Everything you didnt want to know about slavery

[Gunner Asch]

http://www.vice.com/read/hey-v12n5

[Gunner Asch]

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 04:35:42 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>http://www.vice.com/read/hey-v12n5


http://xtribune.com/2015/06/the-democratic-partys-racist-past-heres-7-facts-they-want-you-to-forget/#

[Paul Drahn]

Very far from "everything". No mention made of Mexicans owning slaves.
No mention of native American slaves.

Paul

[John B.]

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 04:35:42 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>http://www.vice.com/read/hey-v12n5

An interesting article. Of course the first line in the article says
that it is for people in "elementary school" which, in the U.S. seems
to be the first 4 grads in the school system. the Wiki says for
children between the ages of 4 - 11.

Which apparently says something about either your reading, or
comprehensive, ability.

--
cheers,

John B.

[Gunner Asch]

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 08:16:03 +0700, John B. <johnbs...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I posted it because we have Leftists here and we all know that they
are dummer than dirt. Now do you have a problem with the Contents of
the article..or are you simply bitching because it explained things so
the Leftist could understand it?

Hummm?

Gunner

[Rex]

On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at 6:35:47 AM UTC-5, Gunner Asch wrote:
> http://www.vice.com/read/hey-v12n5

Pretty interesting, thanks

[John B.]

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:41:42 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 08:16:03 +0700, John B. <johnbs...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 04:35:42 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>http://www.vice.com/read/hey-v12n5
>>
>>An interesting article. Of course the first line in the article says
>>that it is for people in "elementary school" which, in the U.S. seems
>>to be the first 4 grads in the school system. the Wiki says for
>>children between the ages of 4 - 11.
>>
>>Which apparently says something about either your reading, or
>>comprehensive, ability.
>>
>>--
>>cheers,
>>
>>John B.
>
>I posted it because we have Leftists here and we all know that they
>are dummer than dirt. Now do you have a problem with the Contents of
>the article..or are you simply bitching because it explained things so
>the Leftist could understand it?
>
>Hummm?
>
>Gunner

No, I didn't spend a lot of time studying the article, but it seemed
to say that at various times slavery has been a part of almost every
society, which, of course, is true. After winning the Battle of
Alesia, September, 52 BC, Julius Caesar gave each soldier in his army
one of the captured as a slave. This amounted to something like forty
thousand slaves.... from a single campaign. In his eight years of
campaigning against the Gaul's, he was said to have enslaved more than
a million people.

What the article seemed to ignore was that in nearly every society
slavery died out primarily because slaves, while cost effective in a
purely agricultural environment are somewhat less efficient when the
society becomes less dependent on agriculture and begins to depend
more on machinery.
--
cheers,

John B.

[Ed Huntress]

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:16:31 +0700, John B. <johnbs...@gmail.com>

That's not what happened in the US, however. Slavery died out because
the federal government prevented westward expansion of slavery, which
provoked a war that led to the outlawing of slavery.

Federal resistance to expansion of slavery limited the growth of
cotton agriculture. In fact, it guarenteed that it would become less
profitable, because cotton wears the hell out of the soil, and
southern plantations were already beginning to lose productivity.

--
Ed Huntress

[Jophn B. slocomb]

I think that you are ignoring the decrease in slavery in the northern,
industrializing, States. The New England states, Maine - Connecticut,
had a slave population of 2,703 in 1790 and in 1820 it was 145. The
Middle States, New York - Delaware, had 45,910 in 1790 and by 1820
were at 22,305.

The Southern States, in contrast, went from 648,131 in 1790 to
1,319,208 in 1820.

The demand for cotton shy rocketed from the late 18th century with the
dev elopement of the spinning jenny, spinning mule, and the power
loom, while at the same time the Cotton Gin was invented in the U.S.

As for the cotton fields losing production:
In 1790 total cotton production in the U.S. was 3,135 bales of raw
cotton. In 1800 it was 73,145, and at ten year intervals it was
177,838, 334,378, 731,452, 1,346,252, 2,133,851, 3,837,402 in 1860.

Cotton was priced at $0.13/lb. in 1820 for a 225 lb. bale. so 1860
production (in 1860 prices) was about $112,244,008 which in 1820 was a
lot of money. so the cotton economy grew from ~ $91,698 in 1790 to
$112,244,008 in 1860 and while I do not have numbers on the 1961 crop
I have read references that it was larger than the 1960 crop.

It might also be of interest to note that in 1820 only some 42.5% of
U.S. labor was employed in non agricultural businesses but by 1860
that number had increased to 86.2%.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Ed Huntress]

I don't think I'm ignoring anything, John. The decrease in northern
slavery was trivial in terms of overall numbers. Your own figures show
that there was a huge increase in slavery through that period -- all
in the South.

As for cotton production, it grew rapaciously and the center of
production kept moving west, as the cotton fields in the Old South
were in decline. The South needed more land -- western land -- and the
federal government was blocking them from extending slavery into the
new territories.

Automated cotton pickers weren't developed until the 1940s. The South
needed slaves for their economy to survive.

--
Ed Huntress

[Rudy Canoza]

Not quite; continued...

> Federal resistance to expansion of slavery limited the growth of
> cotton agriculture. In fact, it guarenteed that it would become less
> profitable, because cotton wears the hell out of the soil, and
> southern plantations were already beginning to lose productivity.

It was not the federal government that prevented westward expansion of
slavery, it was federal electoral politics. And, contrary to John's
statement, it was the development of new machinery - the cotton gin -
that *strengthened* the institution of slavery in the south, as it made
inferior land profitable in the cultivation of cotton. It is a
commonplace of American history classes that slavery was declining in
the south before the cotton gin came into widespread use. Of course,
later mechanization in the form of harvesting machinery almost certainly
would have reduced the demand for slaves.

[Ed Huntress]

Uh...Ok. <g>

> And, contrary to John's
>statement, it was the development of new machinery - the cotton gin -
>that *strengthened* the institution of slavery in the south, as it made
>inferior land profitable in the cultivation of cotton. It is a
>commonplace of American history classes that slavery was declining in
>the south before the cotton gin came into widespread use. Of course,
>later mechanization in the form of harvesting machinery almost certainly
>would have reduced the demand for slaves.

But the harvesting machinery didn't come along until 1944. Picking
cotton was a holdout on mechanization.

The fact is that slaves remained an essential part of the South's
economy, and would have continued, in all likelihood, until the cotton
market collapsed, or they ran out of new land...or until 1944.

--
Ed Huntress

[Rudy Canoza]

Dismiss it if you wish, but it's an important point. If the south had
had greater representation in Congress, slavery would have expanded.

>> And, contrary to John's
>> statement, it was the development of new machinery - the cotton gin -
>> that *strengthened* the institution of slavery in the south, as it made
>> inferior land profitable in the cultivation of cotton. It is a
>> commonplace of American history classes that slavery was declining in
>> the south before the cotton gin came into widespread use. Of course,
>> later mechanization in the form of harvesting machinery almost certainly
>> would have reduced the demand for slaves.
>
> But the harvesting machinery didn't come along until 1944. Picking
> cotton was a holdout on mechanization.

I understand that. I'm only saying that earlier mechanization increased
the demand for slaves, while later mechanization almost certainly would
have eliminated it.

[Ed Huntress]

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 08:49:55 -0700, Rudy Canoza

Well, sure. But they didn't, and it didn't.

>
>>> And, contrary to John's
>>> statement, it was the development of new machinery - the cotton gin -
>>> that *strengthened* the institution of slavery in the south, as it made
>>> inferior land profitable in the cultivation of cotton. It is a
>>> commonplace of American history classes that slavery was declining in
>>> the south before the cotton gin came into widespread use. Of course,
>>> later mechanization in the form of harvesting machinery almost certainly
>>> would have reduced the demand for slaves.
>>
>> But the harvesting machinery didn't come along until 1944. Picking
>> cotton was a holdout on mechanization.
>
>I understand that. I'm only saying that earlier mechanization increased
>the demand for slaves, while later mechanization almost certainly would
>have eliminated it.

Right, that's accurate.

We've diverted a bit from the riginal point here, which was that a
common way that slavery ends in most countries is through economic or
technical evolotion that makes slavery uneconomic. That isn't what
happened in the US. It was economically attractive as hell, and would
have remained that way for nearly a century if it wasn't for the civil
war. That is, if the cotton market held up and we didn't run out of
arable land.

--
Ed Huntress

[Rudy Canoza]

But it wasn't some mandate of the *government*, i.e. the administration,
that prevented the westward spread of slavery.

[Jim Wilkins]

"Rudy Canoza" <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message
news:mn0ujf$cod$1...@dont-email.me...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Compromise
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas%E2%80%93Nebraska_Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_Kansas

Eli Whitney personally made the South an agricultural power with his
cotton gin, and the North an industrial one by promoting and
facilitating mechanized mass production of interchangeable parts.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eli_Whitney_milling_machine_1818--001.png

I saw that machine or one like it in the American Precision Museum in
Vermont. It's not very large, but neither were gun lock parts, the
only thing worth mass producing back then.

-jsw

[John B.]

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 10:40:28 -0400, Ed Huntress

But that is exactly what I was saying. That slavery in the North
naturally decreased due largely to the need for more technically
qualified workers while in the South where it wasn't necessary slavery
actually increased.

>As for cotton production, it grew rapaciously and the center of
>production kept moving west, as the cotton fields in the Old South
>were in decline. The South needed more land -- western land -- and the
>federal government was blocking them from extending slavery into the
>new territories.

That just isn't true at all. At least in the days of slavery.

The first areas that grew a substantial amount of cotton was South
Carolina and Georgia in 1800 (measured by counties raising 1,000 bales
or more). In 1810 the same areas predominated and a little cotton was
raised in Louisiana. In 1820 the area spread to include Mississippi
and Alabama, in 1830 essentially the same areas but some counties had
increased production to 5,000 bales. In 1840 a greater area but
essentially the same states. In 1850 we find the first evidence of
cotton being grown in E. Texas. and finally in 1860 comes the big
Jump. Exactly the same states were growing the bulk of the cotton -
and in Alabama and Mississippi the counties producing 5,000 bales or
more had grown significantly.

The "the center of production kept moving west" isn't correct. the
major producers of cotton remained essentially the same throughout its
antebellum days.

Kansas, for example, prior to becoming a state passed a law "An Act to
Punish Offences Against Slave Property" passed in 1855, which declared
that "every person, bond or free, who shall be aid or assist in any
rebellion or insurrection of slaves, free Negroes, or mulattoes or
shall furnish arms or do any overt act in furtherance such rebellion
or insurrection shall suffer death."

So, prior to becoming a state on 29 January 1961 there was no
impediment to slave ownership in Kansas but Kansas did not become a
major, or even a 1,000 bale per county, producer. In fact, one
reference states that " Out of necessity during the Civil War
(1861-1865), Kansas farmers attempted to raise cotton because that
southern product was cut off from the northern states".

>Automated cotton pickers weren't developed until the 1940s. The South
>needed slaves for their economy to survive.

Than why the argument? I originally said that "while cost effective in

a purely agricultural environment are somewhat less efficient when the
society becomes less dependent on agriculture and begins to depend
more on machinery."

--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

No. The original point was: "What the article seemed to ignore was

that in nearly every society slavery died out primarily because
slaves, while cost effective in a purely agricultural environment are
somewhat less efficient when the society becomes less dependent on
agriculture and begins to depend more on machinery."

I did, in fact, deliberately use the word "society" as within a single
country there can exist more that one "society" as in "an extended
social group having a distinctive cultural and economic organization".
In antebellum America there certainly existed at least two distinct
"societies", North and South.

This is not especially unique. In Imperial Rome there existed two or
more distinct economic societies. Three in fact, the Senatorial and
Equestrian ranks, and the common folk called "Plebs", and only two of
these groups owned a significant number of slaves, primarily for
economic reasons.
--
cheers,

John B.

[Ed Huntress]

On Thu, 02 Jul 2015 09:05:56 +0700, John B. <johnbs...@gmail.com>

You're joking, right? You've just described a westward movement of
cotton production, and then you say the center of production remained
the same.

Huh??

