sol740

Input, sminput ... stop posting in anothers noob's thread. How did I miss this thread gawd-damnit. I miss the RSX guy, lets unban him ... again.

Your truck is ugly. Can't argue with what's under the hood though, so welcome. (don't take the ugly thing too serious, I drive a brick on rollerskates)

LOL Straight from the factory baby, I call it pre-rice. My rice vs. your Lsx this spring ...

My tails are painted to look less ricey. I'd go with the stockers or LEDs. http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k21/sol740/IMG_0208.jpg

Its hard to see cause the engine bay setups are different, but if you look closely at the way the headers flow back in the camaro, its looks curiously like a waterfall.

Down.

lol ... most of my other cars ended up in them at some point.

Simple niceties such as ... basic manners, are a lost art, usually reserved for the intelligent, non-slackjawed, non-furrow browed individuals that don't continuously drool all over themselves while struggling to comprehend the information their eyes, too quickly, transer to their brains. Think of it like that, and everytime someone is rude, you'll laugh a little imagining them struggling to tie their shoes, or trying to remember which lung breathes first.

Flattery will get you nowhere ! (even if you are 100% correct in every way imaginable, minus interior)

My daughter made me breakfast. Shes two years old. By 'breakfast' I mean she threw food all over my face.

You should devote your time, money, and effort to a non-cavalier vehicle. Like an STI ... but with a wicked cavalier conversion bodykit. Mad USDM tyte.

QFT-ruthiness

I disagree with that, at least in the nascar sense of "rubbing".

What a lowlife piece of shit.

Welome.

Nascar will win a "what is gay-er" contest to even the most flaming opponent available.

The only thing you really need to consider is whether or not you like to turn ... either left ... or even to the right. You like that ? Vette.

nm ...

I say that, that example is analogous in some ways and totally different in others. Those mainly being the 3rd party "victim", the intent to violently intimidate, and lastly the actual crime being a violent robbery and not an alledged "street race". Again the crime involves knowingly victimizing another individual. In which case I completely agree that all parties are and should be held responsible. However if you fell off the roof and died while breaking in I should not be not be responsible for that. Just the burglary.

We'll just have to agree to disagree than. The way I see it is sort of like this. For instance: A cohort and I decide to rob a bank, during the robbery my cohort kills someone. I am guilty by association. Thats pretty clear-cut to me. However lets take the same situation and try to make it analogous to what occured. A cohort and I decide to rob a bank, during the robbery my cohort dies of 'the dangers that come with robbing a bank'. Charge me with bank robbery, or if my cohort also hurt someone else during the robbery, aggrevated assault, and bank robbery.

Seeing folks on here drawing comparisons between 2 criminals raping, robbing, and murdering someone, and 2 people who may or may not have been driving/racing irresponsibly is disheartening. Those 2 situations aren't even remotely interchangable. Why are there comparisons involving 3rd party victims ? I do understand someone else was hurt, but to my knowledge that person is alive.

Boomblox ... and a good duster.

I'm the office prankster here, so I can't really make any comments that don't end in ... "LOL". My colleagues tears taste like sweet, sweet candy. Once I sat at my desk all day making itty-bitty sized paper wads. Literally like 8 hours worth of em. (slow day) My victim stopped by my desk and looked at the ginormous mountain of tiny paper wads and commented "... that's quite the collection you got going ... " I replied " ... yup sure is." As I continued to manufacture pencil-eraser sized little paper-balls. I had to pick them up with triple-oversized hanging folder I had so many. As I walked out of the office at the end of the day passing my victims office, I peered in and noticed he was on the phone with a customer (hes a sales rep). He wasn't paying attention to me, just talking sales-crap with the customer, I said "HEY!", and as he looked up his eyes saw the strobing effect of about a thousand paper wads come raining down from above and all over every personal effect in his office. There must have been a hundred or so jammed and stuck inbetween his keyboard keys alone. Not to mention the piles in his hair, his coffee mugs and in one of his open drawers. Beautiful.

Nothing to prove really, President Eisenhower, 1954. Ironically enough, placed before the word 'indivisible'. This was not the first time the 'Pledge' had been altered. The original was quite short and 'to-the-point'. Christian fundementalists in the 50's were disturbed by the Pledge's lack of reference to a spiritual deity. So they campaigned many years in attempt to add their religious reference. Those attempts failed several times before Eisenhower signed the changes into order. Someone NWS this thread and lets see some ta-tas.

The "under god" part of the pledge of allegiance was not originally in it when it was written. So that line was already crossed.