news , China has decided to censor the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And in other breaking news, China has decided to censor the internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459424</id>
	<title>Re:"I reject notion of separation of church and st</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268400660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm going to be shouted down by all you rabid libs, but what the heck...<br>Read what you quoted:<br>"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; this means not establishing an official state religion.  See Saudi Arabia to see what that is.<br>"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; clearly a textbook does not prohibit anything.<br>And the rest of it does not mention religion at all.</p><p>"Separation of church and state" is a term coined by a supreme court justice Hugo Black in 1947 (long after the founding fathers were all dead).  This current bastardization that it cannot be mentioned that the founders were Christians, or having a White House Christmas Tree is ridiculous and potentially violates the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" clause of the first amendment far more than teaching someone history.</p><p>If the schools start teaching your kids to believe in God, then by all means, scream to your heart's content, for you will have every reason to do so.  But attempting to teach kids history without explaining to them the context of the individuals involved (their philosophy, religion, etc) is a waste of time where you memorize places and dates without really understanding anything.  Or is that the goal?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm going to be shouted down by all you rabid libs , but what the heck...Read what you quoted : " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion "     this means not establishing an official state religion .
See Saudi Arabia to see what that is .
" or prohibiting the free exercise thereof "     clearly a textbook does not prohibit anything.And the rest of it does not mention religion at all .
" Separation of church and state " is a term coined by a supreme court justice Hugo Black in 1947 ( long after the founding fathers were all dead ) .
This current bastardization that it can not be mentioned that the founders were Christians , or having a White House Christmas Tree is ridiculous and potentially violates the " or prohibiting the free exercise thereof " clause of the first amendment far more than teaching someone history.If the schools start teaching your kids to believe in God , then by all means , scream to your heart 's content , for you will have every reason to do so .
But attempting to teach kids history without explaining to them the context of the individuals involved ( their philosophy , religion , etc ) is a waste of time where you memorize places and dates without really understanding anything .
Or is that the goal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm going to be shouted down by all you rabid libs, but what the heck...Read what you quoted:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
    this means not establishing an official state religion.
See Saudi Arabia to see what that is.
"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
    clearly a textbook does not prohibit anything.And the rest of it does not mention religion at all.
"Separation of church and state" is a term coined by a supreme court justice Hugo Black in 1947 (long after the founding fathers were all dead).
This current bastardization that it cannot be mentioned that the founders were Christians, or having a White House Christmas Tree is ridiculous and potentially violates the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" clause of the first amendment far more than teaching someone history.If the schools start teaching your kids to believe in God, then by all means, scream to your heart's content, for you will have every reason to do so.
But attempting to teach kids history without explaining to them the context of the individuals involved (their philosophy, religion, etc) is a waste of time where you memorize places and dates without really understanding anything.
Or is that the goal?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461164</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1268412180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It was all about abortion.  Many christians will not vote for any candidate that supports abortion.  My dad could not bring himself to vote for Obama, despite liking him and strongly disliking McCain, only because of abortion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was all about abortion .
Many christians will not vote for any candidate that supports abortion .
My dad could not bring himself to vote for Obama , despite liking him and strongly disliking McCain , only because of abortion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was all about abortion.
Many christians will not vote for any candidate that supports abortion.
My dad could not bring himself to vote for Obama, despite liking him and strongly disliking McCain, only because of abortion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460800</id>
	<title>Re:"I reject notion of separation of church and st</title>
	<author>Charliemopps</author>
	<datestamp>1268409600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is no separation of church and state in the constitution. That's why we need an amendment.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no separation of church and state in the constitution .
That 's why we need an amendment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no separation of church and state in the constitution.
That's why we need an amendment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460988</id>
	<title>Re:"I reject notion of separation of church and st</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268410920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Separation of church and state" is a term coined by a supreme court justice Hugo Black in 1947 (long after the founding fathers were all dead).&gt;</p> </div><p>
Try again. Black was quoting Thomas Jefferson. <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html" title="usconstitution.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html</a> [usconstitution.net]
</p><p>
Had you RTFAed, you would have known that...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Separation of church and state " is a term coined by a supreme court justice Hugo Black in 1947 ( long after the founding fathers were all dead ) . &gt; Try again .
Black was quoting Thomas Jefferson .
http : //www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html [ usconstitution.net ] Had you RTFAed , you would have known that.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Separation of church and state" is a term coined by a supreme court justice Hugo Black in 1947 (long after the founding fathers were all dead).&gt; 
Try again.
Black was quoting Thomas Jefferson.
http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html [usconstitution.net]

Had you RTFAed, you would have known that...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459982</id>
	<title>Re:It was the answer to an important question.</title>
	<author>StopKoolaidPoliticsT</author>
	<datestamp>1268403780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Bush I barely won against Dukakis.</p></div><p>48,886,597 Bush to 41,809,476. 426 electoral votes to 111. That's "barely won" to you? It was one of the most lopsided victories in electoral history.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>In 1992, Bush lost to Clinton, and many believe it was because he refused to identify himself as a "born again" Christian.</p></div><p>Read my lips, you can't ignore a key principle that you campaign on, that your base vehemently supports, and maintain the base's happiness, especially when you have a well funded third party spearheading a campaign directly on that point. Bush promised not to raise taxes and did anyway, which prompted fiscal conservatives to move to Perot. That provided the opportunity for Clinton take the victory and, he too, famously went after Bush on "the economy, stupid."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bush I barely won against Dukakis.48,886,597 Bush to 41,809,476 .
426 electoral votes to 111 .
That 's " barely won " to you ?
It was one of the most lopsided victories in electoral history.In 1992 , Bush lost to Clinton , and many believe it was because he refused to identify himself as a " born again " Christian.Read my lips , you ca n't ignore a key principle that you campaign on , that your base vehemently supports , and maintain the base 's happiness , especially when you have a well funded third party spearheading a campaign directly on that point .
Bush promised not to raise taxes and did anyway , which prompted fiscal conservatives to move to Perot .
That provided the opportunity for Clinton take the victory and , he too , famously went after Bush on " the economy , stupid .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bush I barely won against Dukakis.48,886,597 Bush to 41,809,476.
426 electoral votes to 111.
That's "barely won" to you?
It was one of the most lopsided victories in electoral history.In 1992, Bush lost to Clinton, and many believe it was because he refused to identify himself as a "born again" Christian.Read my lips, you can't ignore a key principle that you campaign on, that your base vehemently supports, and maintain the base's happiness, especially when you have a well funded third party spearheading a campaign directly on that point.
Bush promised not to raise taxes and did anyway, which prompted fiscal conservatives to move to Perot.
That provided the opportunity for Clinton take the victory and, he too, famously went after Bush on "the economy, stupid.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461490</id>
	<title>Re:"I reject notion of separation of church and st</title>
	<author>getsprouted</author>
	<datestamp>1268415540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Bill of Rights contains the establishment clause. In the Constitution itself there is a strict prohibition against a religious test for public office:</p><p>"... but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." -- Article VI</p><p>That looks to me like an unambiguous statement about the relationship between church, or better, *religion* and state.</p><p>As for other ambiguities in the Constitution, the document was forged out of numerous compromises part of what the opposition saw as an illegal effort to nullify the Articles of Confideration. The document was made intentionally ambiguous so that opposing parties could read into it what they wanted and argue for their positions after its adoption. The original drafters just needed to get it signed because the Confederation was failing.</p><p>These same conservatives talk about upholding the Constitution and returning to the founders' intentions. The founders argued with one another more than modern Americans do, and the Constitution legitimates slavery and denies womens' suffrage.</p><p>Finally, the opening paragraph of the Constitution states the intent of the signers to ensure the "promotion of the general Welfare." That could very well be interested to support the intervention of government in public health.</p><p>Apologies for the asides, but people should read the damn document before they spill tears for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Bill of Rights contains the establishment clause .
In the Constitution itself there is a strict prohibition against a religious test for public office : " ... but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States .
" -- Article VIThat looks to me like an unambiguous statement about the relationship between church , or better , * religion * and state.As for other ambiguities in the Constitution , the document was forged out of numerous compromises part of what the opposition saw as an illegal effort to nullify the Articles of Confideration .
The document was made intentionally ambiguous so that opposing parties could read into it what they wanted and argue for their positions after its adoption .
The original drafters just needed to get it signed because the Confederation was failing.These same conservatives talk about upholding the Constitution and returning to the founders ' intentions .
The founders argued with one another more than modern Americans do , and the Constitution legitimates slavery and denies womens ' suffrage.Finally , the opening paragraph of the Constitution states the intent of the signers to ensure the " promotion of the general Welfare .
" That could very well be interested to support the intervention of government in public health.Apologies for the asides , but people should read the damn document before they spill tears for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Bill of Rights contains the establishment clause.
In the Constitution itself there is a strict prohibition against a religious test for public office:"... but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
" -- Article VIThat looks to me like an unambiguous statement about the relationship between church, or better, *religion* and state.As for other ambiguities in the Constitution, the document was forged out of numerous compromises part of what the opposition saw as an illegal effort to nullify the Articles of Confideration.
The document was made intentionally ambiguous so that opposing parties could read into it what they wanted and argue for their positions after its adoption.
The original drafters just needed to get it signed because the Confederation was failing.These same conservatives talk about upholding the Constitution and returning to the founders' intentions.
The founders argued with one another more than modern Americans do, and the Constitution legitimates slavery and denies womens' suffrage.Finally, the opening paragraph of the Constitution states the intent of the signers to ensure the "promotion of the general Welfare.
" That could very well be interested to support the intervention of government in public health.Apologies for the asides, but people should read the damn document before they spill tears for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459846</id>
	<title>Re:Why Texas?</title>
	<author>StopKoolaidPoliticsT</author>
	<datestamp>1268402820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Those of us who live within the state have learned that there are a few enclaves of urban liberalism, surrounded by by vast areas of rural conservatism rivaling those of Kansas or Texas.<br> <br>

In reality, NY State is more liberal than the state of CA.</p></div><p>The same thing is true in NY State. If you take away the downstate region (from Albany to NYC along the Hudson corridor and Long Island), you end up with 1,237,159 Democrats, 1,276,389 Republicans, and 726,909 no affiliation in the rest of the state. The cities lean blue, though many of the counties the cities are in go red, and the rest of the state is pretty red. In statewide/national elections, the downstate region's 4,594,286 Democrats, 1,778,131 Republicans, and 1,796,785 NA give an impression that isn't really the reality for the rest of the state.<br> <br>

Simple fact is, NYC and its metro region completely dominates the rest of the state. For my entire life, there have been murmurs of people wishing to split the state in two because they're tired of not having any real representation (though someone from NYC will complain that they send tax money upstate... sure, in exchange for having to follow NYC's mandates). NYC doesn't like sending money to the rest of the state, but having control over that many more people is just too enticing for the politicians to give the rest of the state up.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Those of us who live within the state have learned that there are a few enclaves of urban liberalism , surrounded by by vast areas of rural conservatism rivaling those of Kansas or Texas .
In reality , NY State is more liberal than the state of CA.The same thing is true in NY State .
If you take away the downstate region ( from Albany to NYC along the Hudson corridor and Long Island ) , you end up with 1,237,159 Democrats , 1,276,389 Republicans , and 726,909 no affiliation in the rest of the state .
The cities lean blue , though many of the counties the cities are in go red , and the rest of the state is pretty red .
In statewide/national elections , the downstate region 's 4,594,286 Democrats , 1,778,131 Republicans , and 1,796,785 NA give an impression that is n't really the reality for the rest of the state .
Simple fact is , NYC and its metro region completely dominates the rest of the state .
For my entire life , there have been murmurs of people wishing to split the state in two because they 're tired of not having any real representation ( though someone from NYC will complain that they send tax money upstate... sure , in exchange for having to follow NYC 's mandates ) .
NYC does n't like sending money to the rest of the state , but having control over that many more people is just too enticing for the politicians to give the rest of the state up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those of us who live within the state have learned that there are a few enclaves of urban liberalism, surrounded by by vast areas of rural conservatism rivaling those of Kansas or Texas.
In reality, NY State is more liberal than the state of CA.The same thing is true in NY State.
If you take away the downstate region (from Albany to NYC along the Hudson corridor and Long Island), you end up with 1,237,159 Democrats, 1,276,389 Republicans, and 726,909 no affiliation in the rest of the state.
The cities lean blue, though many of the counties the cities are in go red, and the rest of the state is pretty red.
In statewide/national elections, the downstate region's 4,594,286 Democrats, 1,778,131 Republicans, and 1,796,785 NA give an impression that isn't really the reality for the rest of the state.
Simple fact is, NYC and its metro region completely dominates the rest of the state.
For my entire life, there have been murmurs of people wishing to split the state in two because they're tired of not having any real representation (though someone from NYC will complain that they send tax money upstate... sure, in exchange for having to follow NYC's mandates).
NYC doesn't like sending money to the rest of the state, but having control over that many more people is just too enticing for the politicians to give the rest of the state up.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458676</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Snarkalicious</author>
	<datestamp>1268397600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Short Version:  Dixiecrats needed a place to run to when their party picked up the civil rights banner and later picked a Papist for the national ticket.  They took with them with them the low information voters they'd been buying off for years in the southern states the represented.  Nixon was more than happy to have those states in his camp, even though he was far to cynical to embrace their evangelism in the same way later Republican candidates did.  Hence, the Party of Lincoln became something else entirely as the Military Indutrialists made nice with the worst face of modern Christianity, regardless of the deep and inherent conflicts that exist between the Mixed Testament Biblical and Lassaiez Faire Corporatist philosophies.</p><p>Short Short Version:  Politcal expedience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Short Version : Dixiecrats needed a place to run to when their party picked up the civil rights banner and later picked a Papist for the national ticket .
They took with them with them the low information voters they 'd been buying off for years in the southern states the represented .
Nixon was more than happy to have those states in his camp , even though he was far to cynical to embrace their evangelism in the same way later Republican candidates did .
Hence , the Party of Lincoln became something else entirely as the Military Indutrialists made nice with the worst face of modern Christianity , regardless of the deep and inherent conflicts that exist between the Mixed Testament Biblical and Lassaiez Faire Corporatist philosophies.Short Short Version : Politcal expedience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Short Version:  Dixiecrats needed a place to run to when their party picked up the civil rights banner and later picked a Papist for the national ticket.
They took with them with them the low information voters they'd been buying off for years in the southern states the represented.
Nixon was more than happy to have those states in his camp, even though he was far to cynical to embrace their evangelism in the same way later Republican candidates did.
Hence, the Party of Lincoln became something else entirely as the Military Indutrialists made nice with the worst face of modern Christianity, regardless of the deep and inherent conflicts that exist between the Mixed Testament Biblical and Lassaiez Faire Corporatist philosophies.Short Short Version:  Politcal expedience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459444</id>
	<title>Woah!</title>
	<author>quickpick</author>
	<datestamp>1268400780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hey guys, relax!  If this isn't the kind of change you were hoping for go make changes yourself!  It's still a free country!  Just some questions to ask yourself:<br>Why are you wanting people to kill themselves?  <br>Why do you dislike these people so much?  <br>Do you dislike them because they are promoting Christian values?  <br>If you do, do you dislike that they believe that God so loved the world that he sent his only Son so that who ever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life?  <br>Do you dislike them because they try to live like Christ but recognize that when they fail, which they inevitably do, they go back to God and ask for forgiveness?  <br>Do you dislike them because they believe in a God that you don't believe exists?  <br>Or do you dislike them because simply because you do not like others who don't believe in what you believe?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey guys , relax !
If this is n't the kind of change you were hoping for go make changes yourself !
It 's still a free country !
Just some questions to ask yourself : Why are you wanting people to kill themselves ?
Why do you dislike these people so much ?
Do you dislike them because they are promoting Christian values ?
If you do , do you dislike that they believe that God so loved the world that he sent his only Son so that who ever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life ?