>
>Kansas, for example, prior to becoming a state passed a law "An Act to
>Punish Offences Against Slave Property" passed in 1855, which declared
>that "every person, bond or free, who shall be aid or assist in any
>rebellion or insurrection of slaves, free Negroes, or mulattoes or
>shall furnish arms or do any overt act in furtherance such rebellion
>or insurrection shall suffer death."
>
>So, prior to becoming a state on 29 January 1961 there was no
>impediment to slave ownership in Kansas but Kansas did not become a
>major, or even a 1,000 bale per county, producer. In fact, one
>reference states that " Out of necessity during the Civil War
>(1861-1865), Kansas farmers attempted to raise cotton because that
>southern product was cut off from the northern states".

There was no impediment because of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. But that
was more political than economic.

>
>>Automated cotton pickers weren't developed until the 1940s. The South
>>needed slaves for their economy to survive.
>
>Than why the argument? I originally said that "while cost effective in
>a purely agricultural environment are somewhat less efficient when the
>society becomes less dependent on agriculture and begins to depend
>more on machinery."

There was no argument. You said "in nearly every society slavery died

out primarily because slaves, while cost effective in a purely

agricultural environment..." etc.

I pointed out that was NOT how slavery "died out" in the US. Nor is it
likely it would have for decades to come.

It died out in the US because we had a war that decided the issue.

--
Ed Huntress

[John B.]

On Thu, 02 Jul 2015 03:32:12 -0400, Ed Huntress

Gee Ed, I guess you missed the part where I said, " Exactly the same
states were growing the bulk of the cotton and in Alabama and

Mississippi the counties producing 5,000 bales or more had grown
significantly."

>>

cheers,

John B.

[Ed Huntress]

On Thu, 02 Jul 2015 18:35:15 +0700, John B. <johnbs...@gmail.com>

John, take a look at these two maps. Notice how far WEST the center of
cotton production moved from 1820 to 1860:

http://teachers.henrico.k12.va.us/tucker/strusky_m/webquests/VUS6_Expansion/Cotton%20Production%201820-1860.jpg

[Rex]

Lies, damned lies, and statistics?

[Gunner Asch]

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:16:31 +0700, John B. <johnbs...@gmail.com>

Yes..and your excellent summation had what to do with Leftist world
views?

Gunner

[Gunner Asch]

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 21:11:28 +0700, Jophn B. slocomb

Yet by 1860, a young strong male slave was valued at approx $40k
(todays price) and less than 13% of Southerners were slave
owners...with the top 30 slave owners/sellers...being
themselves...black.

>
>The demand for cotton shy rocketed from the late 18th century with the
>dev elopement of the spinning jenny, spinning mule, and the power
>loom, while at the same time the Cotton Gin was invented in the U.S.
>
>As for the cotton fields losing production:
>In 1790 total cotton production in the U.S. was 3,135 bales of raw
>cotton. In 1800 it was 73,145, and at ten year intervals it was
>177,838, 334,378, 731,452, 1,346,252, 2,133,851, 3,837,402 in 1860.
>
>Cotton was priced at $0.13/lb. in 1820 for a 225 lb. bale. so 1860
>production (in 1860 prices) was about $112,244,008 which in 1820 was a
>lot of money. so the cotton economy grew from ~ $91,698 in 1790 to
>$112,244,008 in 1860 and while I do not have numbers on the 1961 crop
>I have read references that it was larger than the 1960 crop.
>
>It might also be of interest to note that in 1820 only some 42.5% of
>U.S. labor was employed in non agricultural businesses but by 1860
>that number had increased to 86.2%.

Ayup..slavery was ripe for destruction and if the Civil War hadnt
happened..slavery would have been largely abandoned by 1880...simply
because the costs of owning slaves was too great..and the millions of
immigrants coming to America..primarily Irish and Chinese..would work
cheaper than slaves

Gunner

[John B.]

On Fri, 03 Jul 2015 15:06:25 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>

I don't know, after all you would be a far better spokesman for the
"leftist" side of things, being the recipient of government furnished
medical care. In a purely "rightist" environment - pay for what you
get - you would be under the ground.
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Fri, 03 Jul 2015 15:12:27 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>

While it is probably that some Blacks did own slaves, where did you
get "the with the top 30 slave owners/sellers...being
themselves...black"

>>

>>The demand for cotton shy rocketed from the late 18th century with the
>>dev elopement of the spinning jenny, spinning mule, and the power
>>loom, while at the same time the Cotton Gin was invented in the U.S.
>>
>>As for the cotton fields losing production:
>>In 1790 total cotton production in the U.S. was 3,135 bales of raw
>>cotton. In 1800 it was 73,145, and at ten year intervals it was
>>177,838, 334,378, 731,452, 1,346,252, 2,133,851, 3,837,402 in 1860.
>>
>>Cotton was priced at $0.13/lb. in 1820 for a 225 lb. bale. so 1860
>>production (in 1860 prices) was about $112,244,008 which in 1820 was a
>>lot of money. so the cotton economy grew from ~ $91,698 in 1790 to
>>$112,244,008 in 1860 and while I do not have numbers on the 1961 crop
>>I have read references that it was larger than the 1960 crop.
>>
>>It might also be of interest to note that in 1820 only some 42.5% of
>>U.S. labor was employed in non agricultural businesses but by 1860
>>that number had increased to 86.2%.
>
>Ayup..slavery was ripe for destruction and if the Civil War hadnt
>happened..slavery would have been largely abandoned by 1880...simply
>because the costs of owning slaves was too great..and the millions of
>immigrants coming to America..primarily Irish and Chinese..would work
>cheaper than slaves
>

I'm not so sure. The majority of the immigrants were landing in the
North and the numbers of indentured whites was decreasing also as the
cost of immigration had decreased sharply so I suspect that chopping
cotton wasn't exactly what the average Irish planned on :-)

But it is true that Chinese laborers in the West were cheaper than
slaves would have been.

As for the cost of owning slaves, while the cost of a skilled
craftsman (blacksmith) slave in the 1860's was about $800 (1860
prices) the income derived from him would be in the neighborhood of
$80,000 (1860 prices) and if the slave was a plantation worker the
overhead of owning him/her was likely negligible.

Average weekly pay for an unskilled workingman in 1860 was in the
nine dollar a week range so 800/9 = 463 so the purchase cost of a
slave was less than 2 years salary for a free worker.

Remember that the cotton economy was such that the value of cotton
exports was more than all other U.S. exports combined and that the
U.S. supplied about 2/3rds of the world's cotton.
--
cheers,

John B.

[Gunner Asch]

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 07:00:11 +0700, John B. <johnbs...@gmail.com>

http://slaverebellion.org/index.php?page=the-black-slave-owners

Lots and lots more out there..need more?

>
>>>
>>>The demand for cotton shy rocketed from the late 18th century with the
>>>dev elopement of the spinning jenny, spinning mule, and the power
>>>loom, while at the same time the Cotton Gin was invented in the U.S.
>>>
>>>As for the cotton fields losing production:
>>>In 1790 total cotton production in the U.S. was 3,135 bales of raw
>>>cotton. In 1800 it was 73,145, and at ten year intervals it was
>>>177,838, 334,378, 731,452, 1,346,252, 2,133,851, 3,837,402 in 1860.
>>>
>>>Cotton was priced at $0.13/lb. in 1820 for a 225 lb. bale. so 1860
>>>production (in 1860 prices) was about $112,244,008 which in 1820 was a
>>>lot of money. so the cotton economy grew from ~ $91,698 in 1790 to
>>>$112,244,008 in 1860 and while I do not have numbers on the 1961 crop
>>>I have read references that it was larger than the 1960 crop.
>>>
>>>It might also be of interest to note that in 1820 only some 42.5% of
>>>U.S. labor was employed in non agricultural businesses but by 1860
>>>that number had increased to 86.2%.
>>
>>Ayup..slavery was ripe for destruction and if the Civil War hadnt
>>happened..slavery would have been largely abandoned by 1880...simply
>>because the costs of owning slaves was too great..and the millions of
>>immigrants coming to America..primarily Irish and Chinese..would work
>>cheaper than slaves
>>
>
>I'm not so sure. The majority of the immigrants were landing in the
>North and the numbers of indentured whites was decreasing also as the
>cost of immigration had decreased sharply so I suspect that chopping
>cotton wasn't exactly what the average Irish planned on :-)
>

The Irish who left NYC had few choices. They could and did..chop
cotton. So did the Chinese..who were better known for building the
railroads.

>But it is true that Chinese laborers in the West were cheaper than
>slaves would have been.
>
>As for the cost of owning slaves, while the cost of a skilled
>craftsman (blacksmith) slave in the 1860's was about $800 (1860
>prices) the income derived from him would be in the neighborhood of
>$80,000 (1860 prices) and if the slave was a plantation worker the
>overhead of owning him/her was likely negligible.
>
> Average weekly pay for an unskilled workingman in 1860 was in the
>nine dollar a week range so 800/9 = 463 so the purchase cost of a
>slave was less than 2 years salary for a free worker.
>
>Remember that the cotton economy was such that the value of cotton
>exports was more than all other U.S. exports combined and that the
>U.S. supplied about 2/3rds of the world's cotton.

I suggest you review other sources for your numbers

https://www.google.com/search?q=cost+of+slave+ownership+versus+free+workers&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8


And you may wish to change your ignorance about the Irish slaves as
well

https://www.google.com/search?q=irish+immigrants+were+slaves&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

[Gunner Asch]

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 06:18:30 +0700, John B. <johnbs...@gmail.com>

Odd.."government supplied medical care". Oh..you mean like Medicare
and VA care and whatnot?

Gunner

[John B.]

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 01:49:11 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>

Yes, I believe some more might be useful. Your reference states that
there were a number of black slave owners in Louisiana in 1860 and
lists approximately 550 slaves owned,,,, out of a slave population of
some 331,726. So according to your reference Blacks owned some 0.1% of
the slaves in Louisiana.

I must say, that is something to really get excited about!

Perhaps. But you need to read a bit more carefully. The article seems
to relate to places like Antigua and Montserrat.

"At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish
slaves", Virginia and New England. "In this decade, 52,000 Irish
(mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia.
Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to
the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children
be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers. They also
mention the West Indies, Barbados, and Jamaica. and then the mention
Virginia and New England."

"During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10
and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West
Indies, Virginia and New England."

Wow! But then we look at the population figures for New England or
Virginia, we don't see those numbers. For example the population of
New England in 1640 was 13,679, in 1650 it was 22,732 and in 1660 it
was 33,336. From 1650 to 1660 the population increased by some 10,600
people.

I suggest that the bulk of these "white slaves" were shipped to
English colonies in the Caribbean. Not the Americas.
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 01:50:26 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>

Nope, I was referring to the government mandated laws that say a
hospital must give emergency treatment. If you had to prove that you
were capable of paying the medical bills before you were admitted you
would be laying six feet below the surface.
--
cheers,

John B.

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 20:13:10 +0700, John B. <johnbs...@gmail.com>

We went over this with Gunner some months ago, and reached exactly the
same conclusion.

--
Ed Huntress

[Gunner Asch]

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 20:13:10 +0700, John B. <johnbs...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>>>>
>>>

>>>While it is probably that some Blacks did own slaves, where did you
>>>get "the with the top 30 slave owners/sellers...being
>>>themselves...black"
>>
>>http://slaverebellion.org/index.php?page=the-black-slave-owners
>>
>>Lots and lots more out there..need more?
>>
>
>Yes, I believe some more might be useful. Your reference states that
>there were a number of black slave owners in Louisiana in 1860 and
>lists approximately 550 slaves owned,,,, out of a slave population of
>some 331,726. So according to your reference Blacks owned some 0.1% of
>the slaves in Louisiana.
>
>I must say, that is something to really get excited about!

Johnny...several of those were slave sellers. They bought and sold
slaves..so your claim they only owned 550 is bogus.

[Gunner Asch]

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 20:13:10 +0700, John B. <johnbs...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>>>>
>>>

>>>While it is probably that some Blacks did own slaves, where did you
>>>get "the with the top 30 slave owners/sellers...being
>>>themselves...black"
>>
>>http://slaverebellion.org/index.php?page=the-black-slave-owners
>>
>>Lots and lots more out there..need more?
>>
>
>Yes, I believe some more might be useful. Your reference states that
>there were a number of black slave owners in Louisiana in 1860 and
>lists approximately 550 slaves owned,,,, out of a slave population of
>some 331,726. So according to your reference Blacks owned some 0.1% of
>the slaves in Louisiana.
>
>I must say, that is something to really get excited about!

