Nikuk

now me and the mad scientist gotta rip apart the block

eh Yep. Blowing off steam, sorry Mod's!

cool

not really, just say You're taking of picture of the surf...

guilt sucks.,

and that'd just be the icing on the pucking cake today.

A lil worried about Justin tough... I think that I really did get him in trouble at work.... ?

I'm bored now...

was testing with (4) amps.. yes actually, it was a bit over 10kw nominal.

Lame Re? Lama Re? I think I;ve lost intrest...

Yah... sure pucking is!

http://www.caraudio.com/vb/showthread.php?t=105472

get an optima from sears. then can order any size or color & you can get a 10% discount on wednesdays (i dont remember why). make friends with an employee and get another 10% discount. otherwise, look for a place that sells "Lifeline" batteries. they had a pretty good showing in some testing, here and on the 'net. -Nick

Nice! I know it wasn't cheap either.. especially when John @ maxxsonics told me that the team roster was full (for any class that I could compete in anyways). Get to testing! Gotta catch Livewire!

SUPA should know this, he is canadian afterall. regardless of wether or not steve & scott will admit it.

USPS best way to get into canadia.

great aunt died yesterday morning. 95 years young. sucks. I was pretty close to her. My family is all about matriarchs. I've spent two days making arrangments and notifying family in Georgia, Ohio, and around town here. It's going to be a long week. lots of

My sincerest congrat's here! Way to go Aaron, and I wish You the BEST of luck! -Nick

"David and _______" I need a couple of cheap colossus'...

High court OKs personal property seizures Majority: Local officials know how best to help cities Thursday, June 23, 2005; Posted: 10:50 a.m. EDT (14:50 GMT) Bankruptcy Attorney Free online bankruptcy evaluation by bankruptcy attorneys. See if Chapter 7 or... www.bankruptcyhome.com Low-Fee Bankruptcy Attorneys Looking for an experienced, affordable attorney to end your debt problems? Legal... www.legalhelpers.com Speak to a Personal Injury Attorney Now Contact an injury law firm about your injury. A local attorney will help you... www.injuryhelplineattorney.com Affordable Attorney Help in Your Area Get legal help for pennies a day from local attorneys. Request more info on how... www.autosender.net YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS Supreme Court Connecticut or Create Your Own Manage Alerts | What Is This? WASHINGTON (AP) -- -- The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses -- even against their will -- for private economic development. It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership rights. The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas. As a result, cities have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes to generate tax revenue. Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said. "The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including -- but by no means limited to -- new jobs and increased tax revenue," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use." Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Connecticut, filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices. New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers. The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight. "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms." She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

pooooooooooooooop dick. meh.

LOL, nice. seriosuly though, go enjoy Yourself hombre. -Nick