Do you dislike them because they try to live like Christ but recognize that when they fail , which they inevitably do , they go back to God and ask for forgiveness ?
Do you dislike them because they believe in a God that you do n't believe exists ?
Or do you dislike them because simply because you do not like others who do n't believe in what you believe ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey guys, relax!
If this isn't the kind of change you were hoping for go make changes yourself!
It's still a free country!
Just some questions to ask yourself:Why are you wanting people to kill themselves?
Why do you dislike these people so much?
Do you dislike them because they are promoting Christian values?
If you do, do you dislike that they believe that God so loved the world that he sent his only Son so that who ever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life?
Do you dislike them because they try to live like Christ but recognize that when they fail, which they inevitably do, they go back to God and ask for forgiveness?
Do you dislike them because they believe in a God that you don't believe exists?
Or do you dislike them because simply because you do not like others who don't believe in what you believe?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460810</id>
	<title>Re:"I reject notion of separation of church and st</title>
	<author>TheVelvetFlamebait</author>
	<datestamp>1268409600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmm, and I guess that, since the constitution doesn't expressly allow laws regarding the separation of church and state, it would be unconstitutional to pass such laws.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm , and I guess that , since the constitution does n't expressly allow laws regarding the separation of church and state , it would be unconstitutional to pass such laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm, and I guess that, since the constitution doesn't expressly allow laws regarding the separation of church and state, it would be unconstitutional to pass such laws.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31463704</id>
	<title>Re:"I reject notion of separation of church and st</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268493300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I can't see how a board of education allowing textbooks stress "the role of Christianity in American history" counts as a "law" or how it establishes a religion,"</p><p>You're hung up on the word "establishes".  It doesn't mean founding a new religion or something.  It means government promoting a state religion -- i.e. supporting one particular religion versus not supporting others.  In the context of the European history of the day it is pretty clear the people who wrote the constitution wanted something completely different.  There they had state religions.  If government supports one particular religion it is in effect establishing a special status for that religion.  If you read the writings of the people who wrote the constitution it's pretty clear they wanted government to be completely out of the religion business itself, and likewise they wanted government out of the people's business when it came to religion too.  While it may get phrased as "separation of church and state", and that phrase isn't in the constitution, it is very clear what their intent was.  Furthermore, it is very clear that separation of church and state is the fairest way to allow all citizens to enjoy whatever religion they want -- keep government out of religion.</p><p>The danger in the textbook scenario is that the significance of other religions in American history will be neglected, and, particularly in the case of some of the people who wrote the constitution in the early history of the USA, the non-religious nature of some of them might be ignored.  It's important too.  Public education is funded and implemented by government.  The standards are being crafted by representatives of government.  The school board representatives are bound by the laws that apply to government, and they aren't supposed to be establishing a special status for a particular religion by saying it deserves emphasis in education.</p><p>While it would be entirely appropriate to explore the influence of religion (which would inevitably include a lot about Christianity because it is a *large* influence then and now), singling out Christianity for attention is a bit odd given that other religions and non-religion certainly had an important influence on American history.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I ca n't see how a board of education allowing textbooks stress " the role of Christianity in American history " counts as a " law " or how it establishes a religion , " You 're hung up on the word " establishes " .
It does n't mean founding a new religion or something .
It means government promoting a state religion -- i.e .
supporting one particular religion versus not supporting others .
In the context of the European history of the day it is pretty clear the people who wrote the constitution wanted something completely different .
There they had state religions .
If government supports one particular religion it is in effect establishing a special status for that religion .
If you read the writings of the people who wrote the constitution it 's pretty clear they wanted government to be completely out of the religion business itself , and likewise they wanted government out of the people 's business when it came to religion too .
While it may get phrased as " separation of church and state " , and that phrase is n't in the constitution , it is very clear what their intent was .
Furthermore , it is very clear that separation of church and state is the fairest way to allow all citizens to enjoy whatever religion they want -- keep government out of religion.The danger in the textbook scenario is that the significance of other religions in American history will be neglected , and , particularly in the case of some of the people who wrote the constitution in the early history of the USA , the non-religious nature of some of them might be ignored .
It 's important too .
Public education is funded and implemented by government .
The standards are being crafted by representatives of government .
The school board representatives are bound by the laws that apply to government , and they are n't supposed to be establishing a special status for a particular religion by saying it deserves emphasis in education.While it would be entirely appropriate to explore the influence of religion ( which would inevitably include a lot about Christianity because it is a * large * influence then and now ) , singling out Christianity for attention is a bit odd given that other religions and non-religion certainly had an important influence on American history .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I can't see how a board of education allowing textbooks stress "the role of Christianity in American history" counts as a "law" or how it establishes a religion,"You're hung up on the word "establishes".
It doesn't mean founding a new religion or something.
It means government promoting a state religion -- i.e.
supporting one particular religion versus not supporting others.
In the context of the European history of the day it is pretty clear the people who wrote the constitution wanted something completely different.
There they had state religions.
If government supports one particular religion it is in effect establishing a special status for that religion.
If you read the writings of the people who wrote the constitution it's pretty clear they wanted government to be completely out of the religion business itself, and likewise they wanted government out of the people's business when it came to religion too.
While it may get phrased as "separation of church and state", and that phrase isn't in the constitution, it is very clear what their intent was.
Furthermore, it is very clear that separation of church and state is the fairest way to allow all citizens to enjoy whatever religion they want -- keep government out of religion.The danger in the textbook scenario is that the significance of other religions in American history will be neglected, and, particularly in the case of some of the people who wrote the constitution in the early history of the USA, the non-religious nature of some of them might be ignored.
It's important too.
Public education is funded and implemented by government.
The standards are being crafted by representatives of government.
The school board representatives are bound by the laws that apply to government, and they aren't supposed to be establishing a special status for a particular religion by saying it deserves emphasis in education.While it would be entirely appropriate to explore the influence of religion (which would inevitably include a lot about Christianity because it is a *large* influence then and now), singling out Christianity for attention is a bit odd given that other religions and non-religion certainly had an important influence on American history.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460926</id>
	<title>Re:Woah!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268410500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I dislike them because:</p><p>They are FUCKING IDIOTS!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dislike them because : They are FUCKING IDIOTS ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dislike them because:They are FUCKING IDIOTS!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460744</id>
	<title>Re:Note To Self:</title>
	<author>TheVelvetFlamebait</author>
	<datestamp>1268409240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The parent's comment is harsh, but when time comes to look for a job, so is the employer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The parent 's comment is harsh , but when time comes to look for a job , so is the employer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The parent's comment is harsh, but when time comes to look for a job, so is the employer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458696</id>
	<title>Re:"I reject notion of separation of church and st</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268397660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>First Amendment - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."<br>
<br>
1st, the very first word of the amendment is "Congress."  It doesn't say anything about any of the states, but this has been normally implemented at the state level as well, by law or otherwise.
2nd, I can't see how a board of education allowing textbooks stress "the role of Christianity in American history" counts as a "law" or how it establishes a religion, or how it prohibits anyone's free exercise or any other religion, or anything else mentioned in the amendment.<br>
<br>
Liberals and other anti-Christians have taken the original text and intent so far out of context as to barely resemble it at all.  In fact, in many many cases, the implementation of this imaginary "separation of Church and State" has in fact violated the <b> <i>real</i> </b> 1st amendment by prohibiting many people's free exercise of their religion and their freedom of speech, and their right to peaceably assemble, merely because it may have happened on some public property.</htmltext>
<tokenext>First Amendment - " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion , or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ; or abridging the freedom of speech , or of the press ; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble , and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances .
" 1st , the very first word of the amendment is " Congress .
" It does n't say anything about any of the states , but this has been normally implemented at the state level as well , by law or otherwise .
2nd , I ca n't see how a board of education allowing textbooks stress " the role of Christianity in American history " counts as a " law " or how it establishes a religion , or how it prohibits anyone 's free exercise or any other religion , or anything else mentioned in the amendment .
Liberals and other anti-Christians have taken the original text and intent so far out of context as to barely resemble it at all .
In fact , in many many cases , the implementation of this imaginary " separation of Church and State " has in fact violated the real 1st amendment by prohibiting many people 's free exercise of their religion and their freedom of speech , and their right to peaceably assemble , merely because it may have happened on some public property .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First Amendment - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
"

1st, the very first word of the amendment is "Congress.
"  It doesn't say anything about any of the states, but this has been normally implemented at the state level as well, by law or otherwise.
2nd, I can't see how a board of education allowing textbooks stress "the role of Christianity in American history" counts as a "law" or how it establishes a religion, or how it prohibits anyone's free exercise or any other religion, or anything else mentioned in the amendment.
Liberals and other anti-Christians have taken the original text and intent so far out of context as to barely resemble it at all.
In fact, in many many cases, the implementation of this imaginary "separation of Church and State" has in fact violated the  real  1st amendment by prohibiting many people's free exercise of their religion and their freedom of speech, and their right to peaceably assemble, merely because it may have happened on some public property.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31465576</id>
	<title>Re:Why Texas?</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1268510520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I live here, and it is nowhere as conservative as you make it sound. We just had a CANNABIS CUP held here, for crying out loud! Cypress Hill, vape bags flying around, the works!</i></p><p>Except Conservatives support the fake War on Drugs.  Nixon got to pick all of the members for a presidential commission to <a href="http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v02/n532/a07.html" title="mapinc.org">study</a> [mapinc.org] whether hemp, marijuana, should be legalized or not.  Before the commission ever made it's decision Nixon came flat out and said he'd never agree to allow it to be legalized, which is exactly what his commission recommended.  Although almost all members were drug warriors "they started talking about legalization".  Two more conservatives opposed to legal drugs were Ronald and Nancy Reagan.  President Reagan increased the size of the war on drugs and Nancy started the "Just Say No" campaign.</p><p>The War on Drugs isn't a Conservative or a Socialist (I won't say liberal because most of those who call then that are not liberal) issue, they both support it.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I live here , and it is nowhere as conservative as you make it sound .
We just had a CANNABIS CUP held here , for crying out loud !
Cypress Hill , vape bags flying around , the works ! Except Conservatives support the fake War on Drugs .
Nixon got to pick all of the members for a presidential commission to study [ mapinc.org ] whether hemp , marijuana , should be legalized or not .
Before the commission ever made it 's decision Nixon came flat out and said he 'd never agree to allow it to be legalized , which is exactly what his commission recommended .
Although almost all members were drug warriors " they started talking about legalization " .
Two more conservatives opposed to legal drugs were Ronald and Nancy Reagan .
President Reagan increased the size of the war on drugs and Nancy started the " Just Say No " campaign.The War on Drugs is n't a Conservative or a Socialist ( I wo n't say liberal because most of those who call then that are not liberal ) issue , they both support it .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I live here, and it is nowhere as conservative as you make it sound.
We just had a CANNABIS CUP held here, for crying out loud!
Cypress Hill, vape bags flying around, the works!Except Conservatives support the fake War on Drugs.
Nixon got to pick all of the members for a presidential commission to study [mapinc.org] whether hemp, marijuana, should be legalized or not.
Before the commission ever made it's decision Nixon came flat out and said he'd never agree to allow it to be legalized, which is exactly what his commission recommended.
Although almost all members were drug warriors "they started talking about legalization".
Two more conservatives opposed to legal drugs were Ronald and Nancy Reagan.
President Reagan increased the size of the war on drugs and Nancy started the "Just Say No" campaign.The War on Drugs isn't a Conservative or a Socialist (I won't say liberal because most of those who call then that are not liberal) issue, they both support it.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458524</id>
	<title>This debate is Ridiculous!</title>
	<author>bigjarom</author>
	<datestamp>1268397000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It doesn't matter which side wins in this debate in Texas. Either way young Texas children will still grow up with no idea how many provinces there are in Canada, what language they speak in Egypt, or who the president of France is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't matter which side wins in this debate in Texas .
Either way young Texas children will still grow up with no idea how many provinces there are in Canada , what language they speak in Egypt , or who the president of France is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't matter which side wins in this debate in Texas.
Either way young Texas children will still grow up with no idea how many provinces there are in Canada, what language they speak in Egypt, or who the president of France is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459808</id>
	<title>Re:Hahahahahah</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268402580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thomas Paine, Age of Reason:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; But, lest it should be supposed that I believe in many other things in addition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work, declare the things I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness of man, that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime. He takes up the trade of a priest for the sake of gain, and in order to qualify himself for that trade, he begins with a perjury. Can we conceive any thing more destructive to morality than this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thomas Paine , Age of Reason :         I believe in one God , and no more ; and I hope for happiness beyond this life .
        I believe in the equality of man ; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice , loving mercy , and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy .
        But , lest it should be supposed that I believe in many other things in addition to these , I shall , in the progress of this work , declare the things I do not believe , and my reasons for not believing them .
        I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church , by the Roman church , by the Greek church , by the Turkish church , by the Protestant church , nor by any church that I know of .
My own mind is my own church .
        All national institutions of churches , whether Jewish , Christian or Turkish , appear to me no other than human inventions , set up to terrify and enslave mankind , and monopolize power and profit .
        I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise ; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine .
But it is necessary to the happiness of man , that he be mentally faithful to himself .
Infidelity does not consist in believing , or in disbelieving ; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe .
        It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief , if I may so express it , that mental lying has produced in society .
When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind , as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe , he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime .
He takes up the trade of a priest for the sake of gain , and in order to qualify himself for that trade , he begins with a perjury .
Can we conceive any thing more destructive to morality than this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thomas Paine, Age of Reason:
        I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.
        I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.
        But, lest it should be supposed that I believe in many other things in addition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work, declare the things I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them.
        I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of.
My own mind is my own church.
        All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
        I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine.
But it is necessary to the happiness of man, that he be mentally faithful to himself.
Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe.
        It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society.
When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime.
He takes up the trade of a priest for the sake of gain, and in order to qualify himself for that trade, he begins with a perjury.
Can we conceive any thing more destructive to morality than this?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459008</id>
	<title>Texas History is a required subject</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268399040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I lived in Texas for 8th-12th grade.  The one thing that I found absolutely amazing, is that there is a required course for all students that is solely Texas History.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I lived in Texas for 8th-12th grade .
The one thing that I found absolutely amazing , is that there is a required course for all students that is solely Texas History .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I lived in Texas for 8th-12th grade.
The one thing that I found absolutely amazing, is that there is a required course for all students that is solely Texas History.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458700</id>
	<title>Re:Meh</title>
	<author>Beelzebud</author>
	<datestamp>1268397720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah who cares if everyone else in society gets a shit education, as long as you got yours, right?  It's not like your fellow countrymen can affect your life at all.  You are an island!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah who cares if everyone else in society gets a shit education , as long as you got yours , right ?
It 's not like your fellow countrymen can affect your life at all .
You are an island !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah who cares if everyone else in society gets a shit education, as long as you got yours, right?
It's not like your fellow countrymen can affect your life at all.
You are an island!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31539872</id>
	<title>Re:It was the answer to an important question.</title>
	<author>mosb1000</author>
	<datestamp>1269020460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Did you miss the part where a follower of Jesus complains to him that a woman has wasted resources on Jesus that could have been spent on the poor... and Jesus replies that the woman has done the right thing and that the poor will be with us always? Yeah... all those who worship the poor and use the poor as justification for bizarre robin hood schemes seem to miss that one... just a coincidence I'm sure.</p></div></blockquote><p>BTW, if you aren't aware, you should read this passage in it's context in John:</p><blockquote><div><p> But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (he who was about to betray him), said, "Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?" <b>He said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief, and having charge of the moneybag he used to help himself to what was put into it.</b> Jesus said, "Leave her alone, so that she may keep it for the day of my burial. For the poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me."</p></div></blockquote><p>This verse always comes to my mind when someone is complaining about how someone else is spending their time and resources.  Surely, a selfless person would not be concerned with such matters.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you miss the part where a follower of Jesus complains to him that a woman has wasted resources on Jesus that could have been spent on the poor... and Jesus replies that the woman has done the right thing and that the poor will be with us always ?