You may wish to read this..all nicely cited with names and numbers

http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2013/03/black_slave_owners_did_they_exist.html

And climb down off your high horse..you might get a nose bleed up
there.

What..no comment?

>>
>>
>>And you may wish to change your ignorance about the Irish slaves as
>>well
>>
>>https://www.google.com/search?q=irish+immigrants+were+slaves&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
>
>
>Perhaps. But you need to read a bit more carefully. The article seems
>to relate to places like Antigua and Montserrat.
>
>"At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish
>slaves", Virginia and New England. "In this decade, 52,000 Irish
>(mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia.
>Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to
>the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children
>be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers. They also
>mention the West Indies, Barbados, and Jamaica. and then the mention
>Virginia and New England."
>
>"During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10
>and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West
>Indies, Virginia and New England."
>
>Wow! But then we look at the population figures for New England or
>Virginia, we don't see those numbers. For example the population of
>New England in 1640 was 13,679, in 1650 it was 22,732 and in 1660 it
>was 33,336. From 1650 to 1660 the population increased by some 10,600
>people.
>
>I suggest that the bulk of these "white slaves" were shipped to
>English colonies in the Caribbean. Not the Americas.

Your suggestion of the "bulk" is noted with some interest.

You do know that the vast majority of black slaves went to South
America, right?

You may also wish to read this..noting that more Irish slaves were
brought to New England than black ones.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-irish-slave-trade-the-forgotten-white-slaves/31076

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/27/1265498/-The-slaves-that-time-forgot

>--
>cheers,
>
>John B.

Cheers, pip pip!

Gunner

[Gunner Asch]

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 20:16:16 +0700, John B. <johnbs...@gmail.com>

Say..does that work the same with with Medicare and the VA?

Hummm?

Now..if you have a problem with the "government mandated
laws"..perhaps you should take it up with the government?

Or are you simply being an ass visa vis me, personally? And if
so..how did I manage to piss in your cornflakes?

Hummm?

[Gunner Asch]

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 08:18:23 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>

Irregardless...bon appetite!

Gunner

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 08:15:52 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 20:13:10 +0700, John B. <johnbs...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>While it is probably that some Blacks did own slaves, where did you
>>>>get "the with the top 30 slave owners/sellers...being
>>>>themselves...black"
>>>
>>>http://slaverebellion.org/index.php?page=the-black-slave-owners
>>>
>>>Lots and lots more out there..need more?
>>>
>>
>>Yes, I believe some more might be useful. Your reference states that
>>there were a number of black slave owners in Louisiana in 1860 and
>>lists approximately 550 slaves owned,,,, out of a slave population of
>>some 331,726. So according to your reference Blacks owned some 0.1% of
>>the slaves in Louisiana.
>>
>>I must say, that is something to really get excited about!
>
>You may wish to read this..all nicely cited with names and numbers
>
>http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2013/03/black_slave_owners_did_they_exist.html
>
>And climb down off your high horse..you might get a nose bleed up
>there.

As usual, Gunner is full of crap. The largest number of slaves owned
by a black, as noted in his article, was 163. Numerous white
slaveholders owned more than 500; in one case, 1,200 at one time.

So his claim is shit. Not that we should be surprised.

--
Ed Huntress

[Martin Eastburn]

And let us not forget the NORTH was FORCED to give freedom to slaves
when and only when the constitution was amended to prevent slavery.
There were white, black and in the white batch lots of Irish.

And lets not forget that the slavers that captured the slaves in Africa
were black themselves. They sold off their neighbors to steal their
land or cattle or whatever. Often a tribe would capture another and
sell them off to the slave ships - owned by the NORTH. Just like the
RUM boats, owned by the NORTH.

Martin

[Gunner Asch]

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 20:05:24 -0500, Martin Eastburn
<lion...@consolidated.net> wrote:

>And let us not forget the NORTH was FORCED to give freedom to slaves
>when and only when the constitution was amended to prevent slavery.
>There were white, black and in the white batch lots of Irish.
>
>And lets not forget that the slavers that captured the slaves in Africa
>were black themselves. They sold off their neighbors to steal their
>land or cattle or whatever. Often a tribe would capture another and
>sell them off to the slave ships - owned by the NORTH. Just like the
>RUM boats, owned by the NORTH.
>
>Martin

Well stated!!

[John B.]

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 08:18:23 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>

Nope. I have no problem with either the government or you.

I was just reminding you that for all your ranting and raving about
"left-wingers" you apparently were quite happy to take advantage of
the "left-wing-style nanny government that cares for you" style
treatment that you got at the hospital.

I would have assumed that a "True Blue Right Winger" would have
refused treatment until he could provide evidence that he could pay
for treatment rendered.
--
cheers,

John B.

[Gunner Asch]

On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 13:15:29 +0700, John B. <johnbs...@gmail.com>

Odd..Ive been paying taxes for about 50 yrs and I could have bitten
the bullet and gone to the VA. So what "leftwing style blah blah" are
you talking about?

>
>I would have assumed that a "True Blue Right Winger" would have
>refused treatment until he could provide evidence that he could pay
>for treatment rendered.

Why? Its the law isnt it that my taxes get used for Medicare..among
other things..right?

Think Ive not paid my fair share in hummm...45 yrs?

Gunner

[John B.]

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 08:06:41 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 20:13:10 +0700, John B. <johnbs...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>While it is probably that some Blacks did own slaves, where did you
>>>>get "the with the top 30 slave owners/sellers...being
>>>>themselves...black"
>>>
>>>http://slaverebellion.org/index.php?page=the-black-slave-owners
>>>
>>>Lots and lots more out there..need more?
>>>
>>
>>Yes, I believe some more might be useful. Your reference states that
>>there were a number of black slave owners in Louisiana in 1860 and
>>lists approximately 550 slaves owned,,,, out of a slave population of
>>some 331,726. So according to your reference Blacks owned some 0.1% of
>>the slaves in Louisiana.
>>
>>I must say, that is something to really get excited about!
>
>Johnny...several of those were slave sellers. They bought and sold
>slaves..so your claim they only owned 550 is bogus.

It isn't my claim that I quoted. I read the article that you
referenced and quoted numbers that the article stated. Just as I said
I did.

But the fact that some free blacks in the South had slaves, or traded
slaves, is sort of silly isn't it? After all, where did the slaves
come from?

You don't really think that those scoundrels on the slave ships
discovered a tree in Africa that grew "slaves" and they sailed over
there and just picked them off the tree.... do you?

But a little more research seems to show that the Free Black
population of the United States in 1830 was 319,599. or about 2% of
the total U.S. population. Of these apparently some 3,775 were slave
owners and they owned some 12,760 slaves out of a total slave
population of 2,009,043 slaves.

So, 1% of the Free Blacks owned some 0.6% of the slaves.

By Godfery! That is something to really ruffle a fellows feathers,
isn't it.

--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 08:15:52 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 20:13:10 +0700, John B. <johnbs...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>While it is probably that some Blacks did own slaves, where did you
>>>>get "the with the top 30 slave owners/sellers...being
>>>>themselves...black"
>>>
>>>http://slaverebellion.org/index.php?page=the-black-slave-owners
>>>
>>>Lots and lots more out there..need more?
>>>
>>
>>Yes, I believe some more might be useful. Your reference states that
>>there were a number of black slave owners in Louisiana in 1860 and
>>lists approximately 550 slaves owned,,,, out of a slave population of
>>some 331,726. So according to your reference Blacks owned some 0.1% of
>>the slaves in Louisiana.
>>
>>I must say, that is something to really get excited about!
>
>You may wish to read this..all nicely cited with names and numbers
>
>http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2013/03/black_slave_owners_did_they_exist.html
>
>And climb down off your high horse..you might get a nose bleed up
>there.

I did read it and I quoted numbers from it which in another message
you implied that I made up. Which rather demonstrates that you didn't
read it at all.

But "high horse".... you mean that researching a question and finding
the truth, or as much of it as possible, causes nose bleeds?

Gunner, I read all that tripe and that is what it is. It is
undocumented bullshit. And it doesn't match any numbers that come from
even suspect sources, never mind actual records or census.

Did you know that there are Irish records listing the people that left
Ireland for the colonies in the 17th century? They don't show these
fantastic numbers.

That Irish church records go back to the 1600's, and in some cases
much earlier, and they don't show these numbers.

You are quoting from the "Daily Kos" some sort of on-line blog sort of
thing that sells Tee-shirts for $20.00... that I can buy for $3.00. A
truly impressive source.

What's your next source? The walls in the Men's Room at the local pub?
--
cheers,

John B.

[Gunner Asch]

On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 13:49:45 +0700, John B. <johnbs...@gmail.com>

Ruffle feathers? Whatever for? Slavery was ended by 1867 in the US

Were you trying to make some point?

Gunner

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 20:05:24 -0500, Martin Eastburn
<lion...@consolidated.net> wrote:

>And let us not forget the NORTH was FORCED to give freedom to slaves
>when and only when the constitution was amended to prevent slavery.

And who amended the Constitution, Martin? Are you saying that the
northerners forced themselves?

>There were white, black and in the white batch lots of Irish.

No there weren't. Not in North America. There were white indentured
servants. They were freed of their indenture after a contract period
-- usually five years.

--
Ed Huntress

[Gunner Asch]

On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 14:17:56 +0700, John B. <johnbs...@gmail.com>

So you dont like the numbers so they are not valid then. Fascinating.

>
>Did you know that there are Irish records listing the people that left
>Ireland for the colonies in the 17th century? They don't show these
>fantastic numbers.

There are some various records with varying numbers of
immigrants...and there are OTHER records with verying numbers of
"indentured servants" and there are OTHER records of varying numbers
of Irish slaves. Take your pick.

>
>That Irish church records go back to the 1600's, and in some cases
>much earlier, and they don't show these numbers.

Nor do the church records show that 49% of Ireland was shipped off in
slave ships either. So either the Church records were not
particularly accurate...or they lied...or the folks shipped out wernt
recorded by the church. Take your pick

>
>You are quoting from the "Daily Kos" some sort of on-line blog sort of
>thing that sells Tee-shirts for $20.00... that I can buy for $3.00. A
>truly impressive source.
>
>What's your next source? The walls in the Men's Room at the local pub?

Golly Jonny...you missed the Global Research link too? What price do
they sell T-shirts for?

Bye Johnny.

Gunner

[John B.]

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 23:39:19 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>

Exactly what I was talking about.

You live in a "Father knows best" environment and bitch about left
wingers while sucking everything you can from the government tit.

By the way, I have a good mate that grew up in Hungary under the
communists... he tells me that under communism nobody paid taxes.
So what you are describing is even worse then the system that Uncle
Joe used to run. They had free medical care and no taxes :-)

>>I would have assumed that a "True Blue Right Winger" would have
>>refused treatment until he could provide evidence that he could pay
>>for treatment rendered.
>
>Why? Its the law isnt it that my taxes get used for Medicare..among
>other things..right?
>
>Think Ive not paid my fair share in hummm...45 yrs?



>Gunner

--
cheers,

John B.

[Gunner Asch]

On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 19:13:15 +0700, John B. <johnbs...@gmail.com>

Really? So my taxes didnt entitle me to the same care that everyone
gets? Odd isnt it that illegal aliens dont pay taxes and get the same
care ...for free. Interesting.

>
>By the way, I have a good mate that grew up in Hungary under the
>communists... he tells me that under communism nobody paid taxes.
>So what you are describing is even worse then the system that Uncle
>Joe used to run. They had free medical care and no taxes :-)

They also got shit for medical care.
Cuba is the same

>
>
>>>I would have assumed that a "True Blue Right Winger" would have
>>>refused treatment until he could provide evidence that he could pay
>>>for treatment rendered.
>>
>>Why? Its the law isnt it that my taxes get used for Medicare..among
>>other things..right?
>>
>>Think Ive not paid my fair share in hummm...45 yrs?

What..no answer?

