geobas1

Registered bored user

geobas1 wrote:
My wife wouldn't get shitty with the girl, I'd be the one in trouble.  
geobas1 wrote:
daegog "I was in the pool! I was in the pool!!!"

Best Seinfeld episode ever. 
geobas1 wrote:
daegog even if he had not gone to meet the "minor". they could and would charge him for sending pictures to someone he believed to be a minor. Should they? Honestly idk.  if he hadn't happened upon the plant it is probable  he would have pursued his "fantasy" until he fulfilled it for real.  so I can't feel bad for the guy at all, but it also does smack of thought crime. 
geobas1 wrote:
woodyville06 it would be painful to build probably billions, but what's the cost of destroying the ecosystem of the entire southwest? Right now they are offloading the true cost of living in the area to anyone and everyone they can steal water from. 
geobas1 wrote:
layla_wilson  yeah I'll take a slice too please
geobas1 wrote:
semichisam01 I've felt for a long time Cali especially southern Cali needs to accept the pain and go to solar powered desalination. It'll be a tough pill to swallow due to the up front costs but if anywhere has the money it's Cali. Then they can quit stealing water from the entire southwest and embrace a true sustainable and ecologically sound existence. 
geobas1 wrote:
geobas1 I would note that I had a step grandfather that had cataract surgery (I know it's different it's a lense  replacement) he had complications with it and it took 6 months to repair his vision in the first eye so they could move on to the second.  I'd say yes there is a possibility of complications, but that's the case with every medical procedure.  
geobas1 wrote:
Wife and I have both had it done roughly 15 years ago.  She has 20/30 vision still fine to drive without glasses, she is on the verge of needing reading glasses but that's just age.  She has no ill effects. I still have 20/15 vision only thing of significance negative  that changed for me is when working on small electronics I have to use a lupe or a magnifying visor. before I could put things right up to my eye and focus in super close not needing magnification, after my minimum focal distance is about 6 inches basically far enough that I can't see the surface mount component details without magnification.  

We both feel to this day it was by far the best value for money we have gotten from any money we have ever spent.  To be able to open my eyes and read an alarm clock (phone now) ,to read a stop sign without glasses, it was just life altering in such a positive way it's difficult to accurately describe. 
geobas1 wrote:
normalfreak2 I think the praising of enemies is trumps way of "keeping your enemies closer" and this come from someone who absolutely believes he's an idiot and an egotist. Is it wise probably not, but even idiots get some things right some of the time. The treatment of Canada and others appears to me to be simple posturing.  Him saying we "I" am more important than you and I'll make sure you know it. It's policy by asshole plain and simple.
geobas1 wrote:
Is this productive? Who knows at this point I'd say no one does.  Guessing about this is like guessing about the effectiveness of a new diet of a 600lb man in the first week. 