Yeah... all those who worship the poor and use the poor as justification for bizarre robin hood schemes seem to miss that one... just a coincidence I 'm sure.BTW , if you are n't aware , you should read this passage in it 's context in John : But Judas Iscariot , one of his disciples ( he who was about to betray him ) , said , " Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor ?
" He said this , not because he cared about the poor , but because he was a thief , and having charge of the moneybag he used to help himself to what was put into it .
Jesus said , " Leave her alone , so that she may keep it for the day of my burial .
For the poor you always have with you , but you do not always have me .
" This verse always comes to my mind when someone is complaining about how someone else is spending their time and resources .
Surely , a selfless person would not be concerned with such matters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you miss the part where a follower of Jesus complains to him that a woman has wasted resources on Jesus that could have been spent on the poor... and Jesus replies that the woman has done the right thing and that the poor will be with us always?
Yeah... all those who worship the poor and use the poor as justification for bizarre robin hood schemes seem to miss that one... just a coincidence I'm sure.BTW, if you aren't aware, you should read this passage in it's context in John: But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (he who was about to betray him), said, "Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?
" He said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief, and having charge of the moneybag he used to help himself to what was put into it.
Jesus said, "Leave her alone, so that she may keep it for the day of my burial.
For the poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me.
"This verse always comes to my mind when someone is complaining about how someone else is spending their time and resources.
Surely, a selfless person would not be concerned with such matters.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31463066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459142</id>
	<title>Re:Hahahahahah</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268399580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's funny. Our entire culture is based on Judeo-Christian traditions. As John Adams said:<br>&ldquo;We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.&rdquo;</p><p>People of the day knew this. There is no such thing as Separation of Church and State. It's just made up in the current context. The idea was that the Colonies would only join the Union if the Federal Government was restricted from Establishing it's own official religion - like the Church of England. Something like nine of the original thirteen colonies had official religions. They didn't want the central government to get in their way.</p><p>And this is why the US Constitution does not mention God, but EVERY single State Constitution DOES.</p><p>The whole issue has been twisted by Progressives/Modern Liberals.</p><p>Texas is hopefully fixing things so kids get all of this information. Now you have it too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's funny .
Our entire culture is based on Judeo-Christian traditions .
As John Adams said :    We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion .
Avarice , ambition , revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net .
Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people .
It is wholly inadequate for any other.    People of the day knew this .
There is no such thing as Separation of Church and State .
It 's just made up in the current context .
The idea was that the Colonies would only join the Union if the Federal Government was restricted from Establishing it 's own official religion - like the Church of England .
Something like nine of the original thirteen colonies had official religions .
They did n't want the central government to get in their way.And this is why the US Constitution does not mention God , but EVERY single State Constitution DOES.The whole issue has been twisted by Progressives/Modern Liberals.Texas is hopefully fixing things so kids get all of this information .
Now you have it too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's funny.
Our entire culture is based on Judeo-Christian traditions.
As John Adams said:“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion.
Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net.
Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people.
It is wholly inadequate for any other.”People of the day knew this.
There is no such thing as Separation of Church and State.
It's just made up in the current context.
The idea was that the Colonies would only join the Union if the Federal Government was restricted from Establishing it's own official religion - like the Church of England.
Something like nine of the original thirteen colonies had official religions.
They didn't want the central government to get in their way.And this is why the US Constitution does not mention God, but EVERY single State Constitution DOES.The whole issue has been twisted by Progressives/Modern Liberals.Texas is hopefully fixing things so kids get all of this information.
Now you have it too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460220</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Ozlanthos</author>
	<datestamp>1268405400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Reagan did it...actually the televangelists claimed to have "conservative", "christian-AMERICAN values". Since then, the christians have tried to get rid of knowledge that most of the founding fathers were in fact "deist free-masons". They'd also like all of us to forget the native american <a href="http://americanindianoriginalpeo.tribe.net/thread/d15be11c-a5d2-4d4a-9bee-f62c31012565" title="tribe.net" rel="nofollow">influence</a> [tribe.net] on this country's founding documents.
<br>
<br>
-Oz</htmltext>
<tokenext>Reagan did it...actually the televangelists claimed to have " conservative " , " christian-AMERICAN values " .
Since then , the christians have tried to get rid of knowledge that most of the founding fathers were in fact " deist free-masons " .
They 'd also like all of us to forget the native american influence [ tribe.net ] on this country 's founding documents .
-Oz</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reagan did it...actually the televangelists claimed to have "conservative", "christian-AMERICAN values".
Since then, the christians have tried to get rid of knowledge that most of the founding fathers were in fact "deist free-masons".
They'd also like all of us to forget the native american influence [tribe.net] on this country's founding documents.
-Oz</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458710</id>
	<title>Re:Meh</title>
	<author>jeff4747</author>
	<datestamp>1268397720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The fact that anyone else in the rest of the country gives a damn is an example of how eroded state's rights have become. Why should I care? I don't live in Texas.</p></div></blockquote><p>Because the people who print textbooks do not print a different version for every state.  States with a large enough market, California and Texas get their own editions.  Every other state can buy either the California or Texas editions.</p><p>Thus, these decisions in Texas will influence the education of a very large swath of the US.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that anyone else in the rest of the country gives a damn is an example of how eroded state 's rights have become .
Why should I care ?
I do n't live in Texas.Because the people who print textbooks do not print a different version for every state .
States with a large enough market , California and Texas get their own editions .
Every other state can buy either the California or Texas editions.Thus , these decisions in Texas will influence the education of a very large swath of the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that anyone else in the rest of the country gives a damn is an example of how eroded state's rights have become.
Why should I care?
I don't live in Texas.Because the people who print textbooks do not print a different version for every state.
States with a large enough market, California and Texas get their own editions.
Every other state can buy either the California or Texas editions.Thus, these decisions in Texas will influence the education of a very large swath of the US.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461484</id>
	<title>Re:It was the answer to an important question.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268415480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was a fundie baptist until the week before the election where Clinton became president-elect.  In my church that weekend prior (the largest in the state at the time, and probably still so) the deacons passed out brochures to everyone while the pastor stated it was "our God-given DUTY to vote these Christian men and women into office and bring Glory to God."  It was blatently stated that anyone who strayed from the contents of the brochure "an unforgivable sinner".  Conveniently every one of the candidates in the brochure were Republican.  I quickly came to my senses and my delusion about what was the Southern Baptist church came crashing down into reality.</p><p>It is wholly blasphemous to threaten one's salvation based on their voting patterns, not to mention illegal and unethical on many levels.  I don't want government in my church, and I don't want my church in my government either.</p><p>I have not attended that church (or any other baptist service) since.  Closer study of the baptist traditions at arm's length changed me forever.  They are a money machine that cares more about their tithes than their flock.  Look at Pat Robertson for an excellent example of that twisted theology.  Those whom I maintain ties with from my baptist days still hold him up as a positive example of God's power and grace.  Today I consider myself agnostic bordering on atheist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was a fundie baptist until the week before the election where Clinton became president-elect .
In my church that weekend prior ( the largest in the state at the time , and probably still so ) the deacons passed out brochures to everyone while the pastor stated it was " our God-given DUTY to vote these Christian men and women into office and bring Glory to God .
" It was blatently stated that anyone who strayed from the contents of the brochure " an unforgivable sinner " .
Conveniently every one of the candidates in the brochure were Republican .
I quickly came to my senses and my delusion about what was the Southern Baptist church came crashing down into reality.It is wholly blasphemous to threaten one 's salvation based on their voting patterns , not to mention illegal and unethical on many levels .
I do n't want government in my church , and I do n't want my church in my government either.I have not attended that church ( or any other baptist service ) since .
Closer study of the baptist traditions at arm 's length changed me forever .
They are a money machine that cares more about their tithes than their flock .
Look at Pat Robertson for an excellent example of that twisted theology .
Those whom I maintain ties with from my baptist days still hold him up as a positive example of God 's power and grace .
Today I consider myself agnostic bordering on atheist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was a fundie baptist until the week before the election where Clinton became president-elect.
In my church that weekend prior (the largest in the state at the time, and probably still so) the deacons passed out brochures to everyone while the pastor stated it was "our God-given DUTY to vote these Christian men and women into office and bring Glory to God.
"  It was blatently stated that anyone who strayed from the contents of the brochure "an unforgivable sinner".
Conveniently every one of the candidates in the brochure were Republican.
I quickly came to my senses and my delusion about what was the Southern Baptist church came crashing down into reality.It is wholly blasphemous to threaten one's salvation based on their voting patterns, not to mention illegal and unethical on many levels.
I don't want government in my church, and I don't want my church in my government either.I have not attended that church (or any other baptist service) since.
Closer study of the baptist traditions at arm's length changed me forever.
They are a money machine that cares more about their tithes than their flock.
Look at Pat Robertson for an excellent example of that twisted theology.
Those whom I maintain ties with from my baptist days still hold him up as a positive example of God's power and grace.
Today I consider myself agnostic bordering on atheist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31463982</id>
	<title>Re:It was the answer to an important question.</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1268496480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Just try to imagine Christ at a Tea Party rally, protesting tax dollars spent on the ill and the needy, and then signing up to join the Army the next day. The evangelicals have no idea which way is north. They don't even have a coherent set of values left. They are just following orders.</p></div><p>This says more about you than it does about the "Tea Party" thing. As I see it, the Tea Party people simply want a reduction in taxation. While that can mean a reduction in government spending to the ill and needy, it's far more likely to mean a reduction in entitlements to wasteful sources like universal entitlements, corporate welfare, and other pathologies of modern government spending. And the Army serves a useful role whether you choose to recognize it or not even though defense spending is way too much (that's a belief we probably share with Tea Partiers incidentally).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just try to imagine Christ at a Tea Party rally , protesting tax dollars spent on the ill and the needy , and then signing up to join the Army the next day .
The evangelicals have no idea which way is north .
They do n't even have a coherent set of values left .
They are just following orders.This says more about you than it does about the " Tea Party " thing .
As I see it , the Tea Party people simply want a reduction in taxation .
While that can mean a reduction in government spending to the ill and needy , it 's far more likely to mean a reduction in entitlements to wasteful sources like universal entitlements , corporate welfare , and other pathologies of modern government spending .
And the Army serves a useful role whether you choose to recognize it or not even though defense spending is way too much ( that 's a belief we probably share with Tea Partiers incidentally ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just try to imagine Christ at a Tea Party rally, protesting tax dollars spent on the ill and the needy, and then signing up to join the Army the next day.
The evangelicals have no idea which way is north.
They don't even have a coherent set of values left.
They are just following orders.This says more about you than it does about the "Tea Party" thing.
As I see it, the Tea Party people simply want a reduction in taxation.
While that can mean a reduction in government spending to the ill and needy, it's far more likely to mean a reduction in entitlements to wasteful sources like universal entitlements, corporate welfare, and other pathologies of modern government spending.
And the Army serves a useful role whether you choose to recognize it or not even though defense spending is way too much (that's a belief we probably share with Tea Partiers incidentally).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460300</id>
	<title>Re:It was the answer to an important question.</title>
	<author>copponex</author>
	<datestamp>1268405880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>53 to 46\% is a modern landslide, sure. However, the previous election, Reagan and Bush won with 60\% of the popular vote and 525 electoral votes.</p><p>The Democrats picked up 8 seats in the Senate and 5 seats in the house in 86. In 1988 they picked up 2 more seats in the House and one in the Senate. If Dukakis hadn't been such terrible candidate, and Atwater had a little more integrity, I don't doubt he would have had a fight on his hands. The resort to such vile attack ads seems to support that belief.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>53 to 46 \ % is a modern landslide , sure .
However , the previous election , Reagan and Bush won with 60 \ % of the popular vote and 525 electoral votes.The Democrats picked up 8 seats in the Senate and 5 seats in the house in 86 .
In 1988 they picked up 2 more seats in the House and one in the Senate .
If Dukakis had n't been such terrible candidate , and Atwater had a little more integrity , I do n't doubt he would have had a fight on his hands .
The resort to such vile attack ads seems to support that belief .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>53 to 46\% is a modern landslide, sure.
However, the previous election, Reagan and Bush won with 60\% of the popular vote and 525 electoral votes.The Democrats picked up 8 seats in the Senate and 5 seats in the house in 86.
In 1988 they picked up 2 more seats in the House and one in the Senate.
If Dukakis hadn't been such terrible candidate, and Atwater had a little more integrity, I don't doubt he would have had a fight on his hands.
The resort to such vile attack ads seems to support that belief.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461244</id>
	<title>Re:Why Texas?</title>
	<author>DesScorp</author>
	<datestamp>1268412900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"<b>And for those non-residents reading along at home, most Hollywood execs (from agents to production houses to studio heads) have political philosophies more in line with rural Kansas or Texas than those associated with our liberal enclaves. You heard it right, folks. Most of "Hollywood" is conservative. Shouldn't be a surprise, given the amount of money at stake in a given deal or project.</b>"</p><p>I'm sorry, but that's laughable. While execs may not be <i>as</i> liberal as, say, George Clooney or Michael Moore, to say that they're like people in Kansas or Texas is silly. I'll agree that there are more people that aren't liberal  than you might think in Hollywood, but that doesn't necessarily make them conservative either.</p><p>The money issue is another thing as well. I don't see Steven Spielberg, Tom Hanks, or David Geffen giving all they own to the poor. They're quite adamant in defending their wealth. That idea that if someone is out to make money then they aren't liberal is ludicrous. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and Steve Jobs are all Democrats, after all.</p><p>If this cabal of studio executives are conservatives, why are they continually greenlighting a string of anti-war movies that are hemorrhaging money? Execs may be sometimes scared of offending the bourgeois, but conservative? Uh, no.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" And for those non-residents reading along at home , most Hollywood execs ( from agents to production houses to studio heads ) have political philosophies more in line with rural Kansas or Texas than those associated with our liberal enclaves .
You heard it right , folks .
Most of " Hollywood " is conservative .
Should n't be a surprise , given the amount of money at stake in a given deal or project .
" I 'm sorry , but that 's laughable .
While execs may not be as liberal as , say , George Clooney or Michael Moore , to say that they 're like people in Kansas or Texas is silly .
I 'll agree that there are more people that are n't liberal than you might think in Hollywood , but that does n't necessarily make them conservative either.The money issue is another thing as well .
I do n't see Steven Spielberg , Tom Hanks , or David Geffen giving all they own to the poor .
They 're quite adamant in defending their wealth .
That idea that if someone is out to make money then they are n't liberal is ludicrous .
Bill Gates , Warren Buffett , and Steve Jobs are all Democrats , after all.If this cabal of studio executives are conservatives , why are they continually greenlighting a string of anti-war movies that are hemorrhaging money ?
Execs may be sometimes scared of offending the bourgeois , but conservative ?
Uh , no .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"And for those non-residents reading along at home, most Hollywood execs (from agents to production houses to studio heads) have political philosophies more in line with rural Kansas or Texas than those associated with our liberal enclaves.
You heard it right, folks.
Most of "Hollywood" is conservative.
Shouldn't be a surprise, given the amount of money at stake in a given deal or project.
"I'm sorry, but that's laughable.
While execs may not be as liberal as, say, George Clooney or Michael Moore, to say that they're like people in Kansas or Texas is silly.
I'll agree that there are more people that aren't liberal  than you might think in Hollywood, but that doesn't necessarily make them conservative either.The money issue is another thing as well.
I don't see Steven Spielberg, Tom Hanks, or David Geffen giving all they own to the poor.
They're quite adamant in defending their wealth.
That idea that if someone is out to make money then they aren't liberal is ludicrous.
Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and Steve Jobs are all Democrats, after all.If this cabal of studio executives are conservatives, why are they continually greenlighting a string of anti-war movies that are hemorrhaging money?