All those retired folks who are using Medicare..they too are sucking
on the Dole as well?

Fascinating.

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 23:39:19 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>

But you didn't participate in the VA, because you screwed up and
didn't make the effort to get it. So you lose.

As for the "leftwing style," what you did, being too lazy to do what
it took to get into the VA, is to rely on the EMTALA law, which keeps
hospitals from kicking you out on the curb.

And, as a result, you hit the taxpayers for something between $200,000
and $300,000 worth of medical services (depending on which week you're
telling us about it), for which you can't even pay the interest on the
interest.

>>
>>I would have assumed that a "True Blue Right Winger" would have
>>refused treatment until he could provide evidence that he could pay
>>for treatment rendered.
>
>Why? Its the law isnt it that my taxes get used for Medicare..among
>other things..right?

You aren't entitled to Medicare yet. That's taxed and paid for your
old age.

>
>Think Ive not paid my fair share in hummm...45 yrs?

Not even the interest on it.

--
Ed Huntress

[John B.]

On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 05:01:56 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>

Given that you introduced the subject it is probably that you assumed
that you were "trying to make some point".

If you weren't one is forced to wonder why you were waving your hand
in the air and hollering, "Teacher, Teacher".
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 08:04:18 -0400, Ed Huntress
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 20:05:24 -0500, Martin Eastburn
><lion...@consolidated.net> wrote:
>
>>And let us not forget the NORTH was FORCED to give freedom to slaves
>>when and only when the constitution was amended to prevent slavery.
>
>And who amended the Constitution, Martin? Are you saying that the
>northerners forced themselves?

But I wonder. Was the 3/5th clause the part that caused the amendment?

>>There were white, black and in the white batch lots of Irish.
>
>No there weren't. Not in North America. There were white indentured
>servants. They were freed of their indenture after a contract period
>-- usually five years.
--

cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 05:40:35 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>

Apparently your tax doesn't entitle you to anything special as you
describe the non-taxpaying immigrants getting the exactly same
treatment that you do.

So, what does this "tax" actually do for you?

>>
>>By the way, I have a good mate that grew up in Hungary under the
>>communists... he tells me that under communism nobody paid taxes.
>>So what you are describing is even worse then the system that Uncle
>>Joe used to run. They had free medical care and no taxes :-)
>
>They also got shit for medical care.
>Cuba is the same

And you know this how?

My mate retired in Hungary and tells me that some of the same doctors
who worked in the communist medical system now work in the "Free
Hungary" system. And as for "shit for medical care", you apparently
aren't aware that many Germans travel to Hungary for medical and
dental care as medical costs in Hungary are much cheaper than Germany.

But probably all them iggerant Uropens don't have no decent medical
care.... Right?

Well actually that isn't exactly correct. You see the U.S. medical
system is rated rather badly by the World Health Organization -
30-something in the list of the world's countries. although it is also
the most expensive, and even worse it ranks 14th in "preventable
deaths" with a rate of 110/100,000. France, for your information, is
first with 65/100,000.

The Washing Post even had an article headlined "Once again, U.S. has
most expensive, least effective health care system in survey". The
survey covering 10 other western, industrialized nations -

"This is the same spot it occupied in four previous studies by the
same organization. Not only did the U.S. fail to move up between 2004
and 2014 -- as other nations did with concerted effort and significant
reforms -- it also has maintained this dubious distinction while
spending far more per capita ($8,508) on health care than Norway
($5,669), which has the second most expensive system."

So what has you tax dollar done for you lately?

>>
>>
>>>>I would have assumed that a "True Blue Right Winger" would have
>>>>refused treatment until he could provide evidence that he could pay
>>>>for treatment rendered.
>>>
>>>Why? Its the law isnt it that my taxes get used for Medicare..among
>>>other things..right?
>>>
>>>Think Ive not paid my fair share in hummm...45 yrs?
>
>What..no answer?
>
>All those retired folks who are using Medicare..they too are sucking
>on the Dole as well?
>
>Fascinating.

--
cheers,

John B.

[Gunner Asch]

On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 09:34:43 +0700, John B. <johnbs...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>>
>>Really? So my taxes didnt entitle me to the same care that everyone
>>gets? Odd isnt it that illegal aliens dont pay taxes and get the same
>>care ...for free. Interesting.
>
>Apparently your tax doesn't entitle you to anything special as you
>describe the non-taxpaying immigrants getting the exactly same
>treatment that you do.
>
>So, what does this "tax" actually do for you?

Very good question. You might want to ask your leader Obama.

Good question. What did Obama say?

>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I would have assumed that a "True Blue Right Winger" would have
>>>>>refused treatment until he could provide evidence that he could pay
>>>>>for treatment rendered.
>>>>
>>>>Why? Its the law isnt it that my taxes get used for Medicare..among
>>>>other things..right?
>>>>
>>>>Think Ive not paid my fair share in hummm...45 yrs?
>>
>>What..no answer?
>>
>>All those retired folks who are using Medicare..they too are sucking
>>on the Dole as well?
>>
>>Fascinating.
>--
>cheers,
>
>John B.

Jeers.

Gunner

[John B.]

On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 23:52:52 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I don't have a clue. I don't listen to anything that the man says. And
I suspect that he is living proof of the truth of Winston Churchill's
comment that the greatest argument against democracy is a 5 minute
conversation with the average voter.

I'm waiting for the unwed, unemployed, homosexual, mixed race, woman
runs. I figure that she is a shoo-in.

>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>I would have assumed that a "True Blue Right Winger" would have
>>>>>>refused treatment until he could provide evidence that he could pay
>>>>>>for treatment rendered.
>>>>>
>>>>>Why? Its the law isnt it that my taxes get used for Medicare..among
>>>>>other things..right?
>>>>>
>>>>>Think Ive not paid my fair share in hummm...45 yrs?
>>>
>>>What..no answer?
>>>
>>>All those retired folks who are using Medicare..they too are sucking
>>>on the Dole as well?
>>>
>>>Fascinating.
>>--
>>cheers,
>>
>>John B.
>
>Jeers.
>
>Gunner

--
cheers,

John B.

[Ed Huntress]

On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 18:12:11 +0700, John B. <johnbs...@gmail.com>

No, Churchill was talking about people like the participants in this
newsgroup. Obama is far from being an average voter.

>
>I'm waiting for the unwed, unemployed, homosexual, mixed race, woman
>runs. I figure that she is a shoo-in.

She would, of course, fail. But I would love to have had her apply for
a job back in the early '70s, when I was a young manager at
McGraw-Hill Publishing Co., and I was handed "goals positions" for my
next hires. She would have scored me in several catagories at once.
d8-)

>
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>I would have assumed that a "True Blue Right Winger" would have
>>>>>>>refused treatment until he could provide evidence that he could pay
>>>>>>>for treatment rendered.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why? Its the law isnt it that my taxes get used for Medicare..among
>>>>>>other things..right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Think Ive not paid my fair share in hummm...45 yrs?
>>>>
>>>>What..no answer?
>>>>
>>>>All those retired folks who are using Medicare..they too are sucking
>>>>on the Dole as well?
>>>>
>>>>Fascinating.
>>>--
>>>cheers,
>>>
>>>John B.
>>
>>Jeers.
>>
>>Gunner

No, they paid for their healthcare. You didn't.

--
Ed Huntress

[John B.]

I wasn't talking about Obama, the person. I was talking about the
people that voted for him :-)

And while I freely admit that I don't follow U.S. politics closely it
did appear that his campaign was directed largely toward the lower
echelon of voters.... didn't someone once say something like, "the
poor, they are always with us".... (and there are so many of them)".

>>
>>I'm waiting for the unwed, unemployed, homosexual, mixed race, woman
>>runs. I figure that she is a shoo-in.
>
>She would, of course, fail. But I would love to have had her apply for
>a job back in the early '70s, when I was a young manager at
>McGraw-Hill Publishing Co., and I was handed "goals positions" for my
>next hires. She would have scored me in several catagories at once.
>d8-)

Well, how about an elderly woman who's husband cheats on her :-?

>>>>>>>>I would have assumed that a "True Blue Right Winger" would have
>>>>>>>>refused treatment until he could provide evidence that he could pay
>>>>>>>>for treatment rendered.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Why? Its the law isnt it that my taxes get used for Medicare..among
>>>>>>>other things..right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Think Ive not paid my fair share in hummm...45 yrs?
>>>>>
>>>>>What..no answer?
>>>>>
>>>>>All those retired folks who are using Medicare..they too are sucking
>>>>>on the Dole as well?
>>>>>
>>>>>Fascinating.
>>>>--
>>>>cheers,
>>>>
>>>>John B.
>>>
>>>Jeers.
>>>
>>>Gunner
>
>No, they paid for their healthcare. You didn't.
--

cheers,

John B.

[Gunner Asch]

On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 07:07:51 +0700, John B. <johnbs...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>Think Ive not paid my fair share in hummm...45 yrs?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What..no answer?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>All those retired folks who are using Medicare..they too are sucking
>>>>>>on the Dole as well?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Fascinating.
>>>>>--
>>>>>cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>>John B.
>>>>
>>>>Jeers.
>>>>
>>>>Gunner
>>
>>No, they paid for their healthcare. You didn't.
>--
>cheers,
>
>John B.

So I didnt pay or my Medicare? I am on Medicare btw.

Welll....the California equivelent..MediCal. Same difference. And
yeah..I paid for it.

Got cites that I didnt? Or is this more hogwash blown out your ass?


Gunner

[Ed Huntress]

On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 18:17:13 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

That was my comment, you dim bulb. You were treated for two heart
attacks and one stroke before you were on MediCal. And you never paid
for them, as you've said in your own words many times.

You probably forget because of your stroke.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ned Simmons]

On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 18:17:13 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Medi-Cal is not Medicare, it's California's implementation of
Medicaid. Medicaid is, by definition, health care for folks who can't
pay themselves.

Many states have their own name for Medicaid, here in Maine it's
called Mainecare.

--
Ned Simmons

[John B.]

On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 18:17:13 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Well, you may be on this or on that but If I remember correctly from
your first posts, pictures of the staple lines and so on, you didn't
mention anything about Medi-this or Cali-that. In fact I remember you
saying that the hospital was after you trying to collect their
money, what was it? 200,000-odd dollars that you owed them? And
subsequent to the gruesome pictures you have mentioned that you were
making periodic payments on the bill.

But of course, having had one of the "stroke moment" that you so
frequently mention, you've probably forgotten all about that.
--
cheers,

John B.

[Gunner Asch]

On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 07:57:18 -0400, Ned Simmons <ne...@nedsim.com>
wrote:

Absolutely correct. My mistake. (that pesky stroke still makes me mix
stuff up on occasion)

Its for low income people. Of which Im included. The elderly, the
young, the unemployed..the usual run of people trapped by a failing
economy and a Marxist president and his minions.

>
>Many states have their own name for Medicaid, here in Maine it's
>called Mainecare.

Ayup.

Gunner

[Gunner Asch]

On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 19:59:25 +0700, John B. <johnbs...@gmail.com>

Loma Linda fucked something up during my surgery. They wont..wont tell
me what it was. But..they dropped the $175k surgery..to zero. Oh..I
think I know..it was the stroke. I was supposed to go in on a
Thursday for my final release..and drove down to my place in Ontario
Wed night. I had the stroke that night sometime. When I drove..like a
robot...out to Loma Linda hospital..the senior surgeon told me Id had
a stoke...dragging my leg and drooling as I was. He sent me to
Riverside hospital. No care, no followup..no medical checkout..nada He
simply told me to go to the other hospital. So I went back to
Ontario,.,.and sat in the corner of my favorite bar for 9 hours..like
a robot. When they closed..they asked me if I was ok. I guess the
drooling and marginal speech told them something..Id not had a drink
other than Pepsi all day..so they called a friend and told them to
take me home..something was wrong..which he did. He is not..the
sharpest knife in the drawer...

When I woke up the next morning..I was more clear headed and I knew
something was really wrong. So I called another friend..she came and
got me..took me out to Arrowhead hospital. 5 minutes in the waiting
room..and they jerked me out of my chair and took me straight into ER
and did the tests...yup..Id had a smallish but serious stroke.

