Chip the Bartender

tommyk · **Joined:** Sun Jan 10, 2010 8:37 pm **Posts:** 70

Cloudy wrote:

A link that I have skipped over... (There may be more, but I'm doing the best I can trying to catch up with you guys.)
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

http://lowdenplan.com/

The Lowden PlanA simple healthcare plan anyone witha few thousand live chickens can use.“Doctors are reasonable people”
Senate hopeful Sue Lowden’s plan for Healthcare reform is to barter chickens for medical procedures. But you may be unsure how many chickens are required for your medical care. This handy calculator converts many common procedures into chickens so you won’t look like an idiot at your next Doctor’s Appointment.

LOWDEN MEDICAL PROCEDURETO CHICKEN CONVERTERChoose Your Procedure
appendectomy annual checkup birth - normal birth - premature bypass surgery cancer - breast cancer - colon cancer - prostate car accident colonoscopy ekg er visit flu shot hip replacement mammogram mri ob/gyn visit repair aneurism tonsilectomyConvert
For Your Visit Please Bring
Counting!to your Doctor’s Office*

Products Supporting Your Lowden Medical PlanMedical SavingsaccountsPlan for the future and take your healthcare into your own hands. Live Chickens are 20 times more expensive than eggs.

SECURE YOUR FUTURE
just For PhysiciansYou’ll soon be inundated with chickens. Where do you keep them? How do you cook 950 chickens at once?

CHICKENPHENALIA

Catastrophicillness InsuranceLet’s be honest, it’s not realistic to take 10,000 chickens to pay for major surgery. But 30-40 head of cattle?

GET SOME COWS

Help us spread this crap around
This website is not authorized by any candidate, candidate’s committee or political party.

site by buzzbomb.it *This site makes no guarantees regarding the correct number of chickens for your procedure. Chicken count is an estimate only based on current market value of typical live chickens and average costs of medical procedures gathered from multiple sources. Your doctor may require more chickens than specified. For your convenience, we recommend bringing at least 20% more chickens than specified to any doctor's appointment. For that matter, you should have at least 1500 chickens per passenger in your car in the event of an accident, so you could just use those if you're a little short on chickens, but then be extra careful driving home from the doctor because you will have used up some of your accident chickens. Do not mail your medical chickens as payment. Please barter medical chickens in person. Chickens should be secured in your trunk or truckbed if possible. Any chickens riding in the passenger compartment on the way to the doctor must wear seat belts. Chickens should not drive you to the doctor, if you are unable to drive you should dial 911 for an ambulance. Ambulances may not accept chickens for payment, you should have at least 4 goats or an adult pig for such cases. Your healthcare provider may not accept chickens for payment, but many accept other livestock. The Chicken Calculator can not convert medical procedures to sheep, goats, pigs, ducks, cows, llamas, ostriches, etc. Check with your local livestock association for current exchange rates and providers.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This was a link from MrAle. (Thanks you gave us all a chuckle.)

You mean that was all a joke? Damn, I was all set to sign up.

mr_ale · **Joined:** Wed Jan 27, 2010 4:49 pm **Posts:** 106

tommyk wrote:

You mean that was all a joke? Damn, I was all set to sign up.

It's a joke, but it's not really that funny. I guess NPR has been too busy asking Heritage Foundation reps for help analyzing the latest news, to get around to telling you that the presumptive GOP nominee vs. Harry Reid thinks the solution to the health care problem is bartering with chickens for the cost of your chemo.

Memo to Cloudy: Nah, haven't really mellowed here. That wasn't a 'little funny' meant to give you a chuckle, but a bit of satire to show how little your side is interested in solving real problems, as well as a guide in miniature to the class of dangerous idiots the right wants to foist on the country. Guess she pales in comparison, at the moment, to the nazis in Arizona, though, don't she?

lewser · **Joined:** Mon Jan 11, 2010 2:25 pm **Posts:** 1028

mr_ale wrote:

Memo to Cloudy: Nah, haven't really mellowed here. That wasn't a 'little funny' meant to give you a chuckle, but a bit of satire to show how little your side is interested in solving real problems, as well as a guide in miniature to the class of dangerous idiots the right wants to foist on the country. Guess she pales in comparison, at the moment, to the nazis in Arizona, though, don't she?