Execs may be sometimes scared of offending the bourgeois, but conservative?
Uh, no.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460338</id>
	<title>Re:"I reject notion of separation of church and st</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268406000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The key word here is "respecting". They cannot make a law that RESPECTS an establishment of religion.</p></div><p>That's not how I read it.  It has nothing to do with "respect" in the sense of deferring or honoring.  Rather, they mean "respecting" in the sense of "pertaining to" or "regarding."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The key word here is " respecting " .
They can not make a law that RESPECTS an establishment of religion.That 's not how I read it .
It has nothing to do with " respect " in the sense of deferring or honoring .
Rather , they mean " respecting " in the sense of " pertaining to " or " regarding .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The key word here is "respecting".
They cannot make a law that RESPECTS an establishment of religion.That's not how I read it.
It has nothing to do with "respect" in the sense of deferring or honoring.
Rather, they mean "respecting" in the sense of "pertaining to" or "regarding.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460400</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone explain please</title>
	<author>Totenglocke</author>
	<datestamp>1268406360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The amendments are also intended to emphasize the unalloyed superiority of the &ldquo;free-enterprise system&rdquo; over others and the desirability of limited government.</p><p>One says publishers should &ldquo;describe the effects of increasing government regulation and taxation on economic development and business planning.&rdquo;</p></div><p>Wow, so you mean they'll actually start teaching facts again?  Who gives a rats ass about the evolution or religion crap as long as kids will actually understand what happens when you give the government infinite power.  It doesn't matter what people are taught about evolution or religion if they're not free to run their own lives.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The amendments are also intended to emphasize the unalloyed superiority of the    free-enterprise system    over others and the desirability of limited government.One says publishers should    describe the effects of increasing government regulation and taxation on economic development and business planning.    Wow , so you mean they 'll actually start teaching facts again ?
Who gives a rats ass about the evolution or religion crap as long as kids will actually understand what happens when you give the government infinite power .
It does n't matter what people are taught about evolution or religion if they 're not free to run their own lives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The amendments are also intended to emphasize the unalloyed superiority of the “free-enterprise system” over others and the desirability of limited government.One says publishers should “describe the effects of increasing government regulation and taxation on economic development and business planning.”Wow, so you mean they'll actually start teaching facts again?
Who gives a rats ass about the evolution or religion crap as long as kids will actually understand what happens when you give the government infinite power.
It doesn't matter what people are taught about evolution or religion if they're not free to run their own lives.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460038</id>
	<title>Re:"I reject notion of separation of church and st</title>
	<author>dbrower</author>
	<datestamp>1268404260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>&ldquo;I reject the notion by the left of a constitutional separation of church and state,&rdquo; said David Bradley, a conservative from Beaumont who works in real estate. &ldquo;I have $1,000 for the charity of your choice if you can find it in the Constitution.&rdquo;</p><p>Oh boy.</p></div><p>He is probably pulling the "amendments aren't part of the constitution" gambit, by which the validity of the Equal Protection clause and the Income Tax is also "refuted."

-dB</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>   I reject the notion by the left of a constitutional separation of church and state ,    said David Bradley , a conservative from Beaumont who works in real estate .
   I have $ 1,000 for the charity of your choice if you can find it in the Constitution.    Oh boy.He is probably pulling the " amendments are n't part of the constitution " gambit , by which the validity of the Equal Protection clause and the Income Tax is also " refuted .
" -dB</tokentext>
<sentencetext>“I reject the notion by the left of a constitutional separation of church and state,” said David Bradley, a conservative from Beaumont who works in real estate.
“I have $1,000 for the charity of your choice if you can find it in the Constitution.”Oh boy.He is probably pulling the "amendments aren't part of the constitution" gambit, by which the validity of the Equal Protection clause and the Income Tax is also "refuted.
"

-dB
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459710</id>
	<title>Re:"I reject notion of separation of church and st</title>
	<author>Billly Gates</author>
	<datestamp>1268402100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the finding fore fathers were thinking of the Catholic Church to influence American politics or at least have some other church like the King's Anglican Church. That is it and I agree with the religious right that if senators want a prayer meeting in an office in a government building then they should. Its to just make sure a religious organizations do not pull the puppet strings of the leaders.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the finding fore fathers were thinking of the Catholic Church to influence American politics or at least have some other church like the King 's Anglican Church .
That is it and I agree with the religious right that if senators want a prayer meeting in an office in a government building then they should .
Its to just make sure a religious organizations do not pull the puppet strings of the leaders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the finding fore fathers were thinking of the Catholic Church to influence American politics or at least have some other church like the King's Anglican Church.
That is it and I agree with the religious right that if senators want a prayer meeting in an office in a government building then they should.
Its to just make sure a religious organizations do not pull the puppet strings of the leaders.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461664</id>
	<title>Re:"I reject notion of separation of church and st</title>
	<author>(arg!)Styopa</author>
	<datestamp>1268417460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The US Constitution means what it says: it forbids precisely the establishment of a state religion.</p><p>"Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.<br><b>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;</b> or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."</p><p>It's not hard to understand this, if you even briefly study the world the Constitutional framers lived in, and the context of English government at the time.</p><p>This has NOTHING to suggest that the founders intended a secular state; in fact, church services were held in the congress for years.</p><p>I would also argue that this clause should make the government religion-blind; churches should have no special tax status certainly, nor be treated in any way differently than any other corporation or association of individuals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US Constitution means what it says : it forbids precisely the establishment of a state religion .
" Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion , Press , Expression .
Ratified 12/15/1791.Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion , or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ; or abridging the freedom of speech , or of the press ; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble , and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances .
" It 's not hard to understand this , if you even briefly study the world the Constitutional framers lived in , and the context of English government at the time.This has NOTHING to suggest that the founders intended a secular state ; in fact , church services were held in the congress for years.I would also argue that this clause should make the government religion-blind ; churches should have no special tax status certainly , nor be treated in any way differently than any other corporation or association of individuals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US Constitution means what it says: it forbids precisely the establishment of a state religion.
"Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression.
Ratified 12/15/1791.Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
"It's not hard to understand this, if you even briefly study the world the Constitutional framers lived in, and the context of English government at the time.This has NOTHING to suggest that the founders intended a secular state; in fact, church services were held in the congress for years.I would also argue that this clause should make the government religion-blind; churches should have no special tax status certainly, nor be treated in any way differently than any other corporation or association of individuals.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31465922</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone explain please</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1268512980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Wow, so you mean they'll actually start teaching facts again? Who gives a rats ass about the evolution or religion crap as long as kids will actually understand what happens when you give the government infinite power. It doesn't matter what people are taught about evolution or religion if they're not free to run their own lives.</i></p><p>Wow.  It doesn't matter much how much money you have if you live in a fantasy-land.  I applaud them for including Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek, but that's 1 positive to a bunch of negatives.  They also want to teach myths and right out lies.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , so you mean they 'll actually start teaching facts again ?
Who gives a rats ass about the evolution or religion crap as long as kids will actually understand what happens when you give the government infinite power .
It does n't matter what people are taught about evolution or religion if they 're not free to run their own lives.Wow .
It does n't matter much how much money you have if you live in a fantasy-land .
I applaud them for including Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek , but that 's 1 positive to a bunch of negatives .
They also want to teach myths and right out lies .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, so you mean they'll actually start teaching facts again?
Who gives a rats ass about the evolution or religion crap as long as kids will actually understand what happens when you give the government infinite power.
It doesn't matter what people are taught about evolution or religion if they're not free to run their own lives.Wow.
It doesn't matter much how much money you have if you live in a fantasy-land.
I applaud them for including Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek, but that's 1 positive to a bunch of negatives.
They also want to teach myths and right out lies.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31462306</id>
	<title>Re:Why Texas?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268512020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So... in practice, reality has a conservative bias?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So... in practice , reality has a conservative bias ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So... in practice, reality has a conservative bias?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458948</id>
	<title>Rabidly anti-American Nazi Fuckers</title>
	<author>Darby</author>
	<datestamp>1268398680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you still live in Texas after this, please go kill yourself.</p><p>Why do you stupid lying fuckers hate America so much that you want to completely reverse every decent thing this country ever stood for and rewrite our history as the archenemy of every thing that once made us great?</p><p>Seriously, go live in Iran. They already have the system you ignorant Nazi traitors are dying to live under, so just fucking go.</p><p>When you realize why you haven't already left, think why you're so damn retarded that you still want it here.  Then go kill yourself. It's the only way you could ever be anything but a liability.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you still live in Texas after this , please go kill yourself.Why do you stupid lying fuckers hate America so much that you want to completely reverse every decent thing this country ever stood for and rewrite our history as the archenemy of every thing that once made us great ? Seriously , go live in Iran .
They already have the system you ignorant Nazi traitors are dying to live under , so just fucking go.When you realize why you have n't already left , think why you 're so damn retarded that you still want it here .
Then go kill yourself .
It 's the only way you could ever be anything but a liability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you still live in Texas after this, please go kill yourself.Why do you stupid lying fuckers hate America so much that you want to completely reverse every decent thing this country ever stood for and rewrite our history as the archenemy of every thing that once made us great?Seriously, go live in Iran.
They already have the system you ignorant Nazi traitors are dying to live under, so just fucking go.When you realize why you haven't already left, think why you're so damn retarded that you still want it here.
Then go kill yourself.
It's the only way you could ever be anything but a liability.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461050</id>
	<title>This is why</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268411400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is why we need  a complete separation of State and Education.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why we need a complete separation of State and Education .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why we need  a complete separation of State and Education.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461436</id>
	<title>Doesn't matter</title>
	<author>shadowbearer</author>
	<datestamp>1268414640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Future generations will likely just nuke the fundies from orbit.</p><p>
&nbsp; It's the only way to be sure of the continuation of the species.</p><p>SB</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Future generations will likely just nuke the fundies from orbit .
  It 's the only way to be sure of the continuation of the species.SB</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Future generations will likely just nuke the fundies from orbit.
  It's the only way to be sure of the continuation of the species.SB</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458518</id>
	<title>Not a big surprise</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268396940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its not a big surprise that the Republicans want to change history to make themselves look good (in contrast to telling the truth).  Aldlph Hitler did the same thing.  I wouldn't even be surprised if the likes of Ann Coulter reviewed old Nazi propaganda films in order to get the right idea of how to change history.  When they have to lie, you know they are not to be trusted, nor respected.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its not a big surprise that the Republicans want to change history to make themselves look good ( in contrast to telling the truth ) .
Aldlph Hitler did the same thing .
I would n't even be surprised if the likes of Ann Coulter reviewed old Nazi propaganda films in order to get the right idea of how to change history .
When they have to lie , you know they are not to be trusted , nor respected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its not a big surprise that the Republicans want to change history to make themselves look good (in contrast to telling the truth).
Aldlph Hitler did the same thing.
I wouldn't even be surprised if the likes of Ann Coulter reviewed old Nazi propaganda films in order to get the right idea of how to change history.
When they have to lie, you know they are not to be trusted, nor respected.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459022</id>
	<title>Re:Hahahahahah</title>
	<author>IICV</author>
	<datestamp>1268399100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FYI, they <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/03/texas\_boe\_removes\_jefferson\_fr.php" title="scienceblogs.com">removed the requirement</a> [scienceblogs.com] that students study the impact of ideas from the Enlightenment and Thomas Jefferson's role as an Enlightenment scholar. Instead, they added Saint Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin, and removed the specific reference to the Enlightenment.</p><p>The original requirement was that students be able to:</p><blockquote><div><p>"explain the impact of Enlightenment ideas from John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Charles de Montesquieu, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Thomas Jefferson on political revolutions from 1750 to the present."</p></div></blockquote><p>It is now:</p><blockquote><div><p>"explain the impact of the writings of John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Charles de Montesquieu, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and Sir William Blackstone."</p></div></blockquote><p>This is, quite frankly, a travesty. The first list had an actual thrust to it (you know, Enlightenment scholars in 1750+). This one is closer to just a list of philosophers that a council of morons thought sounded good - after all, Thomas Aquinas totally proved God exists! And John Calvin came up with Protestantism! Totally what every schoolchild in Texas (and by extension, a large part of the rest of the country) needs to know!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>FYI , they removed the requirement [ scienceblogs.com ] that students study the impact of ideas from the Enlightenment and Thomas Jefferson 's role as an Enlightenment scholar .
Instead , they added Saint Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin , and removed the specific reference to the Enlightenment.The original requirement was that students be able to : " explain the impact of Enlightenment ideas from John Locke , Thomas Hobbes , Voltaire , Charles de Montesquieu , Jean Jacques Rousseau , and Thomas Jefferson on political revolutions from 1750 to the present .
" It is now : " explain the impact of the writings of John Locke , Thomas Hobbes , Voltaire , Charles de Montesquieu , Jean Jacques Rousseau , Thomas Aquinas , John Calvin and Sir William Blackstone .
" This is , quite frankly , a travesty .
The first list had an actual thrust to it ( you know , Enlightenment scholars in 1750 + ) .
This one is closer to just a list of philosophers that a council of morons thought sounded good - after all , Thomas Aquinas totally proved God exists !
And John Calvin came up with Protestantism !
Totally what every schoolchild in Texas ( and by extension , a large part of the rest of the country ) needs to know !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FYI, they removed the requirement [scienceblogs.com] that students study the impact of ideas from the Enlightenment and Thomas Jefferson's role as an Enlightenment scholar.
Instead, they added Saint Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin, and removed the specific reference to the Enlightenment.The original requirement was that students be able to:"explain the impact of Enlightenment ideas from John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Charles de Montesquieu, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Thomas Jefferson on political revolutions from 1750 to the present.
"It is now:"explain the impact of the writings of John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Charles de Montesquieu, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and Sir William Blackstone.
"This is, quite frankly, a travesty.
The first list had an actual thrust to it (you know, Enlightenment scholars in 1750+).
This one is closer to just a list of philosophers that a council of morons thought sounded good - after all, Thomas Aquinas totally proved God exists!
And John Calvin came up with Protestantism!
Totally what every schoolchild in Texas (and by extension, a large part of the rest of the country) needs to know!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458424</id>
	<title>"I reject notion of separation of church and state</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268396580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&ldquo;I reject the notion by the left of a constitutional separation of church and state,&rdquo; said David Bradley, a conservative from Beaumont who works in real estate. &ldquo;I have $1,000 for the charity of your choice if you can find it in the Constitution.&rdquo;</p><p>Oh boy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>   I reject the notion by the left of a constitutional separation of church and state ,    said David Bradley , a conservative from Beaumont who works in real estate .
   I have $ 1,000 for the charity of your choice if you can find it in the Constitution.    Oh boy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>“I reject the notion by the left of a constitutional separation of church and state,” said David Bradley, a conservative from Beaumont who works in real estate.
“I have $1,000 for the charity of your choice if you can find it in the Constitution.”Oh boy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460138</id>
	<title>Re:Hahahahahah</title>
	<author>pnewhook</author>
	<datestamp>1268404980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having a culture based on religious traditions is an entirely different thing than having religion rule that culture.
</p><p>Separating church and state does not mean you ignore the many good lessons about morality that religion has to offer, but it DOES mean that any one religion does not get the power to decare supremacy over the religion of others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having a culture based on religious traditions is an entirely different thing than having religion rule that culture .
Separating church and state does not mean you ignore the many good lessons about morality that religion has to offer , but it DOES mean that any one religion does not get the power to decare supremacy over the religion of others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having a culture based on religious traditions is an entirely different thing than having religion rule that culture.
