Conquer Club

PLAYER57832 wrote:

WILLIAMS5232 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:(Note: both of my children graduated from Biloxi High School and I have actually liked most of the Mississippians I've met).

I graduated from d'Iberville high.



judging from your military background ( best i can tell ) you must have been stationed at keesler?

i grew up in saucier. not sure how well you know the area.

Saucier?

Better known as "So-shay".

WILLIAMS5232 wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

WILLIAMS5232 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:(Note: both of my children graduated from Biloxi High School and I have actually liked most of the Mississippians I've met).

I graduated from d'Iberville high.



judging from your military background ( best i can tell ) you must have been stationed at keesler?

i grew up in saucier. not sure how well you know the area.

Saucier?

yeah, pronounced "so-shur" by the locals.
it's funny. because there's also a place called gautier. it's pronounced "go-shay" by the same locals.....

Oh, that's right...I was actually thinking of Gautier when I mispronounced Saucier.

spurgistan wrote:

Nola_Lifer wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Nola_Lifer wrote: The only slave I know of today are the slaves of ideological bs and the poor women who are sex slaves.

You forget some agricultural workers, even here today in the US.. and some factory workers as well. I don't want to divert this topic yet further, but slavery very much exists today, and is always worse when immigration crackdowns are intensified.

The immigrants that come from South of our border to work in our fields aren't slaves. They knowingly come to do the work here and get paid. They live fine and are actually able to save to send back to home. In fact, when Alabama passed its laws they left leaving no workers to do the jobs. Farmers had to cut back the size of their farm. So I wouldn't call them slaves. There are probably still children doing labor but I don't always see that as a bad thing if their working conditions are good(in reality they probably aren't).

Just because they come willingly doesn't mean illegals working in agriculture and meatpacking aren't living at the whims of their employer, generally afraid to complain about illegal working conditions and facing immigration raids curiously timed to paydays.

The illegal immigrants are incapable of seeking legal redress because of the prohibition on nearly all immigrants enforced by the US federal government. It's like damning drug producers for poor quality and for shooting each other while overlooking the state-mandated prohibition which prevents individuals within the markets from using the legal system to resolve these problems.

To be polemical: the market provides while the government stomps on them.

WILLIAMS5232 wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

WILLIAMS5232 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:(Note: both of my children graduated from Biloxi High School and I have actually liked most of the Mississippians I've met).

I graduated from d'Iberville high.



judging from your military background ( best i can tell ) you must have been stationed at keesler?

i grew up in saucier. not sure how well you know the area.

Saucier?

yeah, pronounced "so-shur" by the locals.
it's funny. because there's also a place called gautier. it's pronounced "go-shay" by the same locals.....

Yeah, speant a fair amount of time in the mall there.

WILLIAMS5232 wrote:it's not a town, or a city, just an area. maybe a community? it's hard to explain. and there's really not a distinct boundary that i know of. it's just people in the area know where saucier is and where it isn't.

it's also more for the old crowd to know too. biloxi area has exploded since the casinos, so most new residents probably don't know where that is. not that i'm old, but my folks are long time residents so i'm grandfathered in.

Lol.. I predated most of the casinos (saw the big ones open up), but when you explained the pronounciation, it range a bell. Did spend more time a bit to the east, though.. and at sea.

Phatscotty wrote:If the Civil War was fought only over slavery, then why did the Civil War start in 1861 but the Emancipation Proclamation was not drafted until 1863?

Perspective is the answer.
Lincoln was an abolitionist, but he had no plans to end slavery when he became president. At that time he just wanted to hold America together. Other than John Brown's raiders, there wasn't a powerful enough call to immediately end slavery. But the movement was gaining some headway. Southern slave owners realized that they had lost their bargaining power in the Federal Government when America's triangle trade between the west, North, and South ended. This made the Abolitionists in the Federal government brave enough to stop compromising... and even in the Territories the Feds stopped enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. The writing was on the wall and the South knew that they had to get out while the getting was good, so the election became their powder-keg issue.

Of course, not all Southerners or Northerners wanted the war. Sam Houston wisely tried to stop Texas from joining the Confederacy. And after years of bitter political fights, many Northern newspapers simply wrote the South off with - "Good Riddance!" BUT I RAMBLE ON ABOUT FASCINATING HISTORY AND THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS PERSPECTIVE.

So, I post a story that PROVES how wrong your assumptions that Medicaid doesn't work, etc, etc... and you ignore it.

Why would I expect anything different?

PLAYER57832 wrote:So, I post a story that PROVES how wrong your assumptions that Medicaid doesn't work, etc, etc... and you ignore it.

Why would I expect anything different?

who are you talking to? If me, I don't know or haven't seen what you are talking about. I don't think I ever said Medicaid doesn't work....

PLAYER57832 wrote:So, I post a story...

That's about all we ever get.

