I just drained the oil out of my pick-up and poured it into a hole I dug in the woods behind my house. Then I buried it.
Afterwards, I poured diesel all over the pile of old asphalt shingles I replaced on my roof last year and threw a lit match onto it. There's a beautiful column of rich, black smoke rising to the heavens. I'm sure it can be seen for miles and miles!
Dude! The fire makes for a good way to dispose of my spent plastic pesticide containers, too!
I'm on it!
Happy Earth-Day, Everyone!!!!!!!!
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
53 comments:
Your First Amendment right to free speech is a privilege and comes with a measure of responsibility. You have the right to exercise that responsibility here but we reserve the right to inform you when you've used that right irresponsibly.
We are benevolent dictators in this regard. Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/health/
ReplyDelete23fda.html?_r=1&hp
Happy Earth Day, Izard.
Feodor
Great news for child-molesters, Feodork.
ReplyDeleteI can see why you'd be happy about the development covered in the link you were too ignorant to figure out how to make into a hyperlink.
The left hates children...your link proves it.
We respect seventeen year olds. And women. And healthcare. And sexuality.
ReplyDeleteAnd for someone who disparages technology that improves health, it seems an odd priority that you so facile with technological tinkering.
A legacy, no doubt, from a cultural felicity with cast iron but not books.
How does the morning after pill "improve" health?
ReplyDeleteAlso, it's a stretch to say "disapproval" of a particular drug means one "disparages technology". I don't particularly like microwave ovens but that hardly means I disparage technology. I don't like all the crap I get in my email, but that hardly means I disparage technology.
Don't you believe your own stance that abortion is, among other things, harmful to the physical and mental health of the woman?
ReplyDeleteAnd the whole phrase is, "disparages technology that improves health," not just any technology.
Feodor if you respected 17 year old girls you wouldn't want to facilitate their sexual immorality by giving them an excuse to have indiscriminate sex.
ReplyDeleteWould you want your 17 year old girl sleeping with the football team just because she knows can take that pill and not get pregnant?
You are a fraud and a hypocrite.
Not a fraud, Mark. I figure Feodork has alterior motives for praising the facilitation of child-molesters.
ReplyDeleteWell, first, I don't think so much of myself to believe that any seventeen year old takes my beliefs or any medical breakthroughs into any kind of consideration when they think about sex.
ReplyDeleteI respect seventeen year olds, but I'm not stupid enough to think that the majority of them are such rational actors in the arena of sexual ethics.
A long time ago, we made car engines capable of going 110, 120 miles an hour, but I don't think young drivers felt that the engineers in Detroit provided them with an "excuse" to race down the highway. Thrills are what teenagers seek for the reason of exploring their power. And this is a developmental inescapability.
One can only help them frame and think through the general principles of consequences of too excessive a level of behavior.
Does Mark think we should not have invented the "jaws of life" because of the "excuse" it causes to pop into the heads of teenagers to the effect of "hey, I can drive as fast as I want because the adults have built a contraption that can pry me out of a demolished car."
Mark is an untrained, autodidact with meager resources.
Second, his hyperbolic jump to a girl having sex with a whole football team being the result of a the development of a pill begs the question of whether any rational discussion can be had with Mark and a second question of where exactly his mind goes when he thinks of young people becoming conscious of their sexuality.
Mark is an idiot and glibly, unconsciously so.
While I was burying my used oil and burning my asphalt shingles, Feodork was piling the corpses of the unborn as a monument to admire.
ReplyDeleteA pill is a child-molester?
ReplyDeleteIzard, you really do read too much science fiction by the fireplace at night. Better to darn your socks, I'm thinking.
"One can only help them frame and think through the general principles of consequences of too excessive a level of behavior."
ReplyDeleteAnd that is exactly what you idiots are NOT doing, Feodork.
How about informing them that they are committing murder for convenience sake?
The burning lights in your county must really be pretty at night. Under the stars seen through spotty asphalt shingles, drinking moonshine, petting the coonhound, rocking in something you built by hand, the Mrs. coming back from an hour in the outhouse.
ReplyDeleteParadise.
Foedork, do you even know what the word "facilitates" means?
ReplyDeleteFunny...you can blame murder on guns...but you can't come to the obvious conclusion that this pill available to minors will encourage child-molesters.
What a dork.
All a long drawn out diatribe to avoid the issue. Do you really think having access to that pill won't encourage irresponsible sexual behavior in many young girls, especially considering how the public schools promote sexual promiscuity through the mis-named "safe sex" agenda?
ReplyDeleteOh, and there have been few teenage boys that have not tested their cars to see how fast they'd go.