The stroke ...that was cared for by Riverside Co. ..Arrowhead Medical
Center. 2 shots, 1 IV and 4 days of rather yukky food..and it cost me
$135k. I went in on Friday..their stroke guy didnt show up until
Monday..he had been on a camping trip. Shrug..they released me the
next day.
I made something like 10 or so payments...they called me up and asked
me to pay them in full. I told them..not a chance, I was marginally
employed. They called back again a year later...same request..same
response. Id made another 10 or so payments. A year later..same deal,
same request...and when I told them...no way..they took a lien on my
property. So when I sell it..if ever, they get the money. However..Id
homesteaded it 30 yrs ago..when they found that out..Id forgotten
(stroke)..they cleared the books. Id have been happy to keep making
payments...but..shrug..they decided to end it and get the money from
the state, or write it off. Shrug.

I did pay the anesthesiologist in full however..that was a couple
grand IRRC. Sold some tools and toys and paid her off.

>
>But of course, having had one of the "stroke moment" that you so
>frequently mention, you've probably forgotten all about that.

Really?

Oh..the pictures...they arent all that gruesome.

https://picasaweb.google.com/104042282269066802602/Bypass

Just think of it as a poorly done jigsaw puzzle.

These days..I dont eat junk food, I eat healthy, take all (9) meds
everyday..exercise..do all the good things to keep me healthy.
Shrug..being a traveling service tech for 30+ yrs...ate a lot..a lot
of crap on the road..thought I was gonna live forever.

Oh..Bakersfield Heart Hospital..Id gone into see them in
November..some funny sensations/feelings/pain in my chest. Right after
my insurance ran out. (yep..I had insurance until August of
2008)..when my customers started going tits up)..they told me I had
bronchitis. 4 hrs, no tests..3 hours of waiting room time, 50 minutes
of waiting for the doctor to come into the room, and less..less than
10 minutes of exam..when they found out I wasnt covered by Cobra. For
that..they charged me $18,000. Bronchitis.....

I was home recovering from surgery..in fact..still had 178 staples in
me..and they called and wanted their money. I told them "Ill pay you
just as soon as I get my settlement" The gal asked.."what
settlement?" "Well Im at home recovering from a triple bypass that
damned near killed me..but you diagnosed all the symptoms as
Bronchitis..so Im going to sue the hell out of you. I ought to get a
million or so. Then Ill pay you your $18k"
Long pause on the phone..and then she asked where Id had it done...I
told her..and she said she'd call me back in a few minutes. 30 minutes
later..she called back..said they were dropping the charges to zero
and then appologized for the misdiagnosis. Ive never heard from them
since. I really..really should have sued the shit out of them AND
Loma Linda. But..Im not a big believer in law suits for that sort of
thing. Now if they had caught it..Id never had that pesky heart
attack..nor the bypass..nor the stroke. So Im still a might pissed
off. But..they didnt kill me. Shrug.

I should mention that when I was taken in for the stroke by
Arrowhead..they told me to "sign these papers"..I would go on
permanant disability and the government would take care of me from
then on. I looked at her..and drooled out.."are you kidding? Ive got
clients who depend on me..Ill be back to work in a week or two" She
looked at me funny..and left. Seems only 5% or less of folks have a
stroke after heart surgery..and it usually either kills them....or
fucks them up for life.

2 days after I got out..I made (2) service calls for clients and got
their machines running. Of course..I couldnt remember their
names..but I could fix the machines properly and quickly. The wife
had to tell me what town they were in..but I remembered how to get
there and I drove myself..though she did ride along to make sure I
wouldnt get lost. No problem with that at all. Shrug...took a couple
more weeks for the slurring and drooling to stop..and for me to get
back to :normal". Still not great with names..but 300% better today
than I was. Folks like Larry and many others have been to the
house...they can tell you Im almost normal..I dont drool much and I
can even speak where a guy can almost understand me. Though I
did..did lose most of the several languages I could babble
out..Vietnamese, German, some Russian..Jari..the usual. Shrug

I have a CCW...and I didnt carry a weapon for almost a year..just out
of personal concern for my judgement. I could have...but I had some
anger issues as a result of the effects of the stoke..frustration and
fear mostly..but I didnt have any issues..so I started carrying again.
Had to go to my biyearly CCW requal. Id not shot for over a
year..closer to 2 yrs. Went to the class, got 100% on the paper
tests..went to the range and loaded my weapon for the first time
in..call it 18 months...fired 2 rounds..out in the 8 ring..and it all
came back..snapped back like a machine...the rest of the 60 rds were
my normal 10s and Xs. High score as usual..and 2 weeks later..entered
a combat match, took first place, rifle, shotgun and handgun. Couldnt
remember the names of my fellow shooters...chuckle..but the muscle
memory was working just fine...and I knew who they were...asked "hows
that new baby doing" and did you ever get that new AR you were talking
about 2 yrs ago?" and so on. Im fairly well known in the shooting
circles...Ive known some of those guys for 30 yrs..I simply couldnt
remember their names. I knew what kind of guns they prefered and who
was my competition and who wasnt...just the names were gone. But..tell
me their names once or twice..and I didnt forget. So I wasnt too
fucked up.

Its gotten a lot better since then and Im pretty much back to normal.
As you may recall..I didnt stop posting here on Usenet during that
time either. Which certainly helped refresh the memory. Though to be
fair... Ive read some of my posts right after the stroke..and I
noticed the difference in what I wrote..but then..people do
evolve...particularly after a lil thing like a stroke. Not much long
term drain bamage (Grin)..just enough to piss me off a mite. Mostly
all better now though..and I wouldnt wish it on my worst enemy. Better
to simply kill em..than hobble em with a stroke. Now to be fair..a lot
of posters were born brain damaged...so if they had a stroke...they
would be well and deeply fucked..more so than now.

Now Im even meaner than I was before..and take less shit from
dickheads and dildobreaths. During my 62 or so years here on Earth...
Ive been shot, stabbed, bayoneted, blown up, knocked down, bucked off,
gored, run over, dragged and beaten bloody..even fell off a mountain
once..so a little thing like heart surgery and a pesky little
stroke...no problem. My hide has more big assed dimples and zippers
than Id care to count. And I rememer how I got each and every one of
them.

So there ya go. Dont like it..feel free to ask, and Ill let you lick
the dingleberries off the taint in my ass crack. Taint? you
ask.."taint dick and taint asshole..its that little bit of skin
between em".

Now Ill let you get your 3 kopeks in and see if you have more brains
than I give you credit for.

Your turn at bat. Do the best you can..cause frankly...I think you
are a dumbshit. Prove me wrong.

Gunner

"Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in
liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support
to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that
would hang them. Why people who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked
passionately to destroy both is a fascinating question, one still with us
today. Now the useful idiots can be found in the chorus of appeasement,
reflexive anti-Americanism, and sentimental idealism trying to inhibit
the necessary responses to another freedom-hating ideology, radical Islam"

Bruce C. Thornton, a professor of Classics at American University of Cal State Fresno

[mog...@hotmail.com]

On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 7:16:35 AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:41:42 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 08:16:03 +0700, John B. <johnbs...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 04:35:42 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
> >>wrote:
> >>

> >>>http://www.vice.com/read/hey-v12n5
> >>
> >>An interesting article. Of course the first line in the article says
> >>that it is for people in "elementary school" which, in the U.S. seems
> >>to be the first 4 grads in the school system. the Wiki says for
> >>children between the ages of 4 - 11.
> >>
> >>Which apparently says something about either your reading, or
> >>comprehensive, ability.
> >>

> >>cheers,
> >>
> >>John B.
> >
> >I posted it because we have Leftists here and we all know that they
> >are dummer than dirt. Now do you have a problem with the Contents of
> >the article..or are you simply bitching because it explained things so
> >the Leftist could understand it?
> >
> >Hummm?
> >
> >Gunner
>
> No, I didn't spend a lot of time studying the article, but it seemed
> to say that at various times slavery has been a part of almost every
> society, which, of course, is true.

So has sleeping with animals. So has racial and religious discrimination. So has rape. So has robbery and state corruption.

[John B.]

On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 07:17:30 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>

But, given that it is America why haven't you approached a lawyer to
see whether you may not be entitled to some sort of compensation - a
company that is willing to just forgo $175,000 certainly must have a
reason for doing so. After all, from what I read, America is the land
of the "suits" (lawsuits) is it not?

As an aside, I just did some research on another question and
apparently something like 50,000 Americans die annually due to
preventive mistakes while in the hospital, so a suit for mal-practice
would not be an anomaly in the U.S. legal system.

>>But of course, having had one of the "stroke moment" that you so
>>frequently mention, you've probably forgotten all about that.
>
>Really?
>
>Oh..the pictures...they arent all that gruesome.
>

Some decrepit old man? With staples? All right call them "macabre".

--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

The difference is, of course, that while legal slavery - the literal
owning of another human - has become extremely rare, the sins that you
mention have not.

--
cheers,

John B.

[Larry Jaques]

On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 07:17:30 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>

It's good to know how the hospitals are treating folks so they can
justify the charges they make...

>
>Oh..the pictures...they arent all that gruesome.
>
>https://picasaweb.google.com/104042282269066802602/Bypass
>
>Just think of it as a poorly done jigsaw puzzle.
>
>These days..I dont eat junk food, I eat healthy, take all (9) meds
>everyday..exercise..do all the good things to keep me healthy.
>Shrug..being a traveling service tech for 30+ yrs...ate a lot..a lot
>of crap on the road..thought I was gonna live forever.
>
>Oh..Bakersfield Heart Hospital..Id gone into see them in
>November..some funny sensations/feelings/pain in my chest. Right after
>my insurance ran out. (yep..I had insurance until August of
>2008)..when my customers started going tits up)..they told me I had
>bronchitis. 4 hrs, no tests..3 hours of waiting room time, 50 minutes
>of waiting for the doctor to come into the room, and less..less than
>10 minutes of exam..when they found out I wasnt covered by Cobra. For
>that..they charged me $18,000. Bronchitis.....

Only $18k to tell you you had a cough? Great! This is precisely why
I thought Bammycare was a buncha bullshit. He didn't even _try_ to
make the hospitals and doctors bring their rates down to human levels.
Or should I have said "humane" there? Prolly both.

>I was home recovering from surgery..in fact..still had 178 staples in
>me..and they called and wanted their money. I told them "Ill pay you
>just as soon as I get my settlement" The gal asked.."what
>settlement?" "Well Im at home recovering from a triple bypass that
>damned near killed me..but you diagnosed all the symptoms as
>Bronchitis..so Im going to sue the hell out of you. I ought to get a
>million or so. Then Ill pay you your $18k"

Har!

>Long pause on the phone..and then she asked where Id had it done...I
>told her..and she said she'd call me back in a few minutes. 30 minutes
>later..she called back..said they were dropping the charges to zero
>and then appologized for the misdiagnosis. Ive never heard from them
>since. I really..really should have sued the shit out of them AND
>Loma Linda. But..Im not a big believer in law suits for that sort of
>thing. Now if they had caught it..Id never had that pesky heart
>attack..nor the bypass..nor the stroke. So Im still a might pissed
>off. But..they didnt kill me. Shrug.

Yes, you absolutely should have sued them for negligence.

>I should mention that when I was taken in for the stroke by
>Arrowhead..they told me to "sign these papers"..I would go on
>permanant disability and the government would take care of me from
>then on. I looked at her..and drooled out.."are you kidding? Ive got
>clients who depend on me..Ill be back to work in a week or two" She
>looked at me funny..and left. Seems only 5% or less of folks have a
>stroke after heart surgery..and it usually either kills them....or
>fucks them up for life.

One Atta Boy coming your way!