Separating church and state does not mean you ignore the many good lessons about morality that religion has to offer, but it DOES mean that any one religion does not get the power to decare supremacy over the religion of others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31462742</id>
	<title>Re:Woah!</title>
	<author>quickpick</author>
	<datestamp>1268476980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I dislike them because:</p><p>For all their vaunted Christian morals and breastbeating on the importance of marriage, they have a <a href="http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/137829/evangelicals\_why\_do\_we\_have\_the\_highest.html" title="associatedcontent.com" rel="nofollow">higher divorce rate than the national average</a> [associatedcontent.com], and even 50\% higher than the atheists and agnostics they despise.</p></div><p>You're right about the divorce rate and guess what, <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Malachi+2:16&amp;version=NIV" title="biblegateway.com" rel="nofollow">God agrees with you! he HATES divorce! </a> [biblegateway.com] Also you're mostly right about the despising attitude towards atheists and agnostics, the truth is Christians, like Atheists and Agnostics, are human and therefore similar in their behavior towards those who don't share the same views.  I can tell you that while I don't agree with their views I do not despise them.  Some may despise them but this is more a human trait, as a Christian is called to <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19:19&amp;version=NIV" title="biblegateway.com" rel="nofollow">'love your neighbor as yourself."</a> [biblegateway.com]</p><p><div class="quote"><p>After they fail and ask God for forgiveness, they go right back to the hookers with whom they got caught (c.f., Jimmy Swaggart).</p></div><p> This is also true, but then if we fail once, try again, and fail again should we give up anyway?  Edison wouldn't have given us the light bulb should we give up so easily!</p><p><div class="quote"><p>They embezzle millions from their mega-churches, which makes me think they're in it for the money more than the God (c.f., Jim Baker).</p></div><p> This is also true but the Bible does say <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20:15&amp;version=NIV" title="biblegateway.com" rel="nofollow">"You shall not steal"</a> [biblegateway.com] and Jim Bakers theft from his church is sad, but stealing isn't limited to Christians and the idea that stealing is bad isn't limited to non-Christians as you have proved by finding it just as detestable.  <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+21:12&amp;version=NIV" title="biblegateway.com" rel="nofollow">Did you know Jesus shared your view?</a> [biblegateway.com]</p><p><div class="quote"><p>They extort millions from their followers by claiming God will kill them if the sheep don't pay up (c.f., Oral Roberts).</p></div><p>This I do not agree with (not your comment but Oral Roberts behavior) and you're right this is extortion.  However when I give to my church I give because I want to, not because I'm compelled to.  As far as claiming God will kill them, he won't.  <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+23:15&amp;version=NIV" title="biblegateway.com" rel="nofollow">He will pass judgement upon them </a> [biblegateway.com]and especially to the leaders who do misrepresent what God says.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>They spend their Christian lives doing everything they can to make homosexuals suffer, only to get busted offering to pay guys at truck stops to receive blowjobs from them (c.f., Bob Allen), or tapping their foot in an airport restroom (c.f., Larry Craig), or using their ministry's travel budget to fund methamphetamine and gay sex party weekends (c.f., Ted Haggard).</p></div><p> You're right about these supposed leaders of the Faith, they are a disgrace but no more so than anyone of any other belief whether its religious, philosophical, or ideological who fails miserably.  Tiger Woods, Kobe Bryant, and Michael Phelps come to mind.  As far as making homosexuals 'suffer' I do not see what you mean, if you are saying that by believing homosexual behavior is immoral and voting based on that belief then you do not respect the democratic right for someone to disagree with you.  If by suffer you mean we tar and feather them you would be correct and I'd agree that we do make them suffer,<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John\%208:3-11&amp;version=NIV" title="biblegateway.com" rel="nofollow"> but that wouldn't be what Jesus had called us to do.</a> [biblegateway.com]</p><p><div class="quote"><p>In other words, I dislike them because they're hypocrites who claim they're better than everyone else when in fact, they're usually worse, but they're very happy to try to force their morals on me through laws and textbooks.</p></div><p>You wouldn't be the only one to feel that way and one thing I can tell you is that all Christians are hypocrites to an extent and we all fail.  However we believe we are called to live like Christ did, helping the poor and needy, respecting elders, defending the defenseless.  As far as being better or that superior attitude there are people like that, but I have a feeling that if these same people were Atheists they'd still feel superior.  I hope you don't feel I've forced anything upon you, but our nation was built upon the division between the Executive, Judicial, and Congressional, it was built upon the division between Federal and State, the division between the citizens to openly discuss the topics that they so feverishly disagree upon.  I encourage you to go forward and make your opinion known so that the laws that you believe in can be written down.  I will do the same.  I hope you can also respect my beliefs and know that Jesus loves you very much.  If your interest is piqued I hope you find time to read the Bible, you'll find that God doesn't much like humanity but he saw fit to save us anyway.  I apologize for the responses this post and your response has generated, I was hoping to have a civilized discussion but it seems some of my fellow believers turned the heat up.  Take care and go in Peace!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I dislike them because : For all their vaunted Christian morals and breastbeating on the importance of marriage , they have a higher divorce rate than the national average [ associatedcontent.com ] , and even 50 \ % higher than the atheists and agnostics they despise.You 're right about the divorce rate and guess what , God agrees with you !
he HATES divorce !
[ biblegateway.com ] Also you 're mostly right about the despising attitude towards atheists and agnostics , the truth is Christians , like Atheists and Agnostics , are human and therefore similar in their behavior towards those who do n't share the same views .
I can tell you that while I do n't agree with their views I do not despise them .
Some may despise them but this is more a human trait , as a Christian is called to 'love your neighbor as yourself .
" [ biblegateway.com ] After they fail and ask God for forgiveness , they go right back to the hookers with whom they got caught ( c.f. , Jimmy Swaggart ) .
This is also true , but then if we fail once , try again , and fail again should we give up anyway ?
Edison would n't have given us the light bulb should we give up so easily ! They embezzle millions from their mega-churches , which makes me think they 're in it for the money more than the God ( c.f. , Jim Baker ) .
This is also true but the Bible does say " You shall not steal " [ biblegateway.com ] and Jim Bakers theft from his church is sad , but stealing is n't limited to Christians and the idea that stealing is bad is n't limited to non-Christians as you have proved by finding it just as detestable .
Did you know Jesus shared your view ?
[ biblegateway.com ] They extort millions from their followers by claiming God will kill them if the sheep do n't pay up ( c.f. , Oral Roberts ) .This I do not agree with ( not your comment but Oral Roberts behavior ) and you 're right this is extortion .
However when I give to my church I give because I want to , not because I 'm compelled to .
As far as claiming God will kill them , he wo n't .
He will pass judgement upon them [ biblegateway.com ] and especially to the leaders who do misrepresent what God says.They spend their Christian lives doing everything they can to make homosexuals suffer , only to get busted offering to pay guys at truck stops to receive blowjobs from them ( c.f. , Bob Allen ) , or tapping their foot in an airport restroom ( c.f. , Larry Craig ) , or using their ministry 's travel budget to fund methamphetamine and gay sex party weekends ( c.f. , Ted Haggard ) .
You 're right about these supposed leaders of the Faith , they are a disgrace but no more so than anyone of any other belief whether its religious , philosophical , or ideological who fails miserably .
Tiger Woods , Kobe Bryant , and Michael Phelps come to mind .
As far as making homosexuals 'suffer ' I do not see what you mean , if you are saying that by believing homosexual behavior is immoral and voting based on that belief then you do not respect the democratic right for someone to disagree with you .
If by suffer you mean we tar and feather them you would be correct and I 'd agree that we do make them suffer , but that would n't be what Jesus had called us to do .
[ biblegateway.com ] In other words , I dislike them because they 're hypocrites who claim they 're better than everyone else when in fact , they 're usually worse , but they 're very happy to try to force their morals on me through laws and textbooks.You would n't be the only one to feel that way and one thing I can tell you is that all Christians are hypocrites to an extent and we all fail .
However we believe we are called to live like Christ did , helping the poor and needy , respecting elders , defending the defenseless .
As far as being better or that superior attitude there are people like that , but I have a feeling that if these same people were Atheists they 'd still feel superior .
I hope you do n't feel I 've forced anything upon you , but our nation was built upon the division between the Executive , Judicial , and Congressional , it was built upon the division between Federal and State , the division between the citizens to openly discuss the topics that they so feverishly disagree upon .
I encourage you to go forward and make your opinion known so that the laws that you believe in can be written down .
I will do the same .
I hope you can also respect my beliefs and know that Jesus loves you very much .
If your interest is piqued I hope you find time to read the Bible , you 'll find that God does n't much like humanity but he saw fit to save us anyway .
I apologize for the responses this post and your response has generated , I was hoping to have a civilized discussion but it seems some of my fellow believers turned the heat up .
Take care and go in Peace !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dislike them because:For all their vaunted Christian morals and breastbeating on the importance of marriage, they have a higher divorce rate than the national average [associatedcontent.com], and even 50\% higher than the atheists and agnostics they despise.You're right about the divorce rate and guess what, God agrees with you!
he HATES divorce!
[biblegateway.com] Also you're mostly right about the despising attitude towards atheists and agnostics, the truth is Christians, like Atheists and Agnostics, are human and therefore similar in their behavior towards those who don't share the same views.
I can tell you that while I don't agree with their views I do not despise them.
Some may despise them but this is more a human trait, as a Christian is called to 'love your neighbor as yourself.
" [biblegateway.com]After they fail and ask God for forgiveness, they go right back to the hookers with whom they got caught (c.f., Jimmy Swaggart).
This is also true, but then if we fail once, try again, and fail again should we give up anyway?
Edison wouldn't have given us the light bulb should we give up so easily!They embezzle millions from their mega-churches, which makes me think they're in it for the money more than the God (c.f., Jim Baker).
This is also true but the Bible does say "You shall not steal" [biblegateway.com] and Jim Bakers theft from his church is sad, but stealing isn't limited to Christians and the idea that stealing is bad isn't limited to non-Christians as you have proved by finding it just as detestable.
Did you know Jesus shared your view?
[biblegateway.com]They extort millions from their followers by claiming God will kill them if the sheep don't pay up (c.f., Oral Roberts).This I do not agree with (not your comment but Oral Roberts behavior) and you're right this is extortion.
However when I give to my church I give because I want to, not because I'm compelled to.
As far as claiming God will kill them, he won't.
He will pass judgement upon them  [biblegateway.com]and especially to the leaders who do misrepresent what God says.They spend their Christian lives doing everything they can to make homosexuals suffer, only to get busted offering to pay guys at truck stops to receive blowjobs from them (c.f., Bob Allen), or tapping their foot in an airport restroom (c.f., Larry Craig), or using their ministry's travel budget to fund methamphetamine and gay sex party weekends (c.f., Ted Haggard).
You're right about these supposed leaders of the Faith, they are a disgrace but no more so than anyone of any other belief whether its religious, philosophical, or ideological who fails miserably.
Tiger Woods, Kobe Bryant, and Michael Phelps come to mind.
As far as making homosexuals 'suffer' I do not see what you mean, if you are saying that by believing homosexual behavior is immoral and voting based on that belief then you do not respect the democratic right for someone to disagree with you.
If by suffer you mean we tar and feather them you would be correct and I'd agree that we do make them suffer, but that wouldn't be what Jesus had called us to do.
[biblegateway.com]In other words, I dislike them because they're hypocrites who claim they're better than everyone else when in fact, they're usually worse, but they're very happy to try to force their morals on me through laws and textbooks.You wouldn't be the only one to feel that way and one thing I can tell you is that all Christians are hypocrites to an extent and we all fail.
However we believe we are called to live like Christ did, helping the poor and needy, respecting elders, defending the defenseless.
As far as being better or that superior attitude there are people like that, but I have a feeling that if these same people were Atheists they'd still feel superior.
I hope you don't feel I've forced anything upon you, but our nation was built upon the division between the Executive, Judicial, and Congressional, it was built upon the division between Federal and State, the division between the citizens to openly discuss the topics that they so feverishly disagree upon.
I encourage you to go forward and make your opinion known so that the laws that you believe in can be written down.
I will do the same.
I hope you can also respect my beliefs and know that Jesus loves you very much.
If your interest is piqued I hope you find time to read the Bible, you'll find that God doesn't much like humanity but he saw fit to save us anyway.
I apologize for the responses this post and your response has generated, I was hoping to have a civilized discussion but it seems some of my fellow believers turned the heat up.
Take care and go in Peace!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459148</id>
	<title>But Seriously: Bad news for TX high school grads?</title>
	<author>StefanJ</author>
	<datestamp>1268399580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know there are some great colleges and universities in Texas.</p><p>But when you think Ivy League and Brainy Research Schools you're going to be heading north, east, or west.</p><p>Will college application departments start to take Texas high school diplomas with a grain of salt?</p><p>Will Texas students have to take remedial classes like "Non-theology based biology"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know there are some great colleges and universities in Texas.But when you think Ivy League and Brainy Research Schools you 're going to be heading north , east , or west.Will college application departments start to take Texas high school diplomas with a grain of salt ? Will Texas students have to take remedial classes like " Non-theology based biology " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know there are some great colleges and universities in Texas.But when you think Ivy League and Brainy Research Schools you're going to be heading north, east, or west.Will college application departments start to take Texas high school diplomas with a grain of salt?Will Texas students have to take remedial classes like "Non-theology based biology"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458604</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone explain please</title>
	<author>modmans2ndcoming</author>
	<datestamp>1268397300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They tossed out the founding fathers (who only get a light brushing in most history books to begin with) to talk about great heroes to the USA like Reagan, Rush and Bush.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They tossed out the founding fathers ( who only get a light brushing in most history books to begin with ) to talk about great heroes to the USA like Reagan , Rush and Bush .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They tossed out the founding fathers (who only get a light brushing in most history books to begin with) to talk about great heroes to the USA like Reagan, Rush and Bush.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458500</id>
	<title>Adding Friedman and Hayek to economics coverage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268396880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems like econ 101 to me. They surely can't spend the entirety of the course on Keynesians.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems like econ 101 to me .
They surely ca n't spend the entirety of the course on Keynesians .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems like econ 101 to me.
They surely can't spend the entirety of the course on Keynesians.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460912</id>
	<title>Conservative?</title>
	<author>tizzo</author>
	<datestamp>1268410380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did you look at some of the stuff they objected to?  That they tagged as "conservative"?

The Times objects to the teaching, for example, that we are a constitutional republic rather than a democracy - which is an objectively true fact.

They object to teaching that the free enterprise economic system works best in the absence of limited government intervention - which is another objectively true fact.

Someone else here objected to the rejection of a liberal's amendment trying to explain that the founders favored a separation of church and state, when it is objectively false that they did.  Imagine if those bad bad conservatives tried to teach the objective fact that bans on prayer in schools (public or otherwise) are in direct violation of the constitution.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you look at some of the stuff they objected to ?
That they tagged as " conservative " ?
The Times objects to the teaching , for example , that we are a constitutional republic rather than a democracy - which is an objectively true fact .
They object to teaching that the free enterprise economic system works best in the absence of limited government intervention - which is another objectively true fact .
Someone else here objected to the rejection of a liberal 's amendment trying to explain that the founders favored a separation of church and state , when it is objectively false that they did .
Imagine if those bad bad conservatives tried to teach the objective fact that bans on prayer in schools ( public or otherwise ) are in direct violation of the constitution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you look at some of the stuff they objected to?
That they tagged as "conservative"?
The Times objects to the teaching, for example, that we are a constitutional republic rather than a democracy - which is an objectively true fact.
They object to teaching that the free enterprise economic system works best in the absence of limited government intervention - which is another objectively true fact.
Someone else here objected to the rejection of a liberal's amendment trying to explain that the founders favored a separation of church and state, when it is objectively false that they did.
Imagine if those bad bad conservatives tried to teach the objective fact that bans on prayer in schools (public or otherwise) are in direct violation of the constitution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458628</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268397420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The founding fathers were pretty Christian. The problem is, they were the wrong Christian. They were made second class citizens because of their religion. The founding fathers could have simply made a new Christian nation of their own. Instead, they made separation of church and state so that they wouldn't have the same problems their parent nation had.</p><p>Separation of church and state in the United States was created mostly by Christians. Separation of church and state is the Christian thing to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The founding fathers were pretty Christian .