That behavior is irresponsibile, too, but it isn't encouraged by so-called responsible adults, as is the production and authorization for use by underage girls of the "morning after pill".
Not to mention that the pill in question kills a living human being.
Of courser I know what "facilitates" means.
ReplyDeleteI live in the city. We have toilets here.
Irresponsible sexual behavior has been on a record rise since Bush's policy of teaching abstinence went into effect.
ReplyDeleteYou want to try your hand at reasoning again?
Interesting how Feodork mocks good, hard-working, moral, God fearing, country people, who just happen to use their God given common sense instead of merely following the Liberal crowd, and repeating already repudiated Liberal talking points.
ReplyDeleteHe's a lemming. Hurry and follow them over the cliff, Feodork. You're falling behind hanging out here.
So the answer would be "no", then?
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, you are stupid, Feodor.
ReplyDeleteI really like how "murder" is one of your "talking points." You use it so often as your sole default position that you suck the meaning right out of its value.
ReplyDeleteAnd I don't think that the disability of being reduced to nothing but name calling typifies "good, hard-working, moral, God fearing, country people."
ReplyDeleteYou must be something else.
"One can only help them frame and think through the general principles of consequences of too excessive a level of behavior."
ReplyDeleteWhich is exactly the reason not to give them any more excuses like making a "morning after pill" more easily available to them thereby making it easier to practice irresponsible promiscuous behavior.
And The question was, "Would you want your 17 year old girl sleeping with the football team just because she knows she can take that pill and not get pregnant?"
Answer the question, Feodor! Would you?
As Neil would say, when he weasels out of a difficult spot: "asked an answered above."
ReplyDeleteBut I'm not Neil, thank God.
It's the "just because" in your thinking, Mark, that is ludicrous. Since there is no normal girl who, upon hearing of this pill, will think, "well, now, I can sleep with the whole football team," your private porno visions don't trouble me to ponder it as a troubling hypothetical.
Given, however, that are cases of such behavior, and that there has been such behavior since who knows when, it seems almost deranged that you would attribute such behavior to a pill.
I think, rather, that we would want to say that something previous and related to her mental status or experiences of prior abuse are to be looked at, wouldn't you?
At least, these are the causes known in such cases.
That's just common sense. Which seems to escape you, though you so want it.
"...it seems almost deranged that you would attribute such behavior to a pill."That's pretty funny coming from a guy who just said...
ReplyDelete"Irresponsible sexual behavior has been on a record rise since Bush's policy of teaching abstinence went into effect."And BTW, Neil has yet to "weasel out" of any debates with the likes of you, Sparky.
I didn't say teens don't react to neglect.
ReplyDeleteAnd you seem pretty defensive of Neil. How big of you to defend him. Is it like a big, protective brother or like the idolizing younger brother?
It usually is the loser who takes his balls and goes home. LIke Neil did.
For those who respect seventeen year olds. And women. And healthcare. And sexuality(?), look here and here and here for starters. If promoting so dangerous a drug is you idea of respecting women, I'd hate to see how you show a lack of respect. And to truly "respect sexuality" is to understand that it must be reserved for the traditional marital arrangement. Anything else is immaturity disquised as adulthood.
ReplyDeleteMarshall, you always have to link to something to find your thoughts?
ReplyDeleteHow Neil-like.
Sorry, guys. I forgot that attempting to reason with Feodor is an exercise in futility.
ReplyDeleteI apologize.
For a few minutes there I was under the delusion that anything Feodor says has relevance. Or, for that matter, that Feodor himself is relevant.
Forgive me.
Carry on.
Weaseling.
ReplyDeleteVery Neil-like.
Huh? Oh sorry.
ReplyDeleteOh, just more irrelevancy.
Never mind.
Carry on.
Unless I missed your answer Feodor, you have still to answer my question:
ReplyDeleteHow does the morning after pill "improve" health?
"Marshall, you always have to link to something to find your thoughts?"When rebutting stupid statements like
ReplyDelete"disparages technology that improves health,"links have more credibility than if I was to follow your lead and pull crap out of my backside.
And I defend Neil because he's a friend, he isn't here and some putz is talking smack about him. It's what friends do. Perhaps one day you'll have some and then you'll understand.
Marshall sets such a "high" standard for being a friend... and such a low standard of what constitutes a threat. No wonder you think the world is ending.
ReplyDelete_____
Eric, my response was:
"Don't you believe your own stance that abortion is, among other things, harmful to the physical and mental health of the woman?"
You guys are showing up Mark, though, by engaging.
"Marshall sets such a "high" standard for being a friend... and such a low standard of what constitutes a threat. No wonder you think the world is ending."None of this makes the least bit of sense. Are you trying to be clever again?