The problem is your side wants certain people to pay for other peoples mistakes. How many of the uninsured 47million or whatever are High School and then College grads? How many are just plain dropouts? Why don't people have to pay for their mistakes anymore? If their punishment for not finishing school, is to have minimum wage jobs with no health insurance, well, so be it. Why is it people above a certain wage bracket have to pay more? Why isn't every single tax payers monies being used, huh?

I have a serious question Dave (hypothetical of course): When/if your bank account is running low, do you:
A) Find someone with more money and borrow it.
B) Stop spending money
C) Decide that other people without money like yourself think it is your right to have more money and vote in leaders who will do their best to take it from others.
D) Spend more money you don't have.
E) Borrow money from people who haven't been born yet.
F) All the above except B

I have no problem helping people truly in need, but the sense of entitlement is getting really old.

Yank.

spotes · **Joined:** Mon Jan 11, 2010 11:27 pm **Posts:** 1558

mr_ale wrote:

Guess she pales in comparison, at the moment, to the nazis in Arizona, though, don't she?

I read in a couple of places that Mexicans are boycotting Arizona.
See, the system works.
Problem solved...

mr_ale · **Joined:** Wed Jan 27, 2010 4:49 pm **Posts:** 106

lewser wrote:

The problem is your side wants certain people to pay for other peoples mistakes. How many of the uninsured 47million or whatever are High School and then College grads? How many are just plain dropouts? Why don't people have to pay for their mistakes anymore?

Maybe because the 'payment' in many cases is unpayable in this or several other lifetimes?

But they should pay for their 'mistakes.' Like, say, a woman who didn't take up a career so she could stay at home and raise her and her husband's kids? Which of course would make her a hero of the cultural right. He abandons her at some point, she goes to work at Wal-Mart, then gets breast cancer. Looknig forward to seeing you at the funeral, as her kids follow the casket, yelling 'Losers! Pay for her mistake, you dumb brats! Shoulda thought of that before, and chosen a better mother!'

lewser wrote:

If their punishment for not finishing school, is to have minimum wage jobs with no health insurance, well, so be it. Why is it people above a certain wage bracket have to pay more? Why isn't every single tax payers monies being used, huh?

Ah yes, that little smear.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-a ... s-tariffic

'Those ****ers. Starbucks-sweeping, Arugula-washing, Volvo-fueling Laundromat Liberals. And their government-leeching scheme to not pay federal income taxes. 'Course they do most likely pay payroll taxes, state, local, sales and excise taxes, but the important thing is, knowing that doesn't make you as mad, does it?

So, who are these scofflaws? Generaly, they're a buncha lowdown, unloveable no-accounts...Single mothers making minimum wage, heads of households making less than thirty thousand a year, and the worst of the worst, grandmothers on fixed incomes...Hey Granny! Want any Grey Poupon with your catfood?'

lewser wrote:

I have a serious question Dave (hypothetical of course): When/if your bank account is running low, do you:
A) Find someone with more money and borrow it.
B) Stop spending money
C) Decide that other people without money like yourself think it is your right to have more money and vote in leaders who will do their best to take it from others.
D) Spend more money you don't have.
E) Borrow money from people who haven't been born yet.
F) All the above except B

I have no problem helping people truly in need, but the sense of entitlement is getting really old.

Yank.

What the holy jesus are you going on about? Is the subject income redistribution, or universal insurance? Look, I'll spell it out very simply. What people 'on my side' are looking for is something that every single other industrial democracy has had for years, if not decades, if not half centuries (see Great Britain, which hasn't fallen apart despite 63 years of socialist healthcare). Which begs the question, why are WE on the defensive, why isn't the burden on your side to come up with some plausible reason we are on one side of a divide, and everybody else in the goddamn world is on the other?

Anyway, I know you're not talking about yourself when you kvetch about the tax burden being raised to pay for health care. 'Cause your taxes haven't been raised a penny, and aren't likely to be raised a penny, for it. Your concern for the super-rich is so touching.