The problem is , they were the wrong Christian .
They were made second class citizens because of their religion .
The founding fathers could have simply made a new Christian nation of their own .
Instead , they made separation of church and state so that they would n't have the same problems their parent nation had.Separation of church and state in the United States was created mostly by Christians .
Separation of church and state is the Christian thing to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The founding fathers were pretty Christian.
The problem is, they were the wrong Christian.
They were made second class citizens because of their religion.
The founding fathers could have simply made a new Christian nation of their own.
Instead, they made separation of church and state so that they wouldn't have the same problems their parent nation had.Separation of church and state in the United States was created mostly by Christians.
Separation of church and state is the Christian thing to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31462412</id>
	<title>Re:"I reject notion of separation of church and st</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268470800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It makes a lot more sense without automatically assuming incorporation under the 14th amendment. The big government lovers were the federalists that wrote the constitution.The states rights, limited government anti-federalists wrote the bill of rights to REaffirm that the constitution was strictly limited to only exactly what it says the federal government can do.<br>
&nbsp; <br>While the bill of rights is a great list of freedoms that every state government SHOULD take a good look at and incorporate into their own constitution, the Bill of Rights was a double check against the federalists to ensure the Federal government would never interfere with state business. The Bill of Rights when you consider it in context says "States reserve the right of establishment and limits on speech and press as they please with out interference of the Fed", "We will arm  or disarm our citizens as we please without interference of the Fed", so on and so forth. The fact that the Fed is now "incorporating" the bill of rights as to be restrictions against the states as the federal government sees fit is to completely NULLIFY the Bill of Rights entirely and wipe out its intent by the anti-federalists.<br>
&nbsp; <br>This isn't to say that the states independently are not totally fucked up, but 1) States need to take some responsibility to fix their own problems, and 2) Each states needs to be protected from the really stupid ideas of other states; with the hope that if a state actually does something right the other states have the freedom to choose to follow their example OR citizens have the right to leave their state and go to the less fucked up one. AND, probably most importantly, to any degree states are unlikely "do the right thing" voluntarily, I have much less faith that the Fed is going to do it better.<br>
&nbsp; <br>Freedom to make mistakes hope for and a chance at progress. The alternative is only one where life is fair by virtue that your neighbor is suffering just as much as you are.<br>
&nbsp; <br>Long ago and far away that was what it once meant to be a liberal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It makes a lot more sense without automatically assuming incorporation under the 14th amendment .
The big government lovers were the federalists that wrote the constitution.The states rights , limited government anti-federalists wrote the bill of rights to REaffirm that the constitution was strictly limited to only exactly what it says the federal government can do .
  While the bill of rights is a great list of freedoms that every state government SHOULD take a good look at and incorporate into their own constitution , the Bill of Rights was a double check against the federalists to ensure the Federal government would never interfere with state business .
The Bill of Rights when you consider it in context says " States reserve the right of establishment and limits on speech and press as they please with out interference of the Fed " , " We will arm or disarm our citizens as we please without interference of the Fed " , so on and so forth .
The fact that the Fed is now " incorporating " the bill of rights as to be restrictions against the states as the federal government sees fit is to completely NULLIFY the Bill of Rights entirely and wipe out its intent by the anti-federalists .
  This is n't to say that the states independently are not totally fucked up , but 1 ) States need to take some responsibility to fix their own problems , and 2 ) Each states needs to be protected from the really stupid ideas of other states ; with the hope that if a state actually does something right the other states have the freedom to choose to follow their example OR citizens have the right to leave their state and go to the less fucked up one .
AND , probably most importantly , to any degree states are unlikely " do the right thing " voluntarily , I have much less faith that the Fed is going to do it better .
  Freedom to make mistakes hope for and a chance at progress .
The alternative is only one where life is fair by virtue that your neighbor is suffering just as much as you are .
  Long ago and far away that was what it once meant to be a liberal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It makes a lot more sense without automatically assuming incorporation under the 14th amendment.
The big government lovers were the federalists that wrote the constitution.The states rights, limited government anti-federalists wrote the bill of rights to REaffirm that the constitution was strictly limited to only exactly what it says the federal government can do.
  While the bill of rights is a great list of freedoms that every state government SHOULD take a good look at and incorporate into their own constitution, the Bill of Rights was a double check against the federalists to ensure the Federal government would never interfere with state business.
The Bill of Rights when you consider it in context says "States reserve the right of establishment and limits on speech and press as they please with out interference of the Fed", "We will arm  or disarm our citizens as we please without interference of the Fed", so on and so forth.
The fact that the Fed is now "incorporating" the bill of rights as to be restrictions against the states as the federal government sees fit is to completely NULLIFY the Bill of Rights entirely and wipe out its intent by the anti-federalists.
  This isn't to say that the states independently are not totally fucked up, but 1) States need to take some responsibility to fix their own problems, and 2) Each states needs to be protected from the really stupid ideas of other states; with the hope that if a state actually does something right the other states have the freedom to choose to follow their example OR citizens have the right to leave their state and go to the less fucked up one.
AND, probably most importantly, to any degree states are unlikely "do the right thing" voluntarily, I have much less faith that the Fed is going to do it better.
  Freedom to make mistakes hope for and a chance at progress.
The alternative is only one where life is fair by virtue that your neighbor is suffering just as much as you are.
  Long ago and far away that was what it once meant to be a liberal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459930</id>
	<title>Re:Texas textbooks.</title>
	<author>jjohnson</author>
	<datestamp>1268403420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To clarify the AC's point below mine, Texas' market for textbooks is large enough that publishers write the textbooks to Texas standards and then sell them nationwide.  West Virginia's (or South Carolina's, or Maine's, or Illinois') standards don't get considered.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To clarify the AC 's point below mine , Texas ' market for textbooks is large enough that publishers write the textbooks to Texas standards and then sell them nationwide .
West Virginia 's ( or South Carolina 's , or Maine 's , or Illinois ' ) standards do n't get considered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To clarify the AC's point below mine, Texas' market for textbooks is large enough that publishers write the textbooks to Texas standards and then sell them nationwide.
West Virginia's (or South Carolina's, or Maine's, or Illinois') standards don't get considered.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31464422</id>
	<title>Re:Frankly, who cares about textbooks?</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1268500860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>someone that lost their job (and health care) and then discovered cancer may be inclined to support publicly-funded health care.</i></p><p>Some maybe but not all.  Though not in that exact position, I am in a situation similar to it.  In an accident I survived an injury and am now disabled.  Having paid into Social Security I now get Social Security Income, SSI.  I also get Medicare, with my Medicare premium taken out of my SSI.  That doesn't leave me enough to pay all my bills.  Luckily because my sister owns the apartment building I live in, as well as handles most of my finances, I haven't been evicted.  Anyway, despite "needing" welfare I hate it.  To lower health care costs the federal government should allow a freer market in insurance.  You know those ads that said in some states only a couple of companies sold insurance?  Know why?  States say who can and can not sell insurance in the state.  Using the interstate commerce clause of the USA Constitution the federal government can tell states they have to allow interstate commerce.  If insurance is cheaper in another state I should be able to buy the cheaper insurance.  Then allow those who buy their own insurance to deduct the cost of insurance just like employers do.  When those two things happen watch while millions of people look for insurance insurance companies lower the cost of insurance.  Then if it doesn't work out, and only then, government can give people say $4000 to pay for insurance.  What they could do is go into the market place to see what insurance policy they want, and sign up for it.  The insurance issuer then enters that into a database where the government sees it and pays the issuer the money.  If the policy costs more than what the government will cover then the person is responsible for the rest.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>someone that lost their job ( and health care ) and then discovered cancer may be inclined to support publicly-funded health care.Some maybe but not all .
Though not in that exact position , I am in a situation similar to it .
In an accident I survived an injury and am now disabled .
Having paid into Social Security I now get Social Security Income , SSI .
I also get Medicare , with my Medicare premium taken out of my SSI .
That does n't leave me enough to pay all my bills .
Luckily because my sister owns the apartment building I live in , as well as handles most of my finances , I have n't been evicted .
Anyway , despite " needing " welfare I hate it .
To lower health care costs the federal government should allow a freer market in insurance .
You know those ads that said in some states only a couple of companies sold insurance ?
Know why ?
States say who can and can not sell insurance in the state .
Using the interstate commerce clause of the USA Constitution the federal government can tell states they have to allow interstate commerce .
If insurance is cheaper in another state I should be able to buy the cheaper insurance .
Then allow those who buy their own insurance to deduct the cost of insurance just like employers do .
When those two things happen watch while millions of people look for insurance insurance companies lower the cost of insurance .
Then if it does n't work out , and only then , government can give people say $ 4000 to pay for insurance .
What they could do is go into the market place to see what insurance policy they want , and sign up for it .
The insurance issuer then enters that into a database where the government sees it and pays the issuer the money .
If the policy costs more than what the government will cover then the person is responsible for the rest .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>someone that lost their job (and health care) and then discovered cancer may be inclined to support publicly-funded health care.Some maybe but not all.
Though not in that exact position, I am in a situation similar to it.
In an accident I survived an injury and am now disabled.
Having paid into Social Security I now get Social Security Income, SSI.
I also get Medicare, with my Medicare premium taken out of my SSI.
That doesn't leave me enough to pay all my bills.
Luckily because my sister owns the apartment building I live in, as well as handles most of my finances, I haven't been evicted.
Anyway, despite "needing" welfare I hate it.
To lower health care costs the federal government should allow a freer market in insurance.
You know those ads that said in some states only a couple of companies sold insurance?
Know why?
States say who can and can not sell insurance in the state.
Using the interstate commerce clause of the USA Constitution the federal government can tell states they have to allow interstate commerce.
If insurance is cheaper in another state I should be able to buy the cheaper insurance.
Then allow those who buy their own insurance to deduct the cost of insurance just like employers do.
When those two things happen watch while millions of people look for insurance insurance companies lower the cost of insurance.
Then if it doesn't work out, and only then, government can give people say $4000 to pay for insurance.
What they could do is go into the market place to see what insurance policy they want, and sign up for it.
The insurance issuer then enters that into a database where the government sees it and pays the issuer the money.
If the policy costs more than what the government will cover then the person is responsible for the rest.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458906</id>
	<title>Re:Hahahahahah</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268398560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> but probably franklin would just prefer to open windows on both ends of the long hall in his mansion, and just sit in the middle on a stool naked, as he sometimes preferred to do.</p></div><p>So did he exhibit this behavior before or after he got struck by lightning, while flying a kite in a thunderstorm?
</p><p>Actually, I believe that the US politicians need to return to the values of the Founding Fathers, and this provides an excellent role model.  Obama could get the ball rolling with a nude cabinet meeting.  I am sure the health care debates would be much more amusing if the members of Congress were required to perform in the buff.
</p><p>"With affordable health care, the Honorable Gentleman Senator of Michigan could be able to remove that hairy wart from his ass."
</p><p>"I think it is irresponsible for the US taxpayers to be required to pay to lift those sagging tits of the Honorable Lady Senator of Virginia."
</p><p>Yes, it would be definitely much more entertaining.
</p><p>"If you are serious about health care reform, shed your clothes, and belly on up to the podium.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but probably franklin would just prefer to open windows on both ends of the long hall in his mansion , and just sit in the middle on a stool naked , as he sometimes preferred to do.So did he exhibit this behavior before or after he got struck by lightning , while flying a kite in a thunderstorm ?
Actually , I believe that the US politicians need to return to the values of the Founding Fathers , and this provides an excellent role model .
Obama could get the ball rolling with a nude cabinet meeting .
I am sure the health care debates would be much more amusing if the members of Congress were required to perform in the buff .
" With affordable health care , the Honorable Gentleman Senator of Michigan could be able to remove that hairy wart from his ass .
" " I think it is irresponsible for the US taxpayers to be required to pay to lift those sagging tits of the Honorable Lady Senator of Virginia .
" Yes , it would be definitely much more entertaining .
" If you are serious about health care reform , shed your clothes , and belly on up to the podium .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> but probably franklin would just prefer to open windows on both ends of the long hall in his mansion, and just sit in the middle on a stool naked, as he sometimes preferred to do.So did he exhibit this behavior before or after he got struck by lightning, while flying a kite in a thunderstorm?
Actually, I believe that the US politicians need to return to the values of the Founding Fathers, and this provides an excellent role model.
Obama could get the ball rolling with a nude cabinet meeting.
I am sure the health care debates would be much more amusing if the members of Congress were required to perform in the buff.
"With affordable health care, the Honorable Gentleman Senator of Michigan could be able to remove that hairy wart from his ass.
"
"I think it is irresponsible for the US taxpayers to be required to pay to lift those sagging tits of the Honorable Lady Senator of Virginia.
"
Yes, it would be definitely much more entertaining.
"If you are serious about health care reform, shed your clothes, and belly on up to the podium.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461398</id>
	<title>Stop trying to bring sense to the whole argument</title>
	<author>shadowbearer</author>
	<datestamp>1268414340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; Future generations will likely just nuke the fundies from orbit.</p><p>
&nbsp; It's the only way to be sure of the continuation of the species.</p><p>SB</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>  Future generations will likely just nuke the fundies from orbit .
  It 's the only way to be sure of the continuation of the species.SB</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
  Future generations will likely just nuke the fundies from orbit.
  It's the only way to be sure of the continuation of the species.SB</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458692</id>
	<title>Re:Why Texas?</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1268397660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Seems that CA and TX should balance each other out, politically.</p></div><p>Yeah, because having rabid right wingers and rabid left wingers results in a lovely balanced situation every time!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-P</p><p>No, positive crazy plus negative crazy gives you a big fat zero (as opposed to a skinnier zero).</p><p>To torture a Spinal Tap quote, if the leftists are fire and the rightists are ice, the children will get the educational equivalent of lukewarm water.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems that CA and TX should balance each other out , politically.Yeah , because having rabid right wingers and rabid left wingers results in a lovely balanced situation every time !
: -PNo , positive crazy plus negative crazy gives you a big fat zero ( as opposed to a skinnier zero ) .To torture a Spinal Tap quote , if the leftists are fire and the rightists are ice , the children will get the educational equivalent of lukewarm water .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems that CA and TX should balance each other out, politically.Yeah, because having rabid right wingers and rabid left wingers results in a lovely balanced situation every time!
:-PNo, positive crazy plus negative crazy gives you a big fat zero (as opposed to a skinnier zero).To torture a Spinal Tap quote, if the leftists are fire and the rightists are ice, the children will get the educational equivalent of lukewarm water.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458950</id>
	<title>Re:Why Texas?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268398680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Clearly you don't live in California.  Only outside CA is the political system perceived as Liberal.  Those of us who live within the state have learned that there are a few enclaves of urban liberalism, surrounded by by vast areas of rural conservatism rivaling those of Kansas or Texas.</p><p>And then there are a number of conservative urban areas, too, like San Diego, San Bernardino, Bakersfield and Orange County.</p><p>But the state continues to be portrayed by the rest of the country as a homogeneous liberal wasteland, populated entirely by hippies and surfers.</p><p>In reality, NY State is more liberal than the state of CA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly you do n't live in California .
Only outside CA is the political system perceived as Liberal .
Those of us who live within the state have learned that there are a few enclaves of urban liberalism , surrounded by by vast areas of rural conservatism rivaling those of Kansas or Texas.And then there are a number of conservative urban areas , too , like San Diego , San Bernardino , Bakersfield and Orange County.But the state continues to be portrayed by the rest of the country as a homogeneous liberal wasteland , populated entirely by hippies and surfers.In reality , NY State is more liberal than the state of CA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly you don't live in California.
Only outside CA is the political system perceived as Liberal.
