babystewie

Select make + yr + model + tire size 15 + veiw all = http://tinyurl.com/6dxcf Try the above link from Tire Rack I just got 2 Yokohama Avid H4s for my nissan pu, the service from Tire Rack has been great for over 15yrs of mail ordering my tires.

repeat after me, "No sir you may not search my car" say as nice as you can, repeat if asked again. If they have a reason- whatever it may be , at least you said no. This ain`t the land of the free anymore!

He has no life and is a poster child for white trash..... ohhh look at me,I`am soo kwel... Hey your friends are waiting for U

What the fuck does that pic have to do with London? No really please tell us why you feel the need to keep posting your shit all over the site. Looks like somebody put a bowl on your head when they cut your hair. For a BIGTIME pornstar you sure do have alot of free-time to waste posting on a club site.

- ON THIS DAY - On Dec. 1, 1955, Rosa Parks, a black seamstress, defied the law by refusing to give up her seat to a white man aboard a Montgomery, Ala., city bus. Parks was arrested, sparking a year-long boycott of the buses by blacks.

http://tinyurl.com/6avta But protests were smaller than expected. Police estimated the demonstrators numbered 5,000 as Bush met with Prime Minister Paul Martin. ------------------ What I saw on cnn looked around a few thousand, also it was friggin cold. Bush wouldn`t address Parliament as he was affraid of getting heckled-boo`d . seen on cnn: "A village in Texas has lost its idiot." < Edited to add > xxxpornxxx--your hubristic attitude here is pretty pathetic, excuse me your ethnocentrism attitude. You may ask the 25-30k Americans who had nowhere to go on 9/11 and the locals took them into their homes.

Sad if your the only one here who is or has read the report, half way thur it now myself.

.....double post

-------------------------------------------------- Supreme Court to Rule on Medical Marijuana http://tinyurl.com/5kubk Medical Marijuana Draws Skepticism at U.S. Top Court http://tinyurl.com/4ou3p Nov. 29 (Bloomberg) -- Several U.S. Supreme Court justices expressed doubts that states can let seriously ill patients ease their symptoms by using marijuana, a drug the federal government has designated as illegal. Supreme Court Considers Medical Marijuana Case http://tinyurl.com/54mcb

http://tinyurl.com/4k6xo USA Patriot Act II Think the first Patriot Act was a civil rights and personal privacy tragedy? Just wait until you see Patriot Act II. Essentially, the law would destroy any last illusions of freedom in the United States. It would turn the USA into a communist-style police state, where no person is truly free. * Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex) told the Washington Times that no member of Congress was allowed to read the first Patriot Act that was passed by the House on October 27, 2001. * The first Patriot Act was universally decried by civil libertarians and Constitutional scholars from across the political spectrum. * 1. The secretive tactics being used by the White House and Speaker Hastert to keep even the existence of this legislation secret would be more at home in Communist China than in the United States. * The fact that Dick Cheney publicly managed the steamroller passage of the first Patriot Act, ensuring that no one was allowed to read it and publicly threatening members of Congress that if they didn't vote in favor of it that they would be blamed for the next terrorist attack, is by the White House's own definition terrorism. * Whereas the First Patriot Act only gutted the First, Third, Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and seriously damaged the Seventh and the Tenth, the Second Patriot Act reorganizes the entire Federal government as well as many areas of state government under the dictatorial control of the Justice Department, the Office of Homeland Security and the FEMA NORTHCOM military command. * These sections also set up a national DNA database for anyone on probation or who has been on probation for any crime, and orders State governments to collect the DNA for the Federal government. links: http://tinyurl.com/6tsg7 http://tinyurl.com/6zudj We may be witnessing the Nazification of our nation. --Toni Morrison, Nobel laureate in literature, January, 2002

The 9/11 Commission Report, has anybody read it? yes? what did you think? no? why not?

You ready for this---- Most people feel theres NOTHING wrong with the above case. " I guess the patchy haircut would let you know who'd been in trouble," Did you know that: "Under Florida’s controversial cash seizure law, however, deputies confiscated the money anyway, assuming that anyone carrying more than $100 was a drug trafficker" The best is the people who will scream and write you nasty emails saying " If you think the Patriot Act is infringing on your rights, then, in the words of Jim Carrey: STOP BREAKING THE LAW, A$$HOLE! If you have nothing to hide, then what are you worried about?" bumpdaddy- check your PM ******************************* Oh yeah thanks for the love , kiss your mom with that mouth. < Latest Reputation Received > 11-26-2004 05:07 PM fuck you nigga! - wally

Yep the exact same report I`ve read, but taking of hair on public display does not "bend" the Fourth Amendment? That is a start to a slippery slope and who knows where it will end. ************************** In Mills, we instructed that the key question in addressing whether the taking of a hair sample was a “search†under the Fourth Amendment was whether “the compulsion to produce facial and scalp hair samples . . . is more akin to fingerprinting and voice and handwriting exemplars which have been held outside the ambit of Fourth Amendment protection or whether it is more closely aligned with the extraction of blood samples or fingernail scrapings which have been subjected to Fourth Amendment analysis as to reasonableness.†Id. at 139. We resolved this question with the following holding: We conclude that there is no greater expectation of privacy with respect to hair which is on public display than with respect to voice, handwriting or fingerprints. In the case of blood samples and fingernail scrapings, the bodily seizure requires production of evidence below the body surface which is not subject to public view. In the case of facial and head hair, as well as fingerprints, voice and handwriting exemplars, the evidence is on public view. Id. Mills’ holding is clear that the taking of hair is not subject to restrictions imposed by the Fourth Amendment.