Fact: The rich can afford it, they're getting richer every year. See, we're increasinly living in a 'plutonomy,' as the rich get richer and grab hold of the reins of government in order to perpetuate a system that rewards them disproportionately.

What??? What commie put this nonsense into my head?

The commies at Citigroup! That's who!

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/ ... oyers.html

"Asset booms, a rising profit share and favorable treatment by market-friendly governments have allowed the rich to prosper...[and] take an increasing share of income and wealth over the last 20 years..."

"...the top 10%, particularly the top 1% of the US-- the plutonomists in our parlance-- have benefited disproportionately from the recent productivity surge in the US...[and] from globalization and the productivity boom, at the relative expense of labor."

"...[and they] are likely to get even wealthier in the coming years. [Because] the dynamics of plutonomy are still intact."

Oh, one last thing. None of your yanking, whatever the fuck that's supposed to be, explained away 'your side's' candidate for the U.S. Senate's spectacular inability to come up with a non-junior high approach to serious governance.

tommyk · **Joined:** Sun Jan 10, 2010 8:37 pm **Posts:** 70

mr_ale wrote:

tommyk wrote:

You mean that was all a joke? Damn, I was all set to sign up.

It's a joke, but it's not really that funny. I guess NPR has been too busy asking Heritage Foundation reps for help analyzing the latest news, to get around to telling you that the presumptive GOP nominee vs. Harry Reid thinks the solution to the health care problem is bartering with chickens for the cost of your chemo.

I gotta stick up for NPR here and point out that they did, in fact, give this proposal some coverage if only on "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me." Paula Poundstone, in particular, contributed some interesting policy suggestions about chicken vouchers to the dialogue.

lewser wrote:

The problem is your side wants certain people to pay for other peoples mistakes. How many of the uninsured 47 million or whatever are High School and then College grads? How many are just plain dropouts? Why don't people have to pay for their mistakes anymore? If their punishment for not finishing school, is to have minimum wage jobs with no health insurance, well, so be it. Why is it people above a certain wage bracket have to pay more?

Why isn't every single tax payers monies being used, huh?

The problem that my side (or at least I) have with the current system is the extent to which it has come to depend on an insurance model since World War II. This model is mostly based on certain people paying for other people's mistakes although most policyholders don't worry about that too much. People who survive their ten-year term life policies, and who get nothing in return for their premiums, don't seem to begrudge other people's beneficiaries their claims even when the "winning" policyholders have died stupid deaths. The same holds true for policyholders who don't have catastrophic auto accidents or whose houses don't burn down. To my way of thinking, as a Fellow With Distinction of the Life Management Institute (who's on Medicaid, incidentally), this is a Good Thing. The insurance model works well when insurers can accumulate deep pools of money for investment and payment of large but infrequent claims. It doesn't work very well when insurers are paying large, infrequent claims plus several small claims per year per policyholder.

Health plans didn't really become "insurance" until World War II when stateside labor shortages and wage freezes made employer-paid health plans an attractive, legal way to recruit and retain workers. Prior to that most group coverage was through the Blue Cross system, a pre-payment plan rather than insurance. Blue Cross would recruit members, collect dues, take a cut for expenses and pass the rest on to hospitals in return for a guarantee of service for their members when they needed it. Hospitals liked having a predictable income stream and were willing to assume the risk that some of the Blue Cross members would require more care than others. Surgeons and other physician services weren't part of the deal to begin with but within a few years they put together a parallel structure with Blue Shield. Present-day descendants the original BC/BS plans include HMOs and PPOs which I think are more pre-payment than insurance. I'm fine with them but a lot of people on the right don't like them because they impinge on patients' freedom to choose whatever providers they want at any time, which is a pretty expensive bit of freedom.

Bottom line: I really do have a bug up my butt about health insurance, narrowly defined. Nobody has yet been able to point me to any evidence that a gigantic Federal bureaucracy would be worse at collecting and redistributing money than 1300-some big to huge private bureaucracies (the number of members of American Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) the health insurance industry's lobby). And I still go nuts when I hear people talk about health insurance "competition" when all they seem to mean is whether a company can have Yogi Berra sit in a barber chair and get yelled at by a duck or not. When all a company does is collect money, keep some, and decide how and whether to pass out the rest, there's not much basis for competition.