>2 days after I got out..I made (2) service calls for clients and got
>their machines running. Of course..I couldnt remember their
>names..but I could fix the machines properly and quickly. The wife
>had to tell me what town they were in..but I remembered how to get
>there and I drove myself..though she did ride along to make sure I
>wouldnt get lost. No problem with that at all. Shrug...took a couple
>more weeks for the slurring and drooling to stop..and for me to get
>back to :normal". Still not great with names..but 300% better today
>than I was. Folks like Larry and many others have been to the
>house...they can tell you Im almost normal..I dont drool much and I
>can even speak where a guy can almost understand me. Though I
>did..did lose most of the several languages I could babble
>out..Vietnamese, German, some Russian..Jari..the usual. Shrug

Smokes like a fiend but doesn't drool...much. ;)

>I have a CCW...and I didnt carry a weapon for almost a year..just out
>of personal concern for my judgement. I could have...but I had some
>anger issues as a result of the effects of the stoke..frustration and
>fear mostly..but I didnt have any issues..so I started carrying again.
>Had to go to my biyearly CCW requal. Id not shot for over a
>year..closer to 2 yrs. Went to the class, got 100% on the paper
>tests..went to the range and loaded my weapon for the first time
>in..call it 18 months...fired 2 rounds..out in the 8 ring..and it all
>came back..snapped back like a machine...the rest of the 60 rds were
>my normal 10s and Xs. High score as usual..and 2 weeks later..entered
>a combat match, took first place, rifle, shotgun and handgun. Couldnt
>remember the names of my fellow shooters...chuckle..but the muscle
>memory was working just fine...and I knew who they were...asked "hows
>that new baby doing" and did you ever get that new AR you were talking
>about 2 yrs ago?" and so on. Im fairly well known in the shooting
>circles...Ive known some of those guys for 30 yrs..I simply couldnt
>remember their names. I knew what kind of guns they prefered and who
>was my competition and who wasnt...just the names were gone. But..tell
>me their names once or twice..and I didnt forget. So I wasnt too
>fucked up.

It's a miracle some Californicator didn't get wind of a stroke victim
continuing to hold a Concealed license. They'd have ripped it from
your drool-covered hand.

> Its gotten a lot better since then and Im pretty much back to normal.
>As you may recall..I didnt stop posting here on Usenet during that
>time either. Which certainly helped refresh the memory. Though to be
>fair... Ive read some of my posts right after the stroke..and I
>noticed the difference in what I wrote..but then..people do
>evolve...particularly after a lil thing like a stroke. Not much long
>term drain bamage (Grin)..just enough to piss me off a mite. Mostly
>all better now though..and I wouldnt wish it on my worst enemy. Better
>to simply kill em..than hobble em with a stroke. Now to be fair..a lot
>of posters were born brain damaged...so if they had a stroke...they
>would be well and deeply fucked..more so than now.

Welcome back, Cotto. (Yeah, it's a type of salami.)

> Now Im even meaner than I was before..and take less shit from
>dickheads and dildobreaths. During my 62 or so years here on Earth...
>Ive been shot, stabbed, bayoneted, blown up, knocked down, bucked off,
>gored, run over, dragged and beaten bloody..even fell off a mountain
>once..so a little thing like heart surgery and a pesky little
>stroke...no problem. My hide has more big assed dimples and zippers
>than Id care to count. And I rememer how I got each and every one of
>them.

What doesn't kill you, only makes you hurt more.

Get video of the lickin' so you can enjoy it later.

--
We are always the same age inside.
-- Gertrude Stein

[Gunner Asch]

On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 10:06:29 +0700, John B. <johnbs...@gmail.com>

You dont understand California do you? When I had the heart attack..my
first stop was at Arrowhead. There were 75 illegal alien patients
ahead of me..so they plugged me into a monitor and left me on a gurney
in the hallway for 6 hours until they could get a doctor available to
see me. Id walked in the front door on my own power..so they figured I
was "ok". They later told me Id had a 8 out of a 10 heart attack.
They tried an angioplasty..when that didnt work..they put me, along
with a "booster heart" in an ambulance and sent me on to Loma
Linda..because they didnt do bypasses at that time. Brand new
hospital. Less than a year old.

We have 12 million wetbacks living here..and far leftwing politicians
run the state, despite most of it being Red on a map. So if the wets
and their 5-8 children get free medical...taxpayers should get
something for their money.

https://www.google.com/search?q=california+medical+illegal+aliens&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/9/nearly-20m-illegal-immigrants-us-ex-border-patrol/

https://www.capsweb.org/sites/default/files/nlsummer05.pdf

Now keep in mind..that those 20 million wets..have at least another 20
million "anchor babies"..childen of wets who were born inside of the
US borders..and their parents pay little in taxes, insurance or much
of anything else.

From 5 yrs ago..and then based on (fraudulant) understated goverment
data)

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2010/08/4-million-illegal-alien-anchor-babies-u-s/

Dont believe its understated? Come to California..visit any hospital.
The waiting rooms are filled with ninos and their very pregnant
mommacitas. Vist any southern border in the US...and you will find
that 25% of the women..single or not..are coming over..pregnant.

>
>As an aside, I just did some research on another question and
>apparently something like 50,000 Americans die annually due to
>preventive mistakes while in the hospital, so a suit for mal-practice
>would not be an anomaly in the U.S. legal system.

Ayup. and its more like 440,000 malpractice deaths. Its the leading
cause of death in the US other than natural causes like cancer etc
etc.
http://www.medicalmalpracticelawyer.center/2014/05/new-study-confirms-440000-deat.html

Shrug..guns, drunk drivers, islamic fundies, lovers quarrels etc
etc..all combined doesnt even come close to a fraction of the
malpractice deaths every year.

>
>
>
>>>But of course, having had one of the "stroke moment" that you so
>>>frequently mention, you've probably forgotten all about that.
>>
>>Really?
>>
>>Oh..the pictures...they arent all that gruesome.
>>
>
>Some decrepit old man? With staples? All right call them "macabre".

I call em signs of a life saving procedure.

Ive had lots of staples, sutures, drains, etc etc over my life time.
Never quite that many at once..left some interesting scars..but...

Ever seen how they stitch up the departed after an autopsy? Mine are
much more preferable..trust me. And while my brain was a bit
scrambled..tiny bit..it was still firmly attached to my spine and
still inside my skull, rather than in a jar.

They have dug around inside my skull 2x in my life..Id rather they
didnt do that again until the autopsy...say...150 yrs from now.
My family tends to heal up quickly and pretty well..so that chunk of
driving band that they dug out of my skull back in '73..really didnt
have all that much effect on me..once the swelling had gone down. Ive
mentioned waking up in Honsu Japan, blind and paralyised. Shortly
there after..swelling went down..and I walked out a week later and
took the grand tour of Europe..walkabout style.

I was pure and simply..lucky as hell. Praise be to Crom!

As to the 'decrepit old man"...this is me 3 yrs after the surgery..

https://picasaweb.google.com/104042282269066802602/Gunner#5678316893109196866
https://picasaweb.google.com/104042282269066802602/Gunner#5746305933814272130
https://picasaweb.google.com/104042282269066802602/Gunner#6006391664171920098
And a year ago
https://picasaweb.google.com/104042282269066802602/Oday#6011974645853456386

So 5 yrs later..I look a hell of a lot better. And I got my first set
of full dentures today..so I smile much better too! (Grin)

Course we age better than many folks..my Dad last year at age 83

https://picasaweb.google.com/104042282269066802602/Friends#6128955705320630338
And his new 47 yr old wife
https://picasaweb.google.com/104042282269066802602/Friends#6067743605485904418

She told me he only needs Viagra if they plan on an all nighter.
Shrug. So far...Ive had no sign of needing it. But Ill only be 62 in
November.

What..nothing else to say? Works for me.

Gunner, getting ready to go down to Riverside California for service
calls through Friday..and letting his new teeth rest in the jar. Gonna
take some getting used to..that and dealing with the slurring.
Almost...like dealing with the after effects of ..a stroke.
Almost.

[Gunner Asch]

You didnt know this?

>
>
>
>>
>>Oh..the pictures...they arent all that gruesome.
>>
>>https://picasaweb.google.com/104042282269066802602/Bypass
>>
>>Just think of it as a poorly done jigsaw puzzle.
>>
>>These days..I dont eat junk food, I eat healthy, take all (9) meds
>>everyday..exercise..do all the good things to keep me healthy.
>>Shrug..being a traveling service tech for 30+ yrs...ate a lot..a lot
>>of crap on the road..thought I was gonna live forever.
>>
>>Oh..Bakersfield Heart Hospital..Id gone into see them in
>>November..some funny sensations/feelings/pain in my chest. Right after
>>my insurance ran out. (yep..I had insurance until August of
>>2008)..when my customers started going tits up)..they told me I had
>>bronchitis. 4 hrs, no tests..3 hours of waiting room time, 50 minutes
>>of waiting for the doctor to come into the room, and less..less than
>>10 minutes of exam..when they found out I wasnt covered by Cobra. For
>>that..they charged me $18,000. Bronchitis.....
>
>Only $18k to tell you you had a cough? Great! This is precisely why
>I thought Bammycare was a buncha bullshit. He didn't even _try_ to
>make the hospitals and doctors bring their rates down to human levels.
>Or should I have said "humane" there? Prolly both.

Cough? I didnt have a cough..I had "discomfort" in my chest and
numbness in my right arm and hand. Obviously..bronchitis..right?

>
>
>
>>I was home recovering from surgery..in fact..still had 178 staples in
>>me..and they called and wanted their money. I told them "Ill pay you
>>just as soon as I get my settlement" The gal asked.."what
>>settlement?" "Well Im at home recovering from a triple bypass that
>>damned near killed me..but you diagnosed all the symptoms as
>>Bronchitis..so Im going to sue the hell out of you. I ought to get a
>>million or so. Then Ill pay you your $18k"
>
>Har!
>
>
>>Long pause on the phone..and then she asked where Id had it done...I
>>told her..and she said she'd call me back in a few minutes. 30 minutes
>>later..she called back..said they were dropping the charges to zero
>>and then appologized for the misdiagnosis. Ive never heard from them
>>since. I really..really should have sued the shit out of them AND
>>Loma Linda. But..Im not a big believer in law suits for that sort of
>>thing. Now if they had caught it..Id never had that pesky heart
>>attack..nor the bypass..nor the stroke. So Im still a might pissed
>>off. But..they didnt kill me. Shrug.
>
>Yes, you absolutely should have sued them for negligence.

I wasnt thinking very well frankly..and you know me well enough to
know I tend to not think that way in the first place.

>
>
>>I should mention that when I was taken in for the stroke by
>>Arrowhead..they told me to "sign these papers"..I would go on
>>permanant disability and the government would take care of me from
>>then on. I looked at her..and drooled out.."are you kidding? Ive got
>>clients who depend on me..Ill be back to work in a week or two" She
>>looked at me funny..and left. Seems only 5% or less of folks have a
>>stroke after heart surgery..and it usually either kills them....or
>>fucks them up for life.
>
>One Atta Boy coming your way!

I sacrifice the viginity of at least one girl each year to Crom.

>
>
>>2 days after I got out..I made (2) service calls for clients and got
>>their machines running. Of course..I couldnt remember their
>>names..but I could fix the machines properly and quickly. The wife
>>had to tell me what town they were in..but I remembered how to get
>>there and I drove myself..though she did ride along to make sure I
>>wouldnt get lost. No problem with that at all. Shrug...took a couple
>>more weeks for the slurring and drooling to stop..and for me to get
>>back to :normal". Still not great with names..but 300% better today
>>than I was. Folks like Larry and many others have been to the
>>house...they can tell you Im almost normal..I dont drool much and I
>>can even speak where a guy can almost understand me. Though I
>>did..did lose most of the several languages I could babble
>>out..Vietnamese, German, some Russian..Jari..the usual. Shrug
>
>Smokes like a fiend but doesn't drool...much. ;)

1 pack a day. Period. Compared to many people..its not much.

And if I have any weakness at all..its the inabliity to quit smoking.
and Crom knows Ive tried..19 times so far..patches, counseling, etc
etc etc. I need to do the hypnosis thing again. Last time..worked for
6 months..but I didnt go back for a refresher..my mistake. I simply
enjoy smoking too much. Though to be honest..I may have to relite a
cig 3-5 times. I tend to simply have it in my mouth and dont suck on
it. Something like a childs comfort toy. Shrug.