 The reality is it's going to take years of real work, real change, diligence, understanding, negotiation and renegotiation. Just like the diet odds are it'll be a failure, but there had to be a first step and this qualifies as that. 
geobas1 wrote:
bearbear01 no they very well might have been a monk the way they reacted
geobas1 wrote:
My question is why as a gay person would you want to support an ignorant asshole  by doing business with them. You will not change their mind by forcing them to do business with you all you'll do is support a person who is clearly a bigoted asshole with your hard earned money. I know it isn't right or fair or nice, and no it shouldn't be, but why would you want to support their establishment? 
geobas1 wrote:
oobaka I agree but a bigger problem is everyone thinking they get to tell everyone else what to do with themselves. They want to be ignorant and live ignorant lives then fuck them they can go broke turning away good business. You can't force someone to be a decent human being the best you can do is call them the asshole  they are and get yourself as far from their assholeness as possible. 
geobas1 wrote:
punko then take your dollars elsewhere.  Business's should have the right to refuse customers, but customers also have the right to refuse to do business with them.
 Yes they are assholes, but they have the right to be an asshole and we have the right to hold it against them.
geobas1 wrote:
Gerry1of1 I'm straight, but last religious guy that said being gay was a choice I asked "so you could decide tomorrow that sucking a cock is now suddenly your thing.  You are really that close to being gay it's a constant struggle for you to maintain your straightness .  That's not going to happen for me so why would I think the opposite is true for someone else. "
geobas1 wrote:
Gerry1of1 up vote for you sir. 
geobas1 wrote:
bearbear01 I feel it's absolutely comparable to brushing ones teeth.  I'd rather have interactions with a stoned individual than one with stinky breath.  "Trafficking" becomes trade when it's legal. Booze was trafficked during prohibition but now it's just called interstate trade/shipping. 
geobas1 wrote:
bearbear01 I agree you can't drive while high due to impairment, but impairment due to marijuana isn't practically worse than impairment due to distraction, inattention, lack of sleep or anything else.  Imo the erratic, impaired driving should have the consequences in and of itself. regardless of reason it'll cause a crash and or death.  My issue is with criminalizing what one does to themselves and keeps within the confines of their home.  You want to grow a plant and smoke part of it in your home you should be allowed. I don't care if it's pot or heroin its your business not the govs.  sorry  others feels don't count only causing physical harm that's just too fuzzy a line to draw as some people's feelings are hurt by all manner of mundane garbage. 


It's not a war on drugs it's a war on personal freedom. Getting you used to someone else saying what you are and are not allowed to do with you.  the funny thing is I haven't touched the stuff in over 20 years.

  In its most basic form I see it as legislated tooth brushing yeah you're a fool if you don't brush your teeth, i appreciate it when others also brush their teeth, the world would be a better place if everyone brushed, but it sure as hell isn't the govs role to enforce mandatory brushing.
geobas1 wrote:
bearbear01 I'm not positive I get your meaning, but I believe your implying that I didn't have a say in water purity laws and didn't care to, so somehow that means I have to accept that someone else gets to decide I'm not allowed to smoke a joint if I want to.  I'm not saying no laws are allowed to be written without my approval. My point is a law that protects me from myself is fundamentally  tyrannical. To criminalize and imprison a person for something they choose to do to themselves is unjust. a law against poop in water is just because it keeps another party from injuring me with his feces or me from injuring him with mine.  But if he wanted to find and eat poo of his own accord it isn't my place to stop him no matter how stupid or disgusting I feel it is.
geobas1 wrote:
Realize article isn't about adults and kids are different, but it is labeled an open forum so I'll just say my 2¢ worth. 

As an adult anyone that thinks they have a right to tell me what I can do with me (my body) can f#¢€ right off. I am a grown ass adult and I'll decide what I do and don't put in my body. Doesn't matter if you think it's dumb, stupid, bad for me, or a mortal sin.  It's my body, my choice, and if it is the wrong choice I have to live with it, not you so mind your own damn business. 
geobas1 wrote:
I've done that to the guys in my profile picture.  Almost the exact a same reaction I got from both. This is just what unconditional love looks like. Genuinely care and are concerned for their people's.
geobas1 wrote:
Calling the guy a YouTuber is beyond generous.  Just because you have an account doesn't make you a YouTuber. It implies you actually have a following.  This reeks of msm wanting to shit on the tubes again. Not that there are not shit people on yt they are everywhere,  they might as well have called him an iab'er for all we know he has an account here too. 
geobas1 wrote:
I don't have to look that far to see the evidence.  Why do men have nipples? They serve no purpose. An intelligent designer wouldn't have put them on men because there isn't a point, nature just takes what it can get and does with it what it can. 
geobas1 wrote:
My guess is now that he is the ugliest dude in rock and roll she's leaving him.  He won the crown by default when lemmy died. 
geobas1 wrote:
LordJim yeah pretty much sums up my feelings.  Glad I'm not there. 

Even if it's a bad joke still a joke.  

Hell in the us it is legal even if it isn't a joke. Unless deemed a serious call to action meaning that they expect and it is reasonable to expect that someone will act. Then  and only  then does it become illegal.