I do agree that everybody's tax money should be used for health care. It already is for Medicare, even if the taxpayer doesn't pay Federal income tax.

stevej84 · **Posted:** Wed May 19, 2010 10:43 am

I wonder what RHINO would have to say about this:

Jesus in an MRI scan of a lung:

FrankC · **Posted:** Wed May 19, 2010 12:57 pm

stevej84 wrote:

I wonder what RHINO would have to say about this:

Jesus in an MRI scan of a lung:

It looks more like Rasputin to me.

MitchWolf · **Posted:** Mon Dec 13, 2010 10:24 pm

CLOUDY

Any updates on Chip????

Cloudy · **Joined:** Tue Jan 12, 2010 4:30 am **Posts:** 5277

MitchWolf wrote:

CLOUDY

Any updates on Chip????

Nope, but next time I'm back in upstate NY, I will get my butt over to the Buffalo Wild Wings in Cicero, and try to find someone who knows where he now is and what he's doing. (Cicero is a suburb of Syracuse.) If I can find Chip, I'll do my best to try to get him to come to the "ScaRatings" and post here.

p.s. I will be back in upstate NY very soon. Hell, it will probably be warmer up there than it is In Kentucky these days. It was 19 degrees in Louisville earlier tonight. Damn, when I moved here, I thought I was going to a southern state.

p.p.s. Last update I had on Chip was he has become "Chip the Teacher". However, that update is more than a year old.

Cloudy · **Joined:** Tue Jan 12, 2010 4:30 am **Posts:** 5277

I've missed so much on this thread. In the old days I would try to respond to every post. Alas, I think there are way too many posts for me to attempt to read and try to catch up on, so I will just start some new silliness of my own...

Here goes...

Who thinks global warming is real and caused by humans?

p.s. Freezing my butt off tonight every time I went out to smoke had something to do with this question.

MitchWolf · **Posted:** Wed Dec 15, 2010 6:10 am

Cloudy wrote:

MitchWolf wrote:

CLOUDY

Any updates on Chip????

Nope, but next time I'm back in upstate NY, I will get my butt over to the Buffalo Wild Wings in Cicero, and try to find someone who knows where he now is and what he's doing. (Cicero is a suburb of Syracuse.) If I can find Chip, I'll do my best to try to get him to come to the "ScaRatings" and post here.

p.s. I will be back in upstate NY very soon. Hell, it will probably be warmer up there than it is In Kentucky these days. It was 19 degrees in Louisville earlier tonight. Damn, when I moved here, I thought I was going to a southern state.

p.p.s. Last update I had on Chip was he has become "Chip the Teacher". However, that update is more than a year old.

That's cool Cloudy.

Cloudy · **Joined:** Tue Jan 12, 2010 4:30 am **Posts:** 5277

MitchWolf wrote:

Cloudy wrote:

MitchWolf wrote:

CLOUDY

Any updates on Chip????

Nope, but next time I'm back in upstate NY, I will get my butt over to the Buffalo Wild Wings in Cicero, and try to find someone who knows where he now is and what he's doing. (Cicero is a suburb of Syracuse.) If I can find Chip, I'll do my best to try to get him to come to the "ScaRatings" and post here.

p.s. I will be back in upstate NY very soon. Hell, it will probably be warmer up there than it is In Kentucky these days. It was 19 degrees in Louisville earlier tonight. Damn, when I moved here, I thought I was going to a southern state.

p.p.s. Last update I had on Chip was he has become "Chip the Teacher". However, that update is more than a year old.

That's cool Cloudy.

MITCHWOLF,

Brevity is the soul of wit. Obviously, you have mastered this. You can say something in three words that I would take three paragraphs to try to say.

Cloudy

Cloudy · **Joined:** Tue Jan 12, 2010 4:30 am **Posts:** 5277

Where are all you tree huggers...? I know you're out there.

How could you let a global warming challenge go unchallenged?

I'll put something up here that you can jump all over.

