Tour of Ferguson
1 Attachment(s)
Got to see the crapper factory, luckily we DO have pictures of their head salesman and their product.
|
"Now that's a MAN'S flush!"
"head" salesman. That's funny. |
We have one like that. Kept the old 6 gallon toilet when we bought the house.
_________________________ |
I’d kidnap the pope to have a 6 gallon tank again! You could practically flush a pumpkin with that mofo!
I believe they’re still available in Canada. |
Should still be available here too.
Environmentalism be should be an INDIVIDUAL choice. One should be able to save their little piece of the environment if they so choose. One should also be free to choose to RUIN a portion as well. I'd shut down the EPA in a heartbeat if it was my decision. |
Johnny Crapper or was that Thomas?
|
Funniest thing I ever saw in a movie involved a toilet.
The "hardware store toilet" scene in the original "jackass" movie. Grab a newspaper, drop trousers, proceed to TAKE A DUMP in a DRY display floor-model toilet. That thar's an ultra hilarious riotttt. |
I got it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IL2YRDzpTL4 Quote:
|
Quote:
Also, a surprisingly-significant number of travelers--women as well as men, from all across the U.S.--considered our bathroom sinks to be "hand shower basins" and left the floors soapy-slick and soaking wet (the janitorial folks I knew wanted to ^skin^ those philistines!). At least they didn't stand up on the toilets' seats to urinate ("footprints on the toilet seat" is a culture shock to American visitors to Indonesia). :-) In addition: Seconded on your EPA comment above--it makes about as much sense as having a federal (as well as state versions, as is the case with the multiple "EPAs" at both levels of government) "theft, rape, and murder prevention agency" that, like the EPA, exercises prior restraint (the police are a "criminal suspect apprehension service" whose job isn't to prevent crime--although their physical presence naturally has a deterrent effect where they're present--but to arrest them *after* crimes have been committed). The Constitutionally-proper way to handle pollution and littering is to have sensible state laws--just as the laws against theft, rape, and murder are at the state level--against intentional and negligent pollution and littering (that's the way it used to be), not agencies that everyone has to ask "Mommy, may I?" of before building anything, or even digging a new drinking pond for one's cows, without submitting an Environmental Impact Statement (at least one farmer was cited by the EPA for committing that "crime"). Canada has some peculiar directives concerning this, too: A few years ago, there was some environmental confab there which involved attendees visiting a nearby forest on foot, and they were actually advised to "not urinate in the same spot twice, to prevent contamination" (what about the bears and moose who might have their favorite "watering spots?" [even horses often have favored patches of ground for putting nitrates back into the soil...]). |
I have no problem with environmental regulation just as long as it is no stronger than that followed by Shell Oil, Dow Chemical, Chevron-Ortho, and General Motors in the 1950's.
No joke. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:29 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.