Those of us who live within the state have learned that there are a few enclaves of urban liberalism, surrounded by by vast areas of rural conservatism rivaling those of Kansas or Texas.And then there are a number of conservative urban areas, too, like San Diego, San Bernardino, Bakersfield and Orange County.But the state continues to be portrayed by the rest of the country as a homogeneous liberal wasteland, populated entirely by hippies and surfers.In reality, NY State is more liberal than the state of CA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458610</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone explain please</title>
	<author>BitHive</author>
	<datestamp>1268397300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's an excerpt from: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/11/us/politics/11texas.html?src=me" title="nytimes.com">http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/11/us/politics/11texas.html?src=me</a> [nytimes.com] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>There have also been efforts among conservatives on the board to tweak the history of the civil rights movement. <b>One amendment states that the movement created &ldquo;unrealistic expectations of equal outcomes&rdquo; among minorities.</b> Another proposed change removes any reference to race, sex or religion in talking about how different groups have contributed to the national identity.</p><p><b>The amendments are also intended to emphasize the unalloyed superiority of the &ldquo;free-enterprise system&rdquo; over others and the desirability of limited government.</b></p><p><b>One says publishers should &ldquo;describe the effects of increasing government regulation and taxation on economic development and business planning.&rdquo;</b></p><p>Throughout the standards, the <b>conservatives have pushed to drop references to American &ldquo;imperialism,&rdquo; preferring to call it expansionism.</b> &ldquo;Country and western music&rdquo; has been added to the list of cultural movements to be studied.</p><p>References to Ralph Nader and Ross Perot are proposed to be removed, while Stonewall Jackson, the Confederate general, is to be listed as a role model for effective leadership, and the ideas in Jefferson Davis&rsquo;s inaugural address are to be laid side by side with Abraham Lincoln&rsquo;s speeches.</p><p>Early in the hearing on Wednesday, Mr. McLeroy and other conservatives on the board made it clear they would offer still more planks to highlight what they see as the Christian roots of the Constitution and other founding documents.</p><p><b>&ldquo;To deny the Judeo-Christian values of our founding fathers is just a lie to our kids,&rdquo; said Ken Mercer, a San Antonio Republican.</b></p> </div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's an excerpt from : http : //www.nytimes.com/2010/03/11/us/politics/11texas.html ? src = me [ nytimes.com ] There have also been efforts among conservatives on the board to tweak the history of the civil rights movement .
One amendment states that the movement created    unrealistic expectations of equal outcomes    among minorities .
Another proposed change removes any reference to race , sex or religion in talking about how different groups have contributed to the national identity.The amendments are also intended to emphasize the unalloyed superiority of the    free-enterprise system    over others and the desirability of limited government.One says publishers should    describe the effects of increasing government regulation and taxation on economic development and business planning.    Throughout the standards , the conservatives have pushed to drop references to American    imperialism ,    preferring to call it expansionism .
   Country and western music    has been added to the list of cultural movements to be studied.References to Ralph Nader and Ross Perot are proposed to be removed , while Stonewall Jackson , the Confederate general , is to be listed as a role model for effective leadership , and the ideas in Jefferson Davis    s inaugural address are to be laid side by side with Abraham Lincoln    s speeches.Early in the hearing on Wednesday , Mr. McLeroy and other conservatives on the board made it clear they would offer still more planks to highlight what they see as the Christian roots of the Constitution and other founding documents.    To deny the Judeo-Christian values of our founding fathers is just a lie to our kids ,    said Ken Mercer , a San Antonio Republican .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's an excerpt from: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/11/us/politics/11texas.html?src=me [nytimes.com] There have also been efforts among conservatives on the board to tweak the history of the civil rights movement.
One amendment states that the movement created “unrealistic expectations of equal outcomes” among minorities.
Another proposed change removes any reference to race, sex or religion in talking about how different groups have contributed to the national identity.The amendments are also intended to emphasize the unalloyed superiority of the “free-enterprise system” over others and the desirability of limited government.One says publishers should “describe the effects of increasing government regulation and taxation on economic development and business planning.”Throughout the standards, the conservatives have pushed to drop references to American “imperialism,” preferring to call it expansionism.
“Country and western music” has been added to the list of cultural movements to be studied.References to Ralph Nader and Ross Perot are proposed to be removed, while Stonewall Jackson, the Confederate general, is to be listed as a role model for effective leadership, and the ideas in Jefferson Davis’s inaugural address are to be laid side by side with Abraham Lincoln’s speeches.Early in the hearing on Wednesday, Mr. McLeroy and other conservatives on the board made it clear they would offer still more planks to highlight what they see as the Christian roots of the Constitution and other founding documents.“To deny the Judeo-Christian values of our founding fathers is just a lie to our kids,” said Ken Mercer, a San Antonio Republican. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459566</id>
	<title>Regarding economics...</title>
	<author>TheSync</author>
	<datestamp>1268401320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TFA says: <i>In economics, the revisions add Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek, two champions of free-market economic theory, among the usual list of economists to be studied, like Adam Smith, Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes. </i></p><p>First of all, good going on Milton Friedman who was important in ending the draft in the US, co-author of one of the best economic histories of the Great Depression, and has been very influential around the world.  Also good for adding F.A. Hayek, the most influential members of the Austrian School of economics.</p><p>But in truth, I was never taught anything about Adam Smith or John Maynard Keynes in public school (in one of the best public school systems in the country).  Did anyone on Slashdot learn about these guys in public school?</p><p>What you really need to know about Hayek and Keynes is in <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk" title="youtube.com">this rap video</a> [youtube.com].</p><p>Karl Marx was mentioned, but in a more political way regarding the growth of Communism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA says : In economics , the revisions add Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek , two champions of free-market economic theory , among the usual list of economists to be studied , like Adam Smith , Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes .
First of all , good going on Milton Friedman who was important in ending the draft in the US , co-author of one of the best economic histories of the Great Depression , and has been very influential around the world .
Also good for adding F.A .
Hayek , the most influential members of the Austrian School of economics.But in truth , I was never taught anything about Adam Smith or John Maynard Keynes in public school ( in one of the best public school systems in the country ) .
Did anyone on Slashdot learn about these guys in public school ? What you really need to know about Hayek and Keynes is in this rap video [ youtube.com ] .Karl Marx was mentioned , but in a more political way regarding the growth of Communism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA says: In economics, the revisions add Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek, two champions of free-market economic theory, among the usual list of economists to be studied, like Adam Smith, Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes.
First of all, good going on Milton Friedman who was important in ending the draft in the US, co-author of one of the best economic histories of the Great Depression, and has been very influential around the world.
Also good for adding F.A.
Hayek, the most influential members of the Austrian School of economics.But in truth, I was never taught anything about Adam Smith or John Maynard Keynes in public school (in one of the best public school systems in the country).
Did anyone on Slashdot learn about these guys in public school?What you really need to know about Hayek and Keynes is in this rap video [youtube.com].Karl Marx was mentioned, but in a more political way regarding the growth of Communism.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461886</id>
	<title>Re:Why Texas?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268419980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How would you feel about an educated asshole?</p><p>I lived in Texas most my life. Education and all for the most part. (my 4th Grade year was in Florida)<br>The School System of my area regardless didn't know how to reach the students and only those who really wanted to learn got anything out of it.<br>I went to school saying, "This is just business as usual, might as well make the most of it, keep my head down since Teachers got it just as bad."</p><p>My HS Freshmen Class was about 1000+ Students.<br>Same Class by Senior Year was only just over 300.<br>700 Students either falling behind or dropping out.</p><p>It's obviously a problem in Texas. I'm not sure about else where. But it's a problem in Texas.</p><p>That and I was able to Half-Ass it and still make it into the top 20\%.<br>Oh and Uni has been schooling my ass like I've never known before. It's nice to have a strong challenge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How would you feel about an educated asshole ? I lived in Texas most my life .
Education and all for the most part .
( my 4th Grade year was in Florida ) The School System of my area regardless did n't know how to reach the students and only those who really wanted to learn got anything out of it.I went to school saying , " This is just business as usual , might as well make the most of it , keep my head down since Teachers got it just as bad .
" My HS Freshmen Class was about 1000 + Students.Same Class by Senior Year was only just over 300.700 Students either falling behind or dropping out.It 's obviously a problem in Texas .
I 'm not sure about else where .
But it 's a problem in Texas.That and I was able to Half-Ass it and still make it into the top 20 \ % .Oh and Uni has been schooling my ass like I 've never known before .
It 's nice to have a strong challenge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How would you feel about an educated asshole?I lived in Texas most my life.
Education and all for the most part.
(my 4th Grade year was in Florida)The School System of my area regardless didn't know how to reach the students and only those who really wanted to learn got anything out of it.I went to school saying, "This is just business as usual, might as well make the most of it, keep my head down since Teachers got it just as bad.
"My HS Freshmen Class was about 1000+ Students.Same Class by Senior Year was only just over 300.700 Students either falling behind or dropping out.It's obviously a problem in Texas.
I'm not sure about else where.
But it's a problem in Texas.That and I was able to Half-Ass it and still make it into the top 20\%.Oh and Uni has been schooling my ass like I've never known before.
It's nice to have a strong challenge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460416</id>
	<title>Re:Why Texas?</title>
	<author>Darinbob</author>
	<datestamp>1268406600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Liberal and Conservative are not very useful labels.  The conservatives from Orange County are extremely unlike the conservatives from Kern County, and they don't have similar political views except that both are opposed to liberals and thus will tend to vote similarly.  One set will be voting Republican for fiscal conservatives, another set will be voting Republican for social conservatives, and another set will be voting Republican because they hate the incumbents, etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Liberal and Conservative are not very useful labels .
The conservatives from Orange County are extremely unlike the conservatives from Kern County , and they do n't have similar political views except that both are opposed to liberals and thus will tend to vote similarly .
One set will be voting Republican for fiscal conservatives , another set will be voting Republican for social conservatives , and another set will be voting Republican because they hate the incumbents , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Liberal and Conservative are not very useful labels.
The conservatives from Orange County are extremely unlike the conservatives from Kern County, and they don't have similar political views except that both are opposed to liberals and thus will tend to vote similarly.
One set will be voting Republican for fiscal conservatives, another set will be voting Republican for social conservatives, and another set will be voting Republican because they hate the incumbents, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460578</id>
	<title>Re:Hahahahahah</title>
	<author>Vhyrrimyr</author>
	<datestamp>1268407920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As John Adams said:</p></div><p>"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As John Adams said : " The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As John Adams said:"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31462192</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone explain please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268510400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>To deny the Judeo-Christian values of our founding fathers is just a lie</p></div><p>Wait..  \_Judeo\_-Christian?  How are Protestants \_Judeo\_-Christian?</p><p>http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding\_Fathers\_Religion.html</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To deny the Judeo-Christian values of our founding fathers is just a lieWait.. \ _Judeo \ _-Christian ? How are Protestants \ _Judeo \ _-Christian ? http : //www.adherents.com/gov/Founding \ _Fathers \ _Religion.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To deny the Judeo-Christian values of our founding fathers is just a lieWait..  \_Judeo\_-Christian?  How are Protestants \_Judeo\_-Christian?http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding\_Fathers\_Religion.html
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459642</id>
	<title>Re:"I reject notion of separation of church and st</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268401680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Facts are not welcome in this discussion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Facts are not welcome in this discussion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Facts are not welcome in this discussion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460588</id>
	<title>Letter to Mexio</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268407980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dear Mexico (no one is particular, just all of Mexico),</p><p>Please come pick your child up, like right now, he's being a pain in the ass and the other kids in the playground, except Alaska, want him to shut up. Please come get your child, because we're tired of dealing with him for the last 100 years (take New Mexico too, he gets uppity sometimes too, we'd like to keep Arizona).</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>New England</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear Mexico ( no one is particular , just all of Mexico ) ,Please come pick your child up , like right now , he 's being a pain in the ass and the other kids in the playground , except Alaska , want him to shut up .
Please come get your child , because we 're tired of dealing with him for the last 100 years ( take New Mexico too , he gets uppity sometimes too , we 'd like to keep Arizona ) .Sincerely,New England</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear Mexico (no one is particular, just all of Mexico),Please come pick your child up, like right now, he's being a pain in the ass and the other kids in the playground, except Alaska, want him to shut up.
Please come get your child, because we're tired of dealing with him for the last 100 years (take New Mexico too, he gets uppity sometimes too, we'd like to keep Arizona).Sincerely,New England</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460186</id>
	<title>Re:"I reject notion of separation of church and st</title>
	<author>riverat1</author>
	<datestamp>1268405220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Respecting" is used in the sense of concerning or referring to, not in the sense of esteem.  And establishment is used in the sense of an existing institution, not creating a new one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Respecting " is used in the sense of concerning or referring to , not in the sense of esteem .
And establishment is used in the sense of an existing institution , not creating a new one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Respecting" is used in the sense of concerning or referring to, not in the sense of esteem.
And establishment is used in the sense of an existing institution, not creating a new one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460504</id>
	<title>Re:"I reject notion of separation of church and st</title>
	<author>Orgasmatron</author>
	<datestamp>1268407260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess the sorry state of education in this country is to blame.</p><p>Several of the original states (colonies) had established churches (official state churches, like the Church of England) at the time the constitution was being written.  The establishment clause was specifically intended to protect those state churches by forbidding the federal government from legislating them away.  It is really an anti-dis-establishment clause.</p><p>It really helps to understand that "establishment of religion" is being used as a noun here, and not as a verb.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess the sorry state of education in this country is to blame.Several of the original states ( colonies ) had established churches ( official state churches , like the Church of England ) at the time the constitution was being written .
The establishment clause was specifically intended to protect those state churches by forbidding the federal government from legislating them away .
It is really an anti-dis-establishment clause.It really helps to understand that " establishment of religion " is being used as a noun here , and not as a verb .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess the sorry state of education in this country is to blame.Several of the original states (colonies) had established churches (official state churches, like the Church of England) at the time the constitution was being written.
The establishment clause was specifically intended to protect those state churches by forbidding the federal government from legislating them away.
It is really an anti-dis-establishment clause.It really helps to understand that "establishment of religion" is being used as a noun here, and not as a verb.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460874</id>
	<title>Re:Why Texas?</title>
	<author>demonlapin</author>
	<datestamp>1268410080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How dare <em>hoi polloi</em> speak about what they think.  Do you apply the same standard to union organizers?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How dare hoi polloi speak about what they think .
Do you apply the same standard to union organizers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How dare hoi polloi speak about what they think.
Do you apply the same standard to union organizers?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458550</id>
	<title>Re:Note To Self:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268397120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And the clowns in San Francisco do?</p><p><a href="http://www.cal.org/topics/dialects/ebfillmo.html" title="cal.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.cal.org/topics/dialects/ebfillmo.html</a> [cal.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And the clowns in San Francisco do ? http : //www.cal.org/topics/dialects/ebfillmo.html [ cal.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the clowns in San Francisco do?http://www.cal.org/topics/dialects/ebfillmo.html [cal.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458418</id>
	<title>Why Texas?</title>
	<author>msauve</author>
	<datestamp>1268396580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>California has half again the population of Texas. Is there no CA state approval for textbooks? Seems that CA and TX should balance each other out, politically.</htmltext>
<tokenext>California has half again the population of Texas .
Is there no CA state approval for textbooks ?
Seems that CA and TX should balance each other out , politically .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>California has half again the population of Texas.
Is there no CA state approval for textbooks?
Seems that CA and TX should balance each other out, politically.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461152</id>
	<title>Re:It was the answer to an important question.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268412060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Bush II toed the line, and got elected twice for it.</p></div><p>Except of course that Bush II was never actually elected. He lost to Gore the first time, and Diebold rigged the results in Ohio the second time*.</p><p>*How else can we explain a gap between the exit polls and reported results greater than the one which sparked the Ukrainian October Revolution; a gap greater than ever recorded in US elections; a gap which defies all logic and reason?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bush II toed the line , and got elected twice for it.Except of course that Bush II was never actually elected .