Yep, we are probably going to experience a period of global warming, but I don't think human beings have anything to do with it. The last Ice Age only ended about 12,000 years ago. I believe that Ice Ages over thousands of years have come and gone in cycles, and we can look forward to something like 40,000 years of global warming from the end of the last Ice Age before things start cooling off again. In which case, we can expect the temperatures on Earth to gradually move up for about another 28,000 years or so.

My best guess is that this is all the fault of the Sun, and a cycle it goes through, and has nothing to do with our outrageous use of incandescent light bulbs.

p.s. I might be off somewhat on the number of years between the periods of glaciation, but in the grand scheme of things that really doesn't matter.

THE ICEMAN · **Posted:** Fri Dec 17, 2010 7:32 am

Cloudy wrote:

Where are all you tree huggers...? I know you're out there.

Happy now?

Falcon · **Posted:** Fri Dec 17, 2010 9:54 pm

Cloudy wrote:

Where are all you tree huggers...? I know you're out there.

How could you let a global warming challenge go unchallenged?

I'll put something up here that you can jump all over.

Yep, we are probably going to experience a period of global warming, but I don't think human beings have anything to do with it. The last Ice Age only ended about 12,000 years ago. I believe that Ice Ages over thousands of years have come and gone in cycles, and we can look forward to something like 40,000 years of global warming from the end of the last Ice Age before things start cooling off again. In which case, we can expect the temperatures on Earth to gradually move up for about another 28,000 years or so.

My best guess is that this is all the fault of the Sun, and a cycle it goes through, and has nothing to do with our outrageous use of incandescent light bulbs.

p.s. I might be off somewhat on the number of years between the periods of glaciation, but in the grand scheme of things that really doesn't matter.

Whether the inter-glacial period is 40 000 or 25 000 years, it does not explain the rapid melting of the Arctic ice over the past 20 years.

It would be tempting, but we're too busy cutting trees for Christmas. Besides, arguing against anthropogenic climate change is like arguing against evolution. Those on the anti- side are convinced by what they want to believe, not the scientific evidence, so logic is futile.

Cloudy · **Joined:** Tue Jan 12, 2010 4:30 am **Posts:** 5277

THE ICEMAN wrote:

Cloudy wrote:

Where are all you tree huggers...? I know you're out there.

Happy now?

Hell, the ICEMAN cometh... We are gonna have fun now...! ICEMAN's pictures are the best...!

p.s. Glad to see that ICEMAN is still amongst the living... We need him and the outrageously funny pictures he comes up with.

Cloudy · **Joined:** Tue Jan 12, 2010 4:30 am **Posts:** 5277

Falcon wrote:

Cloudy wrote:

Where are all you tree huggers...? I know you're out there.

How could you let a global warming challenge go unchallenged?

I'll put something up here that you can jump all over.

Yep, we are probably going to experience a period of global warming, but I don't think human beings have anything to do with it. The last Ice Age only ended about 12,000 years ago. I believe that Ice Ages over thousands of years have come and gone in cycles, and we can look forward to something like 40,000 years of global warming from the end of the last Ice Age before things start cooling off again. In which case, we can expect the temperatures on Earth to gradually move up for about another 28,000 years or so.

My best guess is that this is all the fault of the Sun, and a cycle it goes through, and has nothing to do with our outrageous use of incandescent light bulbs.

p.s. I might be off somewhat on the number of years between the periods of glaciation, but in the grand scheme of things that really doesn't matter.

Whether the inter-glacial period is 40 000 or 25 000 years, it does not explain the rapid melting of the Arctic ice over the past 20 years.

It would be tempting, but we're too busy cutting trees for Christmas. Besides, arguing against anthropogenic climate change is like arguing against evolution. Those on the anti- side are convinced by what they want to believe, not the scientific evidence, so logic is futile.

Neither you nor I have any first hand knowledge about how fast the Arctic ice has been melting over the past 20 years. However, I do believe that the people, whom we listen to, might have a bias. Politics and money lie behind this bias. Sadly, I think that those whom we consider to be scientists could be being somewhat dishonest in what they are telling us. Grant money and political agendas could be a factor here. Yep, I think that scientists might tell fibs, if it meant they would get money for fibbing... Worse yet, I believe that there are some scientists out there, who have sociopolitical beliefs that they feel are more important than scientific truth.