Phatscotty wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:So, I post a story that PROVES how wrong your assumptions that Medicaid doesn't work, etc, etc... and you ignore it.

Why would I expect anything different?

who are you talking to? If me, I don't know or haven't seen what you are talking about. I don't think I ever said Medicaid doesn't work....

LOL.. you just use it as your "poster child" for how the government messes everything up.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:So, I post a story that PROVES how wrong your assumptions that Medicaid doesn't work, etc, etc... and you ignore it.

Why would I expect anything different?

who are you talking to? If me, I don't know or haven't seen what you are talking about. I don't think I ever said Medicaid doesn't work....

LOL.. you just use it as your "poster child" for how the government messes everything up.

so....you were talking to me, or you weren't? what in the blue hell kind of response is that?

Really, you are thinking of someone else, or just generalizing and stereotyping the crap outta me

Phatscotty wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:So, I post a story that PROVES how wrong your assumptions that Medicaid doesn't work, etc, etc... and you ignore it.

Why would I expect anything different?

who are you talking to? If me, I don't know or haven't seen what you are talking about. I don't think I ever said Medicaid doesn't work....

LOL.. you just use it as your "poster child" for how the government messes everything up.

so....you were talking to me, or you weren't? what in the blue hell kind of response is that?

Really, you are thinking of someone else, or just generalizing and stereotyping the crap outta me

OK, fine then you have NOT specifically said that the government screws everything up, that Medicaid is a failure?

The Shriners also have state of the art burn units to treat children who have been badly burnt, free of charge

2014?

That's just enough time for the federal government (a likely Republican controlled Congress with a President paid off by the health insurance companies) to "repeal Obamacare."

That will be the rallying cry, at least. Specifically, parts that are restrict businesses like the measure referenced above and others can easily be repealed without affecting the individual mandate. And big business wins again.

Why shouldn't insurance companies charge more to the people who statistically use more health care? Keep in mind, this is how all insurance is run: those who are a bigger risk/cost pay more.

In the name of gender equality, do you also demand that all people pay the exact same rate for car insurance? Because currently men, especially young men, pay way more for car insurance.

Perhaps you are right, but the overarching point of my post is this: after all that drama, all the outlandish claims of socialism and communism and a whole bunch of other stuff. It is likely that in 2014 the only change left will be the individual mandate.

A win for big business indeed. All those political investments will have had their proper return.

GreecePwns wrote:Perhaps you are right, but the overarching point of my post is this: after all that drama, all the outlandish claims of socialism and communism and a whole bunch of other stuff. It is likely that in 2014 the only change left will be the individual mandate.

A win for big business indeed. All those political investments will have had their proper return.

Sorry, my post was actually directed to Juan's pretty but misleading picture.

WHOA WHOA WHOA

READ THE FOOTNOTE on the pic.

It's a case study of 25 year-old men and women.

Why would a healthy young women need to pay more than a healthy young man?

I mean-ah, we know Republicans have been having a lot of trouble understanding how lady parts work lately, and I don't want to been seen as ignorant as they are, but it stands to reason that no young women should have to pay 76%-100% more than a man.
They can't even keep the rates similar. WTF are healthy young women doing in Colorado that makes their lifestyle so much riskier than in Louisiana?

25 year old women can have babies. That consists of many medical expenses of doctors visits, hospital stays, potential surgery, etc. It's a simple fact of life.

Interesting that you believe we should charge women so much more based on the chance that they can get pregnant @ 25 and not base their rates off of any actual individual medical needs. We're ignoring birth control and everything, it's just, NO YOU PAY DOUBLE.
Should we charge childless middle-aged women more for insurance because they're probably just desperate to have babies?

Juan_Bottom wrote:Interesting that you believe we should charge women so much more based on the chance that they can get pregnant @ 25 and not base their rates off of any actual individual medical needs. We're ignoring birth control and everything, it's just, NO YOU PAY DOUBLE.
Should we charge childless middle-aged women more for insurance because they're probably just desperate to have babies?

By your own picture, only two locations studied actually have a potential paying double the rate for insurance. So it's obviously not a simple equation of "no you pay double".

Juan_Bottom wrote:WHOA WHOA WHOA

READ THE FOOTNOTE on the pic.

It's a case study of 25 year-old men and women.

Why would a healthy young women need to pay more than a healthy young man?

I mean-ah, we know Republicans have been having a lot of trouble understanding how lady parts work lately, and I don't want to been seen as ignorant as they are, but it stands to reason that no young women should have to pay 76%-100% more than a man.
They can't even keep the rates similar. WTF are healthy young women doing in Colorado that makes their lifestyle so much riskier than in Louisiana?

Snowboarding? Walking on a mountain? Freezing?

Juan_Bottom wrote:They can't even keep the rates similar. WTF are healthy young women doing in Colorado that makes their lifestyle so much riskier than in Louisiana?

Probably governmental mandates of minimum care. Besides, you meant Wyoming, not Colorado.