He lost to Gore the first time , and Diebold rigged the results in Ohio the second time * .
* How else can we explain a gap between the exit polls and reported results greater than the one which sparked the Ukrainian October Revolution ; a gap greater than ever recorded in US elections ; a gap which defies all logic and reason ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bush II toed the line, and got elected twice for it.Except of course that Bush II was never actually elected.
He lost to Gore the first time, and Diebold rigged the results in Ohio the second time*.
*How else can we explain a gap between the exit polls and reported results greater than the one which sparked the Ukrainian October Revolution; a gap greater than ever recorded in US elections; a gap which defies all logic and reason?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458640</id>
	<title>Re:Hahahahahah</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268397420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>they would laugh their asses out.</p></div><p>Ouch.  I've never heard of someone laughing so hard they caused a distended colon.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>they would laugh their asses out.Ouch .
I 've never heard of someone laughing so hard they caused a distended colon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they would laugh their asses out.Ouch.
I've never heard of someone laughing so hard they caused a distended colon.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458380</id>
	<title>Hahahahahah</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1268396400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>had the founding fathers of usa, each of whom were intellectuals following the age of enlightenment principles and age of reason heard this 'role of christianity in founding of usa', im sure they would laugh their asses out. but probably franklin would just prefer to open windows on both ends of the long hall in his mansion, and just sit in the middle on a stool naked, as he sometimes preferred to do.</p><p>ill leave to you, finding which of your founding fathers was the one who said 'religion is but a useful tool to control the masses'. and if you dont know what i was talking about benji, you have loooooong reading to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>had the founding fathers of usa , each of whom were intellectuals following the age of enlightenment principles and age of reason heard this 'role of christianity in founding of usa ' , im sure they would laugh their asses out .
but probably franklin would just prefer to open windows on both ends of the long hall in his mansion , and just sit in the middle on a stool naked , as he sometimes preferred to do.ill leave to you , finding which of your founding fathers was the one who said 'religion is but a useful tool to control the masses' .
and if you dont know what i was talking about benji , you have loooooong reading to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>had the founding fathers of usa, each of whom were intellectuals following the age of enlightenment principles and age of reason heard this 'role of christianity in founding of usa', im sure they would laugh their asses out.
but probably franklin would just prefer to open windows on both ends of the long hall in his mansion, and just sit in the middle on a stool naked, as he sometimes preferred to do.ill leave to you, finding which of your founding fathers was the one who said 'religion is but a useful tool to control the masses'.
and if you dont know what i was talking about benji, you have loooooong reading to do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458428</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268396640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Will they also emphasize the decline and perversion of Christian values in Government?  How about the fact that the inclusion of Christian values in government affairs necessarily renders them un-Christian?  I'm not sure how "conservatives" ever became associated with Christian values.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will they also emphasize the decline and perversion of Christian values in Government ?
How about the fact that the inclusion of Christian values in government affairs necessarily renders them un-Christian ?
I 'm not sure how " conservatives " ever became associated with Christian values .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will they also emphasize the decline and perversion of Christian values in Government?
How about the fact that the inclusion of Christian values in government affairs necessarily renders them un-Christian?
I'm not sure how "conservatives" ever became associated with Christian values.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461016</id>
	<title>A true expert on history: an engineer gone dentist</title>
	<author>clemenstimpler</author>
	<datestamp>1268411100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm quite sure that an engineer gone dentist is the right person to decide on a social science curriculum: This is the <a href="http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=3713" title="state.tx.us" rel="nofollow">leader</a> [state.tx.us] of the conservative majority. I think the next Oscars should be awarded by the <a href="http://www.carpenters.org/" title="carpenters.org" rel="nofollow">United Brotherhood of Carpenters</a> [carpenters.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm quite sure that an engineer gone dentist is the right person to decide on a social science curriculum : This is the leader [ state.tx.us ] of the conservative majority .
I think the next Oscars should be awarded by the United Brotherhood of Carpenters [ carpenters.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm quite sure that an engineer gone dentist is the right person to decide on a social science curriculum: This is the leader [state.tx.us] of the conservative majority.
I think the next Oscars should be awarded by the United Brotherhood of Carpenters [carpenters.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31483508</id>
	<title>Re:It was the answer to an important question.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268674920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We should ban the collection of tithes that's a theoretical 10\% of your income there that you can spend on supporting the people who really need your help. Or hell even just simply tax the tithes that are collected religious organizations have so much money tied up in real estate etc. it's mind boggling. A church group near me has a thrift store, they make over $1M annually in profit and none of that is taxable, they are exempt. So tax the churches like everybody else and I'll cry a little less loudly when they want to have a non-secular say in the way things are run.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We should ban the collection of tithes that 's a theoretical 10 \ % of your income there that you can spend on supporting the people who really need your help .
Or hell even just simply tax the tithes that are collected religious organizations have so much money tied up in real estate etc .
it 's mind boggling .
A church group near me has a thrift store , they make over $ 1M annually in profit and none of that is taxable , they are exempt .
So tax the churches like everybody else and I 'll cry a little less loudly when they want to have a non-secular say in the way things are run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We should ban the collection of tithes that's a theoretical 10\% of your income there that you can spend on supporting the people who really need your help.
Or hell even just simply tax the tithes that are collected religious organizations have so much money tied up in real estate etc.
it's mind boggling.
A church group near me has a thrift store, they make over $1M annually in profit and none of that is taxable, they are exempt.
So tax the churches like everybody else and I'll cry a little less loudly when they want to have a non-secular say in the way things are run.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459730</id>
	<title>Re:It was the answer to an important question.</title>
	<author>pcfixup4ua</author>
	<datestamp>1268402220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Modern Fundamentalist Christianity was born in the south after the civil war.  The biggest similarity with it's more progressive counterpart in the North was its support of prohibition.  The movement had a strong following with the southerners who were alive during the Civil War.  The movement was dormant from the Great Depression until the start of the Civil Rights Movement.  The Stonewall riots in New York and Roe V. Wade set a lot of alarms off with the elite who realized that white people were no longer reproducing at a sustainable rate, and would soon no longer be the majority in America.

The Fundamentalist movement is so concerned with the feminist and gay rights movements because Europeans (particularly Northern  Europeans like English and Dutch) have a higher percentage of homosexuals than other races, and have fewer children per family.  White fundamentalist christans are by and large unable to convert African Americans and Hispanics.

Churches grow through birth, conversion and conquest.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Modern Fundamentalist Christianity was born in the south after the civil war .
The biggest similarity with it 's more progressive counterpart in the North was its support of prohibition .
The movement had a strong following with the southerners who were alive during the Civil War .
The movement was dormant from the Great Depression until the start of the Civil Rights Movement .
The Stonewall riots in New York and Roe V. Wade set a lot of alarms off with the elite who realized that white people were no longer reproducing at a sustainable rate , and would soon no longer be the majority in America .
The Fundamentalist movement is so concerned with the feminist and gay rights movements because Europeans ( particularly Northern Europeans like English and Dutch ) have a higher percentage of homosexuals than other races , and have fewer children per family .
White fundamentalist christans are by and large unable to convert African Americans and Hispanics .
Churches grow through birth , conversion and conquest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Modern Fundamentalist Christianity was born in the south after the civil war.
The biggest similarity with it's more progressive counterpart in the North was its support of prohibition.
The movement had a strong following with the southerners who were alive during the Civil War.
The movement was dormant from the Great Depression until the start of the Civil Rights Movement.
The Stonewall riots in New York and Roe V. Wade set a lot of alarms off with the elite who realized that white people were no longer reproducing at a sustainable rate, and would soon no longer be the majority in America.
The Fundamentalist movement is so concerned with the feminist and gay rights movements because Europeans (particularly Northern  Europeans like English and Dutch) have a higher percentage of homosexuals than other races, and have fewer children per family.
White fundamentalist christans are by and large unable to convert African Americans and Hispanics.
Churches grow through birth, conversion and conquest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460262</id>
	<title>Re:Give primary sources</title>
	<author>xaxa</author>
	<datestamp>1268405640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds pretty much like what I read at school. A lot of the textbook was just statistics, or reprinted primary sources.</p><p>It's still easy to teach to an agenda if you choose to. Or, a decent teacher can still teach properly in Texas by using other material (or maybe I'm being naive -- perhaps external pressures wouldn't allow this. I've recently come across a news article where Americans were pretending to be Christian because it's unacceptable otherwise, which is incredible and awful).</p><p>It's been 10 years since I read a history text book, but IIRC from when I was about 14 much of the book was primary/secondary sources, clearly labelled and cited, with some background information to put it in context, and sample questions like "compare the Protestant and Catholic attitudes to the king's decree" (or any other comparison -- rich/poor, British/German, rural/urban etc).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds pretty much like what I read at school .
A lot of the textbook was just statistics , or reprinted primary sources.It 's still easy to teach to an agenda if you choose to .
Or , a decent teacher can still teach properly in Texas by using other material ( or maybe I 'm being naive -- perhaps external pressures would n't allow this .
I 've recently come across a news article where Americans were pretending to be Christian because it 's unacceptable otherwise , which is incredible and awful ) .It 's been 10 years since I read a history text book , but IIRC from when I was about 14 much of the book was primary/secondary sources , clearly labelled and cited , with some background information to put it in context , and sample questions like " compare the Protestant and Catholic attitudes to the king 's decree " ( or any other comparison -- rich/poor , British/German , rural/urban etc ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds pretty much like what I read at school.
A lot of the textbook was just statistics, or reprinted primary sources.It's still easy to teach to an agenda if you choose to.
Or, a decent teacher can still teach properly in Texas by using other material (or maybe I'm being naive -- perhaps external pressures wouldn't allow this.
I've recently come across a news article where Americans were pretending to be Christian because it's unacceptable otherwise, which is incredible and awful).It's been 10 years since I read a history text book, but IIRC from when I was about 14 much of the book was primary/secondary sources, clearly labelled and cited, with some background information to put it in context, and sample questions like "compare the Protestant and Catholic attitudes to the king's decree" (or any other comparison -- rich/poor, British/German, rural/urban etc).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460590</id>
	<title>Re:"I reject notion of separation of church and st</title>
	<author>Darinbob</author>
	<datestamp>1268408040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's the problem with that bet, because you can just redefine what you think "separate of Church and state" means and not have to pay up.  Basically though I do think the Christian right is probably closer to matching the views of most of the founding fathers than those advocating for a complete divorce from all concepts of religion by governments.  Though these issues were present from the very first congress of the US (the draft oath of office included the word "God" which was later removed before becoming law).  What the founding fathers overtly intended was to prevent having a national church or religion, which was essential in what at the time was a society with many fundamentally different religious ideas and institutions (including Quakers and Unitarians).<br><br>Objectively, it is a bit hard to see a difference between someone who sues the school district because they teach evolution and someone who sues the school district because a teacher leads a prayer.  Both views come down to "how dare they expose my children to ideas I don't want them exposed to!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the problem with that bet , because you can just redefine what you think " separate of Church and state " means and not have to pay up .
Basically though I do think the Christian right is probably closer to matching the views of most of the founding fathers than those advocating for a complete divorce from all concepts of religion by governments .
Though these issues were present from the very first congress of the US ( the draft oath of office included the word " God " which was later removed before becoming law ) .
What the founding fathers overtly intended was to prevent having a national church or religion , which was essential in what at the time was a society with many fundamentally different religious ideas and institutions ( including Quakers and Unitarians ) .Objectively , it is a bit hard to see a difference between someone who sues the school district because they teach evolution and someone who sues the school district because a teacher leads a prayer .
Both views come down to " how dare they expose my children to ideas I do n't want them exposed to !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the problem with that bet, because you can just redefine what you think "separate of Church and state" means and not have to pay up.
Basically though I do think the Christian right is probably closer to matching the views of most of the founding fathers than those advocating for a complete divorce from all concepts of religion by governments.
Though these issues were present from the very first congress of the US (the draft oath of office included the word "God" which was later removed before becoming law).
What the founding fathers overtly intended was to prevent having a national church or religion, which was essential in what at the time was a society with many fundamentally different religious ideas and institutions (including Quakers and Unitarians).Objectively, it is a bit hard to see a difference between someone who sues the school district because they teach evolution and someone who sues the school district because a teacher leads a prayer.
Both views come down to "how dare they expose my children to ideas I don't want them exposed to!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458840</id>
	<title>Damn intarweb!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268398200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google has failed me!</p><p><div class="quote"><p>which of your founding fathers was the one who said 'religion is but a useful tool to control the masses'.</p></div><p>OK. I can't find it and I really don't want to go on a reading-all-the -founding-father-letters-notes-books-etc... binge. </p><p>I'm guessing Franklin. Jefferson could have said it too.</p><p>I'll shit in my pants if it was Adams, so let me know before I shower and change.</p><p>Washington....nah.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google has failed me ! which of your founding fathers was the one who said 'religion is but a useful tool to control the masses'.OK .
I ca n't find it and I really do n't want to go on a reading-all-the -founding-father-letters-notes-books-etc... binge. I 'm guessing Franklin .
Jefferson could have said it too.I 'll shit in my pants if it was Adams , so let me know before I shower and change.Washington....nah .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google has failed me!which of your founding fathers was the one who said 'religion is but a useful tool to control the masses'.OK.
I can't find it and I really don't want to go on a reading-all-the -founding-father-letters-notes-books-etc... binge. I'm guessing Franklin.
Jefferson could have said it too.I'll shit in my pants if it was Adams, so let me know before I shower and change.Washington....nah.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458380</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31463704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31463058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_123</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31483508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31467720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_120</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31465500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31469478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_119</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31466598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31482414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31462204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31475388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31487582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31475058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_118</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31462926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31464438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31487106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31464422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_117</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_124</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31462192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_116</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31466166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_121</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31462742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31465922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31481142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31462306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31466414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31523124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31462088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31463982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31462198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31462082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31462010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31475466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_125</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31465576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31462412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_115</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31463066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31539872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31522246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_122</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2159211_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_2159211.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460912
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_2159211.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461404
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_2159211.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31467720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458950
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459972
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459714
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460598
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459680
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460042
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31464438
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31465576
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461172
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459762
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459846
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459898
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461052
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461244
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461832
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459130
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461306
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31462306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458912
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460874
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31487106
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458742
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458692
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_2159211.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458688
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459424
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458818
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460810
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459400
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459760
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31466598
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460236
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460590
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459710
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459502
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460084
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460186
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460338
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460266
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459642
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31462010
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461992
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461664
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31462412
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458696
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31463704
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_2159211.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459164
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_2159211.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458440
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_2159211.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460588
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_2159211.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458478
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_2159211.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459304
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_2159211.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459576
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_2159211.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459916
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461410
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31462088
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31462742
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461590
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461436
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461848
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31487582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31462926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31475388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31462198
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_2159211.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31481142
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_2159211.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459022
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31463058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459142
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460578
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459808
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459102
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_2159211.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31475058
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_2159211.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461050
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_2159211.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459008
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_2159211.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459930
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_2159211.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31475466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31522246
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_2159211.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458610
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460400
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31465922
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460752
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459110
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461400
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31466166
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459866
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461550
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31462192
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458946
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460342
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_2159211.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458984
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_2159211.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458740
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_2159211.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458928
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_2159211.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458500
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_2159211.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458630
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_2159211.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458490
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_2159211.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31469478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460990
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_2159211.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458922
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_2159211.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459076
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31464422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460744
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_2159211.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460164
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_2159211.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458542
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459026
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31482414
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461392
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461152
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31461484
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459982
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460300
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459730
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31483508
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31465500
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460550
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31460242
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31463066
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31539872
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31466414
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31523124
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31462082
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31462204
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31463982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458628
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_2159211.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459238
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_2159211.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458968
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_2159211.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31459148
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_2159211.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2159211.31458374
</commentlist>
</conversation>