I don't know who counts them, but 50 years ago it was estimated that there were only about 700 polar bears alive in the world, and today the polar bear population is estimated to somewhere between 20,000 and 25,000. Yeah, a little bit off topic, but I thought I would throw this in, because the global warming zealots keep talking about the polar bears going extinct.

p.s. If you ever happen to encounter a polar bear in the wild, don't try to pet him. They are very aggressive, and human flesh is on their menu...

Akbar71 · **Posted:** Sat Dec 18, 2010 7:51 pm

Falcon wrote:

Those on the anti- side are convinced by what they want to believe, not the scientific evidence, so logic is futile.

This is a problem, but it is a problem that cuts both ways. Many on the pro-AGW side are "pre-convinced," and science be damned for them, as well. The bigger problem for me is that whether climate change is anthropogenic or not, the question of whether to spend billions and billions of dollars to try to lower global temperatures by less than one degree over a ten year period should be the primary issue.

Falcon · **Posted:** Sun Dec 19, 2010 12:59 am

Cloudy wrote:

Falcon wrote:

Cloudy wrote:

Where are all you tree huggers...? I know you're out there.

How could you let a global warming challenge go unchallenged?

I'll put something up here that you can jump all over.

Yep, we are probably going to experience a period of global warming, but I don't think human beings have anything to do with it. The last Ice Age only ended about 12,000 years ago. I believe that Ice Ages over thousands of years have come and gone in cycles, and we can look forward to something like 40,000 years of global warming from the end of the last Ice Age before things start cooling off again. In which case, we can expect the temperatures on Earth to gradually move up for about another 28,000 years or so.

My best guess is that this is all the fault of the Sun, and a cycle it goes through, and has nothing to do with our outrageous use of incandescent light bulbs.

p.s. I might be off somewhat on the number of years between the periods of glaciation, but in the grand scheme of things that really doesn't matter.

Whether the inter-glacial period is 40 000 or 25 000 years, it does not explain the rapid melting of the Arctic ice over the past 20 years.

It would be tempting, but we're too busy cutting trees for Christmas. Besides, arguing against anthropogenic climate change is like arguing against evolution. Those on the anti- side are convinced by what they want to believe, not the scientific evidence, so logic is futile.

Neither you nor I have any first hand knowledge about how fast the Arctic ice has been melting over the past 20 years. However, I do believe that the people, whom we listen to, might have a bias. Politics and money lie behind this bias. Sadly, I think that those whom we consider to be scientists could be being somewhat dishonest in what they are telling us. Grant money and political agendas could be a factor here. Yep, I think that scientists might tell fibs, if it meant they would get money for fibbing... Worse yet, I believe that there are some scientists out there, who have sociopolitical beliefs that they feel are more important than scientific truth.

I don't know who counts them, but 50 years ago it was estimated that there were only about 700 polar bears alive in the world, and today the polar bear population is estimated to somewhere between 20,000 and 25,000. Yeah, a little bit off topic, but I thought I would throw this in, because the global warming zealots keep talking about the polar bears going extinct.

p.s. If you ever happen to encounter a polar bear in the wild, don't try to pet him. They are very aggressive, and human flesh is on their menu...

Would love to debate this with you but have no time until January as this is the Xmas Bird Count season. I shall even have to miss Showdown on Dec. 28 (my first miss of the year) because that is the date of our local count.

Any world population estimates of polar bears in 1960 would have been little more than a guesstimate, but, even so, I find it difficult to believe that any serious scientist would have put it as low as 700. That sounds like an estimate for a region, such as Arctic Alaska, or the west side of Hudson Bay. There were no serious population studies until those of Ian Stirling starting about 1980 and world estimates have been fairly stable at 20 000 - 25 000 since that time.
P.s., I have encountered polar bears in the wild, and always treat them with respect. Human flesh is not a normal part of their diet, but many in the southern parts of their range are near starvation because of the lack of sea-ice, and they would eat anything that they could catch.