.......

See thats the thing about law, the people I`ve talked to about this case say its setting a very bad precedent as its backing the 1982 ruling.The plot thickens....

I have one question, 23 at home? may I ask why your still at your folks house. I mean come`on

http://www.cannabis.com/usage/dtfaq.shtml Back on topic , NO NIACIN won`t work.

Okay somebody called? well I hate to be the bearer of bad new but, YOUR RIGHTS JUST GOT ASSRAPED! *********************************** http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20041117.html At the end of last month, in the case of Coddington v. Evanko, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that police officers may constitutionally shave large amounts of hair from a suspect's head, neck, and shoulders, without a warrant, probable cause, or any basis for suspecting that the hair would provide evidence of crime. The Fourth Amendment guarantees the people the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. But according to the court, the Fourth Amendment does not apply to hair removal. In so ruling, the Third Circuit followed its own 1982 precedent, In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Appeal of Mills), which held that taking hair samples from visible parts of a suspect's body does not invade any reasonable expectation of privacy. Such investigation therefore does not qualify as a Fourth Amendment "search." The court in Coddington did not specifically address the question of whether shaving a large amount of hair from a suspect might constitute an unconstitutional "seizure." But it did reaffirm what it understood to be the holding of Mills: "that the taking of hair is not subject to restrictions imposed by the Fourth Amendment." Since the Fourth Amendment governs seizures as well as searches, it follows that there is no right under any part of the Fourth Amendment to be secure from police unreasonably shaving large amounts of hair from the visible parts of one's body. This ruling is wrong as a matter of logic. It also misinterprets the constitutional right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. < snip > make no mistake. Under the Third Circuit's approach, the police can shave the hair of anyone who appears in public at any time. They do not need to have any reason whatsoever < snip >

...

...

.......

...

........

http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/001265.html H.R. 3922: Last Week's Joint is Tomorrow's DUI Let me preface this by making one thing clear: I firmly believe that if someone drinks and gets behind the wheel, they deserve punishment; And if someone smokes a joint and tries to drive, it's not much of a difference except in semantics. That said, alcohol is detectable in your system for a very short period of time since it is water soluble. Marijuana on the other hand, is fat soluble, which means that if you smoke a joint and are high for a few hours, that joint is going to be detectable a week later when you are completely sober. Now, is it fair to cart someone off to jail for smoking some reefer a week ago and charging them with a DUI simply because it takes longer for the body to remove the traces of THC metabolites? Hell no, but that's exactly what Congress is proposing. ********************** http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/329/driving.shtml "Drugged Driving" Campaigners Open New Front with Federal Legislation A little more than a year ago, DRCNet reported on the opening of a campaign led by drug czar John Walters and backed by self-interested drug testing consultants to crack down on "drugged driving," or operating a motor vehicle while high (http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/264/druggeddriving.shtml). Walters, backed up by research and recommendations from the drug test consulting firm the WalshGroup (http://www.walshgroup.org), called on states to enact zero tolerance per se laws against drugged driving. Per se laws assume that a certain level of a drug in one's system is prima facie evidence that one is intoxicated. State drunk driving laws, where a blood alcohol level of 0.08% gets one an automatic drunk driving conviction, are examples of such laws. The difference between per se drunk driving laws and the per se drugged driving laws envisioned by Walters (and already enacted by eight states, according to the American Prosecutors Research Institute), is that the drugged driving laws will set the amount of drugs in one's system that would trigger a drugged driving conviction at zero. Under such laws, a person who smokes a joint Friday night could be pulled over and arrested for driving while intoxicated Monday morning, long after the high has worn off, but while the notoriously long-lasting cannabis metabolites linger. Now, Congress has joined the campaign with two bills introduced in the last two weeks, one that creates a model zero tolerance per se drugged driving law for the states, and one that would penalize the states for failing to implement such laws. On March 4, Rep. Jon Porter (R-NV) introduced H.R. 3907, which would take federal highway transportation dollars away from "states that do not enact laws to prohibit driving under the influence of an illegal drug." The bill would strip 1% of federal highway funds from states that do not enact such laws by 2006, with the percentage doubling each year up to a ceiling of 50%. And states must create mandatory minimum penalties for drugged driving to comply with the bill. ******************** US: Series: A Bleak Forecast for Pot Smokers? http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v04/n804/a02.html?81399

That guy is a nut, Bush lied and got 800+ Americans killed and the world is still waiting for 100`s TONS of WMD. Oh he moved them or hide them- bullshit, Dick,W, are quoted saying "we know where they are" and now they can`t find them??? Don`t you think we had as many sat`s looking down as we could and some how we didn`t see them moving truckloads around? come on you or I can veiw sat. photos of the USA and I can even tell you want car is in my driveway- But we couldn`t see them hauling shit away... The world knows Bush lied and to say we did it for the people of Iraq is a lie too, the world has dozens of evil rulers and yet we do trade with them, hmm . The story goes on to say we(usa) need to start invading more countries? Oh yeah now the world will love us even more, quick history lesson- all empires fall. Oh no I`am free thinking again--better turn on FoxNews to get my facts right.