Doesn't he end up doing just about the same amount of work/energy as if he was shoveling? He's got the bike geared low so he's peddling pretty fast. He's got wheels but he's also got extra weight from the plow and himself and is pushing more snow than with a shovel.

If I only knew someone better at math than me.

One cow to the others: "Isn't he all hoity toity and stuff. Prolly don't know squat about pullin' a plow."

Sorry, but that's just silly. Limited sexual experience doesn't mean you can't be aware that it's bad sex, you can still be unhappy with it but not know why. You might also think that it's just the way it is.

I wonder how many long suffering wives have just lain there while their clueless husbands mindlessly plowed away, they'll go through the motions while quietly waiting for it to be done. All the while assuming this is just part of their wifely duties.

I've heard a lot about how these days, despite our sex soaked culture there are women who have never really learned about their bodies and can't even get themselves off. And to be fair, the clueless husbands are often no better educated than they are.

The whiny camera dude needs to rethink his negotiating strategy: Leading off with asking the repairman to put his truck in a driveway is about the same as asking him to commit suicide by idiot. Props to the comcast guy for not smacking him upside the head.

I don't doubt that the conage is substandard, but the level of driving shown is abysmal. Don't they have plow trucks in driveways and kids playing by the side of the road in Indiana? What are those drivers thinking?

When I become king, drivers like that will have their dented vehicles ceremonially crushed before their faces, and their driving privileges revoked until a solid week, Sunday to Sunday, elapses without the temperature going below freezing. 55F for anyone who was driving a black pickup.

I lost it when the cop arrived at the scene of the accident and plowed straight into the pile.

Is ABS illegal in Canada? Or just plowing before people go to work?

The plow guy was the biggest fool. You NEVER plow DOWN a hill, especially without chains or studded tires.

He fucking plowed that thing. People are so stupid. Take their toys away.

@newtboy,

1000 acre farms do not count as "family farms" in my eyes, even if they are owned by a single family.

Your entitled to that opinion, but you are also flat wrong. If you want to support a family of 2 or 3 children and do something as outrageous as send them off for post secondary education it isn't happening by running a subsistence farm. I'm in Manitoba, Canada and we've got about 20 thousand farms and the average size is right around 1000 acres. Those guys are in exactly the same financial class as the mom and pop corner convenience stores. They've got about the same money for raising their families and retire with about the same kind of savings. I really don't care whether you agree with me on that or not, it is a reality of farming today.

BUT....overuse of equipment either over packs the soil, making it produce far less, or over plows the soil, making it run off and blow away (see the dust bowl).
...
No, actually overproducing on a piece of land like that makes it unusable quickly and new farm land is needed to replace it while it recuperates (if it ever can). Chemical fertilizers add salts that kill beneficial bacteria, "killing" the soil, sometimes permanently. producing double or triple the amount of food on the same land is beneficial in the extreme short term, and disastrous in the barely long term.


I've got family that's been farming this same land for better then 100 years and still getting better yields per acre ever year. Your idea's about what is sustainable or good practice is disconnected from reality.

In first world countries....yes, or close to that much. Agreed. Not world wide.

Mechanized harvest is accepted in "natural" old school farming. Agreed, it would fall under the "industrial farming" methods, but is one of the least damaging.
>1000 acre farms do not count as "family farms" in my eyes, even if they are owned by a single family. So is Walmart, but it's not a mom and pop or family store.

Again, mechanization is not the same as industrialization, but does still do damage by over plowing, etc. I'm talking about monoculture crops, over application of man made fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides. Grain was farmed "by hand" since farming existed with few problems, but more work involved. The work it takes to rehab a river system because industrial farming runoff contaminated and killed it is FAR more work than the extra work involved in farming using old school methods (which does not mean everything is done with hands, tools and machines have been in use for eons).

Roundup doesn't "break down" completely, and doesn't break down at all if it's washed into river systems and out of the UV light.

Once again, machines aren't all of "industrial farming", they are one of the least damaging facets, and they are not unknown in old school, smaller farming techniques. BUT....overuse of heavy equipment either over packs the soil, making it produce far less, or over plows the soil, making it run off and blow away (see the dust bowl). If it was ONLY about machinery, and ONLY industrial farming used machines, you would have a point, but neither is true.

No, actually overproducing on a piece of land like that makes it unusable quickly and new farm land is needed to replace it while it recuperates (if it ever can). Chemical fertilizers add salts that kill beneficial bacteria, "killing" the soil, sometimes permanently. producing double or triple the amount of food on the same land is beneficial in the extreme short term, and disastrous in the barely long term. (See 'dust bowl')

Man power is far less damaging to the environment than fossil fuels for the same amount of energy. Also, the people would use no more resources because they're in the field than they would anywhere else, so there's NO net gain to the energy used or demand on the environment if they farm instead of sit at a desk, but machines don't use energy when idle, so there is a net loss to the energy required if you replace them with pre-existing people.

Yes, you quoted it directly, buy your characterization of what that meant was insane. You claim they said Monsanto worked on the project (and other things) because they're evil and want to do evil and harm. The video actually said they do these things without much care for the negative consequences to others, and that makes them evil. I hope you can comprehend the distinct difference in those statements, and that your portrayal of what they said is not honest.

I was thinking more along the lines of "its all fun and games until some rubberneck plows into the car in front".

The city is really getting desperate to hire snow plow contractors but this guy works for peanuts.

Was the Washington Post in an article on September 18, 2001 when it wrote the following?

In Jersey City, within hours of two jetliners’ plowing into the World Trade Center, law enforcement authorities detained and questioned a number of people who were allegedly seen celebrating the attacks and holding tailgate-style parties on rooftops while they watched the devastation on the other side of the river.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/09/18/northern-new-jersey-draws-probers-eyes/40f82ea4-e015-4d6e-a87e-93aa433fafdc/?postshare=7281
448290025183&tid=ss_fb



Colbert's Leftist Comedy Puts CBS in Ratings Rut now in 3rd place. Guess not what real Americans want.

She founded the school? I think they'll have to plow it back into the ground after that...

The poor valedictorian...

That sucks and everything, but this seems a bit fishy...

* "State Farm decline to pay for the car's repair, as I was a few hour past the deadline for comprehensive coverage."
The way I read that suggests that it is either a brand new car that he hadn't yet purchased insurance for beyond mandated liability, or that his existing policy had just expired. Both would be kind of red-flag timings for an accident.

* "They also raised my rates and removed my safe driver discount, even though I have never been in an accident that was my fault in 8 years of driving. So that seems a bit unfair."
Getting into an accident raises your rates. Even if it wasn't your fault. This particular incident, giving him 100% of the benefit of the doubt and assuming that it was a medical condition that he had no control over, is still something that an insurer might (reasonably in my opinion) determine to be "his fault". At the very least, they would want assurances that the condition wouldn't happen again; but honestly it would probably be a safer bet (which is what insurance adjustors are all about) to drop his coverage entirely as soon as legally possible.

* And that last one doesn't just apply to the insurer... If that happened to me, even if I had never passed out before and had been driving for 8 years without issue, I'd want to be DAMN sure that it was 100% medically explained and 100% medically under control so that it wouldn't ever happen again before I got behind the wheel of ANY vehicle again.


So yeah, it seems ... fishy. On the other hand, It does seem like it would be hard to have no reflex-level reactions to plowing into fenceposts etc., as in the video. So it might be 100% legit -- but even then, all of the above still applies.