FrankC · **Posted:** Sun Dec 19, 2010 1:18 am

Polar Bears are just white Grizzly Bears. They will survive this warming period as they survived others.

Cloudy · **Joined:** Tue Jan 12, 2010 4:30 am **Posts:** 5277

Akbar71 wrote:

Falcon wrote:

Those on the anti- side are convinced by what they want to believe, not the scientific evidence, so logic is futile.

This is a problem, but it is a problem that cuts both ways. Many on the pro-AGW side are "pre-convinced," and science be damned for them, as well. The bigger problem for me is that whether climate change is anthropogenic or not, the question of whether to spend billions and billions of dollars to try to lower global temperatures by less than one degree over a ten year period should be the primary issue.

Gotta agree with you. Actually, I have heard that if we go to all those curley, mercury laden light bulbs, and everything else they are telling us to do to save the planet, that the 1 degree reduction in the Earth's temperature is more like 100 years than just ten.

p.s. Mercury laden light bulbs is another question that I love to debate so-called environmentalists about.

Cloudy · **Joined:** Tue Jan 12, 2010 4:30 am **Posts:** 5277

FrankC wrote:

Polar Bears are just white Grizzly Bears. They will survive this warming period as they survived others.

FrankC, it's good to read your posts again...

Several months ago at the bar at the Syracuse airport hotel, I met a guy with a story that was hard to believe, but he carried evidence with him that anyone, who saw it, would be convinced that he was telling the absolute truth.

I've forgotten his name, but I will never forget his story...

He was a backpacker, environmentalist, and a member of the Sierra Club, who was out hiking by himself in the forest. Suddenly, a grizzly bear charged at him out of the woods. It knocked him to the ground, and started to tear the flesh from the left side of his face. He was helpless, and thought he would surely be killed. In desperation, he hit the bear. Miraculously, that one little punch drove the bear off. Bleeding profusely, he was able to stagger back to civilization. The doctors saved his life, but the left side of his face was gone forever.

I could only come up with something to say like "Oh, my God!"

I was sitting next to him on his right at the bar. Then he said, "Wanna see what it did?" and turned the left side of his face to me. There was nothing there except skin grafts that now covered what had been half of a human face.

I really respect this man. He remains an environmentalist, and seems to have no animosity towards grizzly bears. Best I can figure, he blames himself for hiking alone, where this could have happened to him.

FrankC · **Posted:** Mon Dec 20, 2010 10:40 pm

Cloudy wrote:

FrankC, it's good to read your posts again...

Thank you. It is also good to see posting again. I thought you may have been taken by the Tau Cetians or the Eriadians.

I am in favor of global warming. I want Greenland to be green again. The warmer the planet is the more crops you can grow. I am waiting for the day when Avacodos can be grown in Canada. Seriously, I think what we humans do with the earth is insignificant.

Good to talk to again

PS: Grizzly bears are dangerous, but Coyotes are nice.

FrankC · **Posted:** Mon Dec 20, 2010 11:19 pm

Cloudy, this is one of the reasons I like Coyotes:

The Chicago Fire Department performed a dramatic rescue of a wild coyote trapped on a block of ice floating on the icy waters of Lake Michigan on Friday, December 17, 2010, according to a news report on WGN. Attached is a video of the rescue from WGN News.

Normally the fire department would not have attempted the rescue of a wild animal, but Animal Control had responded quickly and was on hand to assist in the rescue. The reason that the fire department would not normally rescue a wild animal is due to the danger presented to rescue personnel by a wild animal.

According to the report, the coyote was feeding on fish along the shore when the block of ice it was standing on broke away from the shore and drifted out onto the lake. At one point the coyote tried to swim to shore, but the distance was too far to swim in 33 degree water. The coyote climbed onto another block of ice and waited for rescue.

The rescue operation was successful and the coyote, being called Holly, is safe. It is not known at this point whether Holly is one of the coyotes tagged by the City of Chicago to control the rat population.

It is heartwarming to see rescue workers work to save a wild animal in this day and age.

New Scaratings

Chip the Bartender

Who is online