>
>
>>I have a CCW...and I didnt carry a weapon for almost a year..just out
>>of personal concern for my judgement. I could have...but I had some
>>anger issues as a result of the effects of the stoke..frustration and
>>fear mostly..but I didnt have any issues..so I started carrying again.
>>Had to go to my biyearly CCW requal. Id not shot for over a
>>year..closer to 2 yrs. Went to the class, got 100% on the paper
>>tests..went to the range and loaded my weapon for the first time
>>in..call it 18 months...fired 2 rounds..out in the 8 ring..and it all
>>came back..snapped back like a machine...the rest of the 60 rds were
>>my normal 10s and Xs. High score as usual..and 2 weeks later..entered
>>a combat match, took first place, rifle, shotgun and handgun. Couldnt
>>remember the names of my fellow shooters...chuckle..but the muscle
>>memory was working just fine...and I knew who they were...asked "hows
>>that new baby doing" and did you ever get that new AR you were talking
>>about 2 yrs ago?" and so on. Im fairly well known in the shooting
>>circles...Ive known some of those guys for 30 yrs..I simply couldnt
>>remember their names. I knew what kind of guns they prefered and who
>>was my competition and who wasnt...just the names were gone. But..tell
>>me their names once or twice..and I didnt forget. So I wasnt too
>>fucked up.
>
>It's a miracle some Californicator didn't get wind of a stroke victim
>continuing to hold a Concealed license. They'd have ripped it from
>your drool-covered hand.

Not in my county. Which among other reasons..I still live in Kern Co.
We have more CCWs than the ENTIRE rest of the state...combined.

>
>
>> Its gotten a lot better since then and Im pretty much back to normal.
>>As you may recall..I didnt stop posting here on Usenet during that
>>time either. Which certainly helped refresh the memory. Though to be
>>fair... Ive read some of my posts right after the stroke..and I
>>noticed the difference in what I wrote..but then..people do
>>evolve...particularly after a lil thing like a stroke. Not much long
>>term drain bamage (Grin)..just enough to piss me off a mite. Mostly
>>all better now though..and I wouldnt wish it on my worst enemy. Better
>>to simply kill em..than hobble em with a stroke. Now to be fair..a lot
>>of posters were born brain damaged...so if they had a stroke...they
>>would be well and deeply fucked..more so than now.
>
>Welcome back, Cotto. (Yeah, it's a type of salami.)

Danks ma'n! (whiping drool)

>
>
>> Now Im even meaner than I was before..and take less shit from
>>dickheads and dildobreaths. During my 62 or so years here on Earth...
>>Ive been shot, stabbed, bayoneted, blown up, knocked down, bucked off,
>>gored, run over, dragged and beaten bloody..even fell off a mountain
>>once..so a little thing like heart surgery and a pesky little
>>stroke...no problem. My hide has more big assed dimples and zippers
>>than Id care to count. And I rememer how I got each and every one of
>>them.
>
>What doesn't kill you, only makes you hurt more.

Well..some mornings..its not a hell of a lot of fun to get out of
bed..particularly when Im under a half dozen big dogs. Easier to
simply go back to sleep. (Grin)

>
>Get video of the lickin' so you can enjoy it later.

Did that Sunday..wife and I took a new lady friend sailing. A good
time was had by all. Anchors work when one wants to park someplace
private and visit..nature. Didnt bring a camera this time..maybe the
next time. (Wink)

Gunner

[John B.]

On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 21:21:29 -0700, Larry Jaques

Do a search on "U.S. Medical care", it is appalling. the U.S.
apparently has the highest priced medical care in the world and is
rated last in quality of all the major developed countries.

--
cheers,

John B.

[Ed Huntress]

On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 18:23:15 +0700, John B. <johnbs...@gmail.com>

I hope you realize that you're responding to what is, most likely, a
pile of horse manure.

On the lawsuits: Doctors and hospitals are specifically exempt from
liability for misdiagnosis with EMTALA emergency patients.

That's just one example.

--
Ed Huntress

[Larry Jaques]

On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 23:36:25 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 21:21:29 -0700, Larry Jaques
><lja...@invalid.diversifycomm.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 07:17:30 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:

>>>The stroke ...that was cared for by Riverside Co. ..Arrowhead Medical
>>>Center. 2 shots, 1 IV and 4 days of rather yukky food..and it cost me
>>>$135k. I went in on Friday..their stroke guy didnt show up until
>>>Monday..he had been on a camping trip. Shrug..they released me the
>>>next day.
>>
>>It's good to know how the hospitals are treating folks so they can
>>justify the charges they make...
>
>You didnt know this?

I don't remember having heard it all together before. It hurts to
listen to, y'know? (I suppose even moreso for you, as you lived it.)

>>Only $18k to tell you you had a cough? Great! This is precisely why
>>I thought Bammycare was a buncha bullshit. He didn't even _try_ to
>>make the hospitals and doctors bring their rates down to human levels.
>>Or should I have said "humane" there? Prolly both.
>
>Cough? I didnt have a cough..I had "discomfort" in my chest and
>numbness in my right arm and hand. Obviously..bronchitis..right?

No, I was wondering how they could justify the complex cost of their
simplistic diagnosis.

>>Yes, you absolutely should have sued them for negligence.
>
>I wasnt thinking very well frankly..and you know me well enough to
>know I tend to not think that way in the first place.

Yes, I know, and I usually agree that lawsuits aren't a good idea, but
if some negligent entity could be made aware of its negligence and
save some lives, it's a Good Thing(tm). Those doctors and nurses are
going to have some mighty nasty karma to work out next time around, if
not sooner.

>>>I should mention that when I was taken in for the stroke by
>>>Arrowhead..they told me to "sign these papers"..I would go on
>>>permanant disability and the government would take care of me from
>>>then on. I looked at her..and drooled out.."are you kidding? Ive got
>>>clients who depend on me..Ill be back to work in a week or two" She
>>>looked at me funny..and left. Seems only 5% or less of folks have a
>>>stroke after heart surgery..and it usually either kills them....or
>>>fucks them up for life.
>>
>>One Atta Boy coming your way!
>
>I sacrifice the viginity of at least one girl each year to Crom.

A worthy cause.

>>>2 days after I got out..I made (2) service calls for clients and got
>>>their machines running. Of course..I couldnt remember their
>>>names..but I could fix the machines properly and quickly. The wife
>>>had to tell me what town they were in..but I remembered how to get
>>>there and I drove myself..though she did ride along to make sure I
>>>wouldnt get lost. No problem with that at all. Shrug...took a couple
>>>more weeks for the slurring and drooling to stop..and for me to get
>>>back to :normal". Still not great with names..but 300% better today
>>>than I was. Folks like Larry and many others have been to the
>>>house...they can tell you Im almost normal..I dont drool much and I
>>>can even speak where a guy can almost understand me. Though I
>>>did..did lose most of the several languages I could babble
>>>out..Vietnamese, German, some Russian..Jari..the usual. Shrug
>>
>>Smokes like a fiend but doesn't drool...much. ;)
>
>1 pack a day. Period. Compared to many people..its not much.

I'm surprised it's that little. I used to smoke 2+ when I did. Egad,
what a fool; glad I'm over that and the drinking.

>And if I have any weakness at all..its the inabliity to quit smoking.
>and Crom knows Ive tried..19 times so far..patches, counseling, etc
>etc etc. I need to do the hypnosis thing again. Last time..worked for
>6 months..but I didnt go back for a refresher..my mistake. I simply
>enjoy smoking too much. Though to be honest..I may have to relite a
>cig 3-5 times. I tend to simply have it in my mouth and dont suck on
>it. Something like a childs comfort toy. Shrug.

Quitting smoking is a choice, and it's very easy to do once you make
that choice. I cheated. Trying to quit, I had cut back to less than
half a pack a day. One day I woke up with the flu, and didn't smoke
for a few days. The first time I started feeling better and wanted a
cig, I caught myself, saying "Well, you are 3 days free of nicotine,
so why not just quit now." and I did. I crushed and flushed the pack
and never looked back. It was the 2nd best thing I've ever done.
Quitting drinking was the first.

Anyway, when you smarten up, you'll make that choice, too.

>>>I have a CCW...and I didnt carry a weapon for almost a year..just out
>>>of personal concern for my judgement. I could have...but I had some
>>>anger issues as a result of the effects of the stoke..frustration and
>>>fear mostly..but I didnt have any issues..so I started carrying again.

Well done, sir.

>>>Had to go to my biyearly CCW requal. Id not shot for over a
>>>year..closer to 2 yrs. Went to the class, got 100% on the paper
>>>tests..went to the range and loaded my weapon for the first time
>>>in..call it 18 months...fired 2 rounds..out in the 8 ring..and it all
>>>came back..snapped back like a machine...the rest of the 60 rds were

Huh? My qual for Oregon is the instructor seeing me put two thru
paper at 15'. We all did a mag and he gave me kudos, but everyone was
bitching about the noise that little KelTec P-111 makes with the 3.5"
barrel. They say is sounds more like a 12ga than a 9mm when it goes
off. <g>

>>>my normal 10s and Xs. High score as usual..and 2 weeks later..entered
>>>a combat match, took first place, rifle, shotgun and handgun. Couldnt
>>>remember the names of my fellow shooters...chuckle..but the muscle
>>>memory was working just fine...and I knew who they were...asked "hows
>>>that new baby doing" and did you ever get that new AR you were talking
>>>about 2 yrs ago?" and so on. Im fairly well known in the shooting
>>>circles...Ive known some of those guys for 30 yrs..I simply couldnt
>>>remember their names. I knew what kind of guns they prefered and who
>>>was my competition and who wasnt...just the names were gone. But..tell
>>>me their names once or twice..and I didnt forget. So I wasnt too
>>>fucked up.

Bueno, bwana.

>>It's a miracle some Californicator didn't get wind of a stroke victim
>>continuing to hold a Concealed license. They'd have ripped it from
>>your drool-covered hand.
>
>Not in my county. Which among other reasons..I still live in Kern Co.
>We have more CCWs than the ENTIRE rest of the state...combined.

Kudos, Kern County! But the sheriff would have to go by a doctor's
recommendation and foreclose on it, so you're lucky. Had you been
carrying when you were taken to the hospital, I'll bet the doctor
(which tried to kill you) would have done just that.

>>> Its gotten a lot better since then and Im pretty much back to normal.
>>>As you may recall..I didnt stop posting here on Usenet during that
>>>time either. Which certainly helped refresh the memory. Though to be
>>>fair... Ive read some of my posts right after the stroke..and I
>>>noticed the difference in what I wrote..but then..people do
>>>evolve...particularly after a lil thing like a stroke. Not much long
>>>term drain bamage (Grin)..just enough to piss me off a mite. Mostly
>>>all better now though..and I wouldnt wish it on my worst enemy. Better
>>>to simply kill em..than hobble em with a stroke. Now to be fair..a lot
>>>of posters were born brain damaged...so if they had a stroke...they
>>>would be well and deeply fucked..more so than now.
>>
>>Welcome back, Cotto. (Yeah, it's a type of salami.)
>
>Danks ma'n! (whiping drool)

Jewelcome.

>>What doesn't kill you, only makes you hurt more.
>
>Well..some mornings..its not a hell of a lot of fun to get out of
>bed..particularly when Im under a half dozen big dogs. Easier to
>simply go back to sleep. (Grin)

>>Get video of the lickin' so you can enjoy it later.
>
>Did that Sunday..wife and I took a new lady friend sailing. A good

No, I meant with the taint licker here you were offering a chance to.

>time was had by all. Anchors work when one wants to park someplace
>private and visit..nature. Didnt bring a camera this time..maybe the
>next time. (Wink)

Do that!

[Martin Eastburn]

The Radical Senate and House and then the states voted the Amendment
to become part of the constitution. Naturally who was left in the
South? Who was active in the Senate and House that came from the
south ? Jailed or run off or dead.

White indentured servants are slaves to the master. It might be
10, 20 or lifetime. And the work load was high and mean in many
cases. Remember the poor Irish - no money to begin with - indentured.
They were often beat and treated like trash.

The blacks in the north that were slaves were not freed by the
Gettysburg address (a speech) and didn't end when Atlanta was burned.
They were freed only after the constitution amendment came about.

Martin

On 7/5/2015 7:04 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 20:05:24 -0500, Martin Eastburn
> <lion...@consolidated.net> wrote:
>
>> And let us not forget the NORTH was FORCED to give freedom to slaves
>> when and only when the constitution was amended to prevent slavery.
>
> And who amended the Constitution, Martin? Are you saying that the
> northerners forced themselves?
>

[Martin Eastburn]

http://www.theroot.com/articles/politics/2013/02/the_threefifths_clause_the_compromise_over_slavery_and_its_lingering_effects.html

http://www.theroot.com/articles/politics/2012/11/about_us.html <<<
"

The Power of a Fraction

The three-fifths clause is perhaps the most misunderstood provision of
the U.S. Constitution. The clause provides that representation in
Congress will be based on "the whole Number of free Persons" and "three
fifths of all other Persons." The "other Persons" were slaves. Despite
popular understandings, this provision did not declare that African
Americans were three-fifths of a person. Rather, the provision declared
that the slave states would get extra representation in Congress for
their slaves, even though those states treated slaves purely as property.

Thus, this was a provision that was not directly about race but about
status and the allocation of political power. Free blacks were counted
in exactly the same way as whites. The clause did not say that a slave
was three-fifths of a person. The clause said nothing about free blacks,
who were treated by the clause exactly as free whites were.

Rather, the clause provided a mathematical formula that allowed for the
allocation of representatives in Congress that factored in the slave
population. No slaves could vote in the country (although free blacks
could vote in a number of states), and the clause did not provide a
voice for slaves. This was about the distribution of political power
among the states.
"
Remember slaves were not immigrated through government houses. They
were a source of hard labor. The south got representatives for the
House.


Martin

[Ed Huntress]

On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 21:12:22 -0500, Martin Eastburn
<lion...@consolidated.net> wrote:

>The Radical Senate and House and then the states voted the Amendment
>to become part of the constitution.

That's what I was suggesting. The North held the power. The
governments of the southern states were re-formed by delegations
approved by President Johnson. These were the "Reconstruction
Governments." In other words, puppet governments constrained by the
North.

So when you say that the North "was forced to give freedom to slaves,"
it's a contradiction in facts. It was the North that *voted* for
freedom for slaves. The southern states that also ratified the 13th
Amendment were run by northern-puppet governments.

>Naturally who was left in the
>South? Who was active in the Senate and House that came from the
>south ? Jailed or run off or dead.

They had governments, ones that were "approved" by Johnson, and they
voted.

>
>White indentured servants are slaves to the master.

No. Different laws. Their lives were protected much more than those of
slaves.

>It might be
>10, 20 or lifetime.

Show us an example. The standard term of indenture usually was five
years, although it varied with the cost of passage that was being paid
for.

> And the work load was high and mean in many
>cases.

Sure.

> Remember the poor Irish - no money to begin with - indentured.
>They were often beat and treated like trash.

Right.

>
>The blacks in the north that were slaves were not freed by the
>Gettysburg address (a speech) and didn't end when Atlanta was burned.
>They were freed only after the constitution amendment came about.

Correct. But the North wasn't "forced" to give them up. It was the
North that VOTED to give them up.

--
Ed Huntress

[Larry Jaques]

On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 23:25:47 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>

It's changing the face of America, changing the direction we're going
when all these folks vote, and Caucasians will be the minority in 25
years, if it keeps up. Mexico will have its land back, plus our
country. Does that bother anyone besides me?

>>As an aside, I just did some research on another question and
>>apparently something like 50,000 Americans die annually due to
>>preventive mistakes while in the hospital, so a suit for mal-practice
>>would not be an anomaly in the U.S. legal system.
>
>Ayup. and its more like 440,000 malpractice deaths. Its the leading
>cause of death in the US other than natural causes like cancer etc
>etc.
>http://www.medicalmalpracticelawyer.center/2014/05/new-study-confirms-440000-deat.html
>
>Shrug..guns, drunk drivers, islamic fundies, lovers quarrels etc
>etc..all combined doesnt even come close to a fraction of the
>malpractice deaths every year.

Exactly. I've read that it's 986k for doctor/hospital related deaths.
So many there's a word for it: iatrogenic
i?atr?'jenik/
adjective: iatrogenic
of or relating to illness caused by medical examination or treatment.

>So 5 yrs later..I look a hell of a lot better. And I got my first set
>of full dentures today..so I smile much better too! (Grin)

Congrats/condolences, sir.

>Course we age better than many folks..my Dad last year at age 83
>
>https://picasaweb.google.com/104042282269066802602/Friends#6128955705320630338
>And his new 47 yr old wife
>https://picasaweb.google.com/104042282269066802602/Friends#6067743605485904418
>
>She told me he only needs Viagra if they plan on an all nighter.
>Shrug. So far...Ive had no sign of needing it. But Ill only be 62 in
>November.

He purely looks happy with her in that pic.

>Gunner, getting ready to go down to Riverside California for service
>calls through Friday..and letting his new teeth rest in the jar. Gonna
>take some getting used to..that and dealing with the slurring.
>Almost...like dealing with the after effects of ..a stroke.
>Almost.

Ditto here with the new upper partial. It doesn't fit right, gets in
the way of my tongue at the roof of my mouth, and they want $500 to
reline the fucking thing. No way. (Mom was paying $30 just 20 years
ago for her relines. I'll learn how and get the materials to do it
myself before I spit out that kind of cash for a cheap fix.

[Martin Eastburn]

I'm saying the business men, farmers and such in the north were
forced to free their slaves once the Amendment was approved.

Martin

[Ed Huntress]

On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 22:11:56 -0500, Martin Eastburn
<lion...@consolidated.net> wrote:

>I'm saying the business men, farmers and such in the north were
>forced to free their slaves once the Amendment was approved.
>
>Martin

Right, but that was no more than 7% of the number of slaves in the
South. It was not the economic basis of the North's economy. Most of
the northern states had abolished slavery before the Civil War,
although in some states, like NJ, slavery was "abolished" in 1823, but
actually remained in effect until 1865.

--
Ed Huntress

[Martin Eastburn]

But you are trying to number away the ill will towards blacks.

Any slave in the north after Gettysburg should have been freed.
However they didn't abide by the thoughts of a president but
by greed as long as possible.

Being outlawed on paper doesn't mean there are not any slaves.

June 'teeth' goes and proves that. The slaves were released
late in some of the south because of news was slow to come.

Remember the phone wasn't invented yet and telegraph lines were
all destroyed. It was back to horseback.
Many of those smart enough to run a telegraph were dead or run
out of town. Those left were carpet baggers from the north
displaced blacks.

Martin

[David Dietrich]

On 7/4/2015 8:28 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 08:18:23 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 20:16:16 +0700, John B. <johnbs...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 01:50:26 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 06:18:30 +0700, John B. <johnbs...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2015 15:06:25 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:16:31 +0700, John B. <johnbs...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:41:42 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 08:16:03 +0700, John B. <johnbs...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 04:35:42 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.vice.com/read/hey-v12n5
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> An interesting article. Of course the first line in the article says
>>>>>>>>> that it is for people in "elementary school" which, in the U.S. seems
>>>>>>>>> to be the first 4 grads in the school system. the Wiki says for
>>>>>>>>> children between the ages of 4 - 11.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which apparently says something about either your reading, or
>>>>>>>>> comprehensive, ability.
>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> --

>>>>>>>>> cheers,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> John B.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I posted it because we have Leftists here and we all know that they
>>>>>>>> are dummer than dirt. Now do you have a problem with the Contents of
>>>>>>>> the article..or are you simply bitching because it explained things so
>>>>>>>> the Leftist could understand it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hummm?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gunner
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, I didn't spend a lot of time studying the article, but it seemed
>>>>>>> to say that at various times slavery has been a part of almost every

>>>>>>> society, which, of course, is true. After winning the Battle of
>>>>>>> Alesia, September, 52 BC, Julius Caesar gave each soldier in his army
>>>>>>> one of the captured as a slave. This amounted to something like forty
>>>>>>> thousand slaves.... from a single campaign. In his eight years of
>>>>>>> campaigning against the Gaul's, he was said to have enslaved more than
>>>>>>> a million people.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What the article seemed to ignore was that in nearly every society
>>>>>>> slavery died out primarily because slaves, while cost effective in a
>>>>>>> purely agricultural environment are somewhat less efficient when the
>>>>>>> society becomes less dependent on agriculture and begins to depend
>>>>>>> more on machinery.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes..and your excellent summation had what to do with Leftist world
>>>>>> views?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gunner
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know, after all you would be a far better spokesman for the
>>>>> "leftist" side of things, being the recipient of government furnished
>>>>> medical care. In a purely "rightist" environment - pay for what you
>>>>> get - you would be under the ground.
>>>>
>>>> Odd.."government supplied medical care". Oh..you mean like Medicare
>>>> and VA care and whatnot?
>>>>
>>>> Gunner
>>>
>>> Nope, I was referring to the government mandated laws that say a
>>> hospital must give emergency treatment. If you had to prove that you
>>> were capable of paying the medical bills before you were admitted you
>>> would be laying six feet below the surface.
>>
>> Say..does that work the same with with Medicare and the VA?
>>
>> Hummm?
>>
>> Now..if you have a problem with the "government mandated
>> laws"..perhaps you should take it up with the government?
>>
>> Or are you simply being an ass visa vis me, personally? And if
>> so..how did I manage to piss in your cornflakes?
>>
>> Hummm?
>
> Irregardless

Not a word, gummy-bitch.

[David Dietrich]

On 7/3/2015 3:12 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 21:11:28 +0700, Jophn B. slocomb
> <johnbs...@geemail.com> wrote:

>>> That's not what happened in the US, however. Slavery died out because
>>> the federal government prevented westward expansion of slavery, which
>>> provoked a war that led to the outlawing of slavery.
>>>
>>> Federal resistance to expansion of slavery limited the growth of
>>> cotton agriculture. In fact, it guarenteed that it would become less
>>> profitable, because cotton wears the hell out of the soil, and
>>> southern plantations were already beginning to lose productivity.
>>
>> I think that you are ignoring the decrease in slavery in the northern,
>> industrializing, States. The New England states, Maine - Connecticut,
>> had a slave population of 2,703 in 1790 and in 1820 it was 145. The
>> Middle States, New York - Delaware, had 45,910 in 1790 and by 1820
>> were at 22,305.
>>
>> The Southern States, in contrast, went from 648,131 in 1790 to
>> 1,319,208 in 1820.
>
> Yet by 1860, a young strong male slave was valued at approx $40k
> (todays price) and less than 13% of Southerners were slave
> owners...with the top 30 slave owners/sellers...being
> themselves...black.

Cite.

It's bullshit.

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 22:28:29 -0500, Martin Eastburn
<lion...@consolidated.net> wrote:

>But you are trying to number away the ill will towards blacks.

No, I'm just pointing out that slaves were a trivial part of the
North's economy, but they were the foundation of virtually the whole
of the South's economy.

The North wasn't fighting to preserve slavery. The South was fighting
to preserve slavery. No slaves, no cotton. No cotton, no exports from
the South. No exports, no economy. The South was totally dependent
upon slave labor. The North was not. As for "ill will," it didn't
enter into the economic equation.

>
>Any slave in the north after Gettysburg should have been freed.

Why? Emancipation was not a reason that the North fought the war. They
fought to preserve the union, which would have been severely weakened,
militarily and economically, without the southern states.

>However they didn't abide by the thoughts of a president but
>by greed as long as possible.

Nobody has to "abide" by the thoughts of a president. They may have to
abide by his actions, depending on what those actions are.

>
>Being outlawed on paper doesn't mean there are not any slaves.

Of course.

>
>June 'teeth' goes and proves that. The slaves were released
>late in some of the south because of news was slow to come.

Baloney.

>
>Remember the phone wasn't invented yet and telegraph lines were
>all destroyed. It was back to horseback.

Lee surrendered on April 9th. Every major general in the South
discussed what to do about it by May 19th. Ships at sea didn't learn
until June.

>Many of those smart enough to run a telegraph were dead or run
>out of town. Those left were carpet baggers from the north
>displaced blacks.

You must have some interesting history books, Martin.

--
Ed Huntress

[RogerN]

>"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
>news:vmv4paph6k7dvvie0...@4ax.com...
>
>http://www.vice.com/read/hey-v12n5

I you have decent internet, I think you'll love this brilliant Jewish man,
Evan Sayet, he used to write for Bill Maher's show.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDzUkbEVkMg

RogerN