www.leray.us

Copy HTML:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.

Written by Admin in: Adult |

Oct
14
2004

Postnuke Upgrade

Performing a postnuke upgrade to 7.50 (gold). Please be patient as I get it all working again
(more…)

Bookmark and Share

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Copy HTML:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.

Written by Admin in: Admin Says! |

Oct
12
2004

Stop the MADNESS!!!!!

During the second presidential debate, President Bush made the following
statement when asked if he were able to pick a Supreme Court Justice who would
he select:

I wouldn’t pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance
couldn’t be said in a school because it had the words "under God" in it. I think
that’s an example of a judge allowing personal opinion to enter into the
decision-making process as opposed to a strict interpretation of the
Constitution.

Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago,
said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights.

That’s a personal opinion. That’s not what the Constitution says. The
Constitution of the United States says we’re all — you know, it doesn’t say
that. It doesn’t speak to the equality of America.

And so, I would pick people that would be strict constructionists. We’ve got
plenty of lawmakers in Washington, D.C. Legislators make law; judges interpret
the Constitution.

Since that statement I’ve heard ALOT of people wonder what he was referring to.

For those who do not know Black history, this was a landmark case at the time
as it disputed the right of slaves as property vs. people (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2932.html).
In essence the problem was how the case was presented to the Supreme Court, with
the second being the biased opinions of the justices.

In the end…it was a win for Slavery reform as it outraged a nation and bolstered action.

So thanks to a dear friend I end up at this site:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/9/16460/5820 which says that the
REAL reference to Dred Scott is a ‘secret
code to the pro life crowd.’

Why is it that emotional people have to look for things when facts do enough damage!

This is as bad as the site stating Saddam was a disavowed CIA asset used by the Bush family (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2849.htm) and that also says the former head of the IRS was a CIA operative in the Middle East at the same time.

This is really reaching for it!

Let’s just cut to the most simplistic reason this is ridiculous: George W. Bush has a SECRET CODE?!?!?

He’s smart enough to use one?!?!?!?

If this was something Cheney said…maybe.
Something George H.W. Bush said….probably.

The only secret code GW would use is “sniff, sniff [wiping nose] want a toot?”

For those that know me I’m touted as the "Whitest Black Guy on the Planet"
and am know as the "Elusive Black Republican" or nowadays the "Closet
Libertarian" regarding my thoughts on the current administration.

But to say that a 150+ year old supreme court decision on slavery somehow has secret ties to
anti-abortion legislation today is absolutely CRAZY.

Using that logic….the patriot act IS really about saving lives and not removing our freedoms
(more…)

Bookmark and Share

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Copy HTML:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/10/11/obit.reeve/index.html

Written by Admin in: America |

Oct
11
2004

Chris “Superman” Reeve, dies at 52

Where to start? When we got the news, anyone who heard it was saddened by it.

No one was sad that there wouldn’t be any more Superman movies. We weren’t sad that there wouldn’t be a sequel to ‘Somewhere in Time’ or
‘Deathtrap.’

On the contrary….

So many people know him for his tremendous struggle after his accident. His championing for stem cell research and being a hero to those not fortunate to
take walking for granted. Chris proved that you can be a REAL SUPERHERO without ever leaving your chair. He proved that you could be mighty and tall regardless of your physical circumstances. He was a hero for so many.

I personally hope his push for real stem cell research does not falter.

I hate to think sad thoughts so I have placed a humorous tribute to being a superhero…Stephen
Lynch – Superhero Song.

After all laughter heals all wounds….
(more…)

Bookmark and Share

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Copy HTML:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.

Written by Admin in: Entertainment |

Oct
07
2004

A little info regarding the First Admendment there Dixie Chicks

Natalie Maines on Real Time with Bill Maher said "I’d say more people than â€“ in a theater â€“ walked out on us. But I think it was terrible. And I think it just proves that, you know, speech is not free. And everyone tried to say, â€œOh, why are they whining about losing fans?â€ And, you know, â€œThey said what they said. We have freedom of speech to not listen to their music or ban them.â€ And the difference is that’s completely un-American. That’s against the Constitution. You can not like what I said and you can choose not to listen to
me, but for there to be corporate bans because of someone’s political views that were spoken, you know, very briefly and in an entertainment fashion, we’ve paid
very large. And so I think it’s really important for people to remember that free speech is something you cannot take for granted and you have to keep fighting for." (quote collected from show transcripts at

http://www.safesearching.com/billmaher/print/t_hbo_realtime_100104.htm).

This is the stupid slant of thinking done by entertainers that makes their posturing worthless