On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 04:35:42 -0700, Gunner Asch
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.

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 08:16:03 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 04:35:42 -0700, Gunner Asch
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

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:41:42 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 08:16:03 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 04:35:42 -0700, Gunner Asch
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.

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:16:31 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:41:42 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 08:16:03 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 04:35:42 -0700, Gunner Asch
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.

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

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 07:40:52 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:16:31 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:41:42 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 08:16:03 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 04:35:42 -0700, Gunner Asch
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.

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.

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.

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

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 07:40:52 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:16:31 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:41:42 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 08:16:03 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 04:35:42 -0700, Gunner Asch
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.

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.

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%.

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

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

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 07:40:52 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:16:31 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:41:42 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 08:16:03 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 04:35:42 -0700, Gunner Asch
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.

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.


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

On 7/1/2015 4:40 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:16:31 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:41:42 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 08:16:03 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 04:35:42 -0700, Gunner Asch
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.

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.

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.

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 07:49:35 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 7/1/2015 4:40 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:16:31 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:41:42 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 08:16:03 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 04:35:42 -0700, Gunner Asch
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.

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.

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.

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" wrote in message
...
On 7/1/2015 4:40 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:16:31 +0700, John B.

wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:41:42 -0700, Gunner Asch

wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 08:16:03 +0700, John B.

wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 04:35:42 -0700, Gunner Asch

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.

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.

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.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Compromise
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas...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/F..._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

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:16:31 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:41:42 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 08:16:03 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 04:35:42 -0700, Gunner Asch
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

On Fri, 03 Jul 2015 15:06:25 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:16:31 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:41:42 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 08:16:03 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 04:35:42 -0700, Gunner Asch
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.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 06:18:30 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Fri, 03 Jul 2015 15:06:25 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:16:31 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:41:42 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 08:16:03 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 04:35:42 -0700, Gunner Asch
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

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
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 08:16:03 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 04:35:42 -0700, Gunner Asch
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.

On Tue, 7 Jul 2015 11:14:45 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

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
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 08:16:03 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 04:35:42 -0700, Gunner Asch
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.

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.