ReplyDelete"Eric, my response was..."Okay, I see where you went with that one. But don't you think that's a bit of dishonest rhetoric there?
ReplyDeleteIt's technology that improves health only if one assumes the pregnancy is to be terminated. But pregnancy is already in itself a perfectly healthy state. That pill is not about 'healthy,' it's about convenience, and an 'out' for irresponsibility. How so? There are other legitimate methods for the prevention of pregnancy. abstinence being one, but beyond that, condoms prevent far more pregnancies than doing without. Instead of going for a pill that is not NEAR as safe as abstinence or a condom, it would seem the more responsible action would be to just say no, or insist on a condom. both provided a greatly decreased chance of accidental pregnancy and far fewer medical complications from the "Morning After" pill.
This idea of yours that the pill represents 'technology that improves health' is little more than a flourish of dishonest rhetoric... a misnomer, if you will.
RE: "flourish of dishonest rhetoric"
ReplyDeleteI like that, Eric! It's kind of like Hillary's "A willing suspension of disbelief".
But, why don't you call it what it is: A Lie.
I see Mark can't stick with any decision not to return.
ReplyDeleteEric, so should we not have invented the "jaws of life" or should we refuse to use it before an alcohol level can be determined on the trapped driver?
I would agree WHOLE HEARTEDLY with you on condoms and even abstinence. Yes, abstinence.
It should be a stair-stepped sequence of concern and support with kids and very young adults.
Abstinence.
Condoms.
Adoption.
Abortion, after morning pill or later, and the later done the more chance of complications.
Stair-stepped sequence of concern and support that never abrogated the God-given faculty of free will and self-possession.
With this full array of health education and guidance, abortions will be greatly reduced and perhaps we can make a good dent in teenage sexual activity.
Contemporary, enlightened responses of civic care in a democracy trying its best to respect created beings and refusing to impose any single theology.
And "pregnancy is already in itself a perfectly healthy state" is a flourish of dishonest rhetoric because you assume something you should not assume.
ReplyDeleteThe psychological experience of the woman who has an unwanted pregnancy.
I respect her psychological experience.
It's missing in all your accounts.
Now Mark will wait for any answer you have for that before returning.
Hey, I never promised not to return.
ReplyDeleteIf I'm not replying quick enough to your innanity, it's because I, unlike, apparently, yourself, have a job!
Let me remind you of something you seem to have forgotten:
This is my blog, too!
And since it is my blog, I enjoy the privelege to either let your ridiculous comments stand or delete them. You want to go for the trifecta, Jerk?
Go for it.
I asked you a hypothetical question which you did not have the balls to answer.
You are, as I said, irrelevant, and are becoming increasingly more irrelevant. Eric and Art have far too much patience with you, as far as I'm concerned, but what the hey! I'm the curmudgeon here.
You look common sense and logic right in the face and deny them.
Get off my blog, you moron!
"I respect her psychological experience."
ReplyDeleteTo HELL with the potential cure for AIDS?cancer?etc.
While you may respect her "psychological experience", you do NOT respect life.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIzard, you really want to put these two sentences together?
ReplyDelete"While you may respect her "psychological experience", you do NOT respect life."
It makes you look really dim witted. As if you don't know that one's interior is part of one's life.
And look at that!
ReplyDeleteI told Marshall that the loser is the one who takes his balls and quits the game and Mark is threatening to do just that! Thanks Mark for proving my point.
But, Mark, Neil wouldn't weasel out AND use such language. Shame on you.
I have to say, though, that you clearly show the sharp, penetrating mind at work behind the typing of your note. It's just a shame you typed it with your dick.
You threaten me with vain and empty remarks and now you'll wipe out my comments altogether. And when you do, who have you hidden me from? Who have you protected besides your ten-year-old boy feelings?
IIzard, MArt, Eric? That's a real accomplishment.
How easily are the weak in mind threatened.
And, to answer you question - again (don't feel bad, MA had to be shown my answer twice to his question and Eric twice to his -- we really are falling behind in reader comprehension)...
asked and answered above....
"Just because" a pill is now available, a girl is going to sleep with a team? How stupid are the seventeen year olds you raise, Mark?
Your hypothetical is the hypothetical of a dunce.
My seventeen year old would know an idiot when she reads one. Just because.
Bye!!!!
Actually, Feo, you're the dim-witted one to believe that one's "psychological" distress justifies the taking of another's life. One can treat such distress, one can't treat "dead". It also makes you look like a psuedo-intellectual deceiver to pretend that you somehow are considering some notable nuance in the discussion. But again, when you try to be clever, you expose yourself for the fraud you are.
ReplyDeleteComprehension isn't much of a problem here. We comprehend a lot more about people like you than you have the capacity to imagine. More of an issue is articulation, in that, you don't articulate your thoughts well when you seek to sound as if you're educated. (to be sure, any sheepskin you may have legitimately received is only certification that you passed a course, not that you became educated)
I've offered three links that list the many risks of birth control and morning after drugs. They have adverse affects on the woman's psyche as well. So your defense fails on every count.
Personally, I don't much mind your visits here, even when you are reduced to such as this: "It's just a shame you typed it with your dick." You're a real class act. I find it entertaining when people like you try to present themselves as intellectuals and only expose themselves as fools. So hurry back and keep on entertaining.
"taking another's life" is imposing your theological commitments on a American democracy.
ReplyDeleteNot to be done.
As soon as you go there, you've exited public discourse and entered debate among Christians.
I'm sympathetic with you in that arena.
But not with your crusading aggression that denies the fundamentals of our society.
This is delusional, or at the very least, grandiose: "We comprehend a lot more about people like you than you have the capacity to imagine."
ReplyDeleteAs for risks, there are risks in everything. That does not make for a concluding argument so, no. my points don't fail in the face of your risks.
There is risk in taking aspirin, tylenol, toothpaste not too long ago.
When one takes a drug there is risk. When one takes a strong drug there are greater risks and side effects.
And then, despite Eric's glib whitewashing of the "perfect health" of pregnancy, there's a risk in being pregnant.
""taking another's life" is imposing your theological commitments on a American democracy."Absolute nonsense, and blatantly dishonest nonsense at that. Just because some wish to pretend there's some real divide between a human at the point of conception and some ambiguous point thereafter, does not constitute an imposition of my theology for pointing out the obvious, that a human is a human from the moment that human is conceived. Our laws do not change that, no lame feminist whine about "the right to choose" changes that, and surely no psuedo-intellectual who thinks he's clever can change that. Honest and rational people of honor don't play that game. Those weak and spineless children who can't control their sexual desires cling to the argument that the unborn are not people. You obviously place yourself in that camp and think theology is necessary to rebut that position. The facts of biology are sufficient.
ReplyDeleteThe fundamentals of our society revolve around everyone's right to life. If that's too much of a problem when considering when to engage in intercourse, play it safe and get fixed.
"This is delusional, or at the very least, grandiose: "We comprehend a lot more about people like you than you have the capacity to imagine.""Not in the least. You're not fooling anyone here.
The risks of taking birth control drugs are a tad higher than aspirin, to the mother and definitely to the child she invited into existence. And pregnancy is not a risky proposition on it's face in the vast majority of cases, yet birth control drugs adversely affect every woman to some degree. And the potential for real harm is far more common than proponents of abortion are willing to let on.
And back to your stair-stepped sequence of concern, only a low class person would list abortion among the steps at all. ALWAYS oppose abortion, especially for kids, as the potential for ruining their lives, physically as well as psychologically, is very high.
"It makes you look really dim witted. As if you don't know that one's interior is part of one's life." -Feodork
ReplyDeleteLOL!
I'm betting that any reasonable person would value the life of the innocent over the feelings of an irresponsible whore.
MA skipped the militia practice and went right for anarchy:
ReplyDelete"Our laws do not change that..."
You're not an American. Not a lawful one in you ideas, at any rate.
Feodor, my "failure to respond to your idiotic arguments don't indicate cowardice on my part.
ReplyDeleteI simply concede there is no convincing those who willingly swallow the Liberal horses**t that the Liberal media shovels into their minds.
In other words, I recognize there comes a time to give up trying to reason with fools, and so, I do.
"And then, despite Eric's glib whitewashing of the "perfect health" of pregnancy, there's a risk in being pregnant."
ReplyDeleteFeodork, you don't even realize it but you have just made our case!
When a risk is made, consequences are often realized. And every risk-taker must face those consequences.
When an innocent human-being is brutally slain in an effort to avoid the consequences of irresponsible risk, you cheer.
We call it what it is...MURDER!
No doctor can cure death.
there is a risk every time some dumb-arse drinks and drives. When the consequences of that risk are realized and another innocent human-being is slain, do you think the risk-taker should just go on to drink and drive again?
Or should justice prevail and the individual pay for his.her crime?
Killing another when driving drunk IS a crime for the VERY same reason that aborting a child because of the consequences of risk SHOULD be a crime!
But it's not...because of callous idiots just like you!
You're anti-American.
ReplyDeleteYou're an idiot.
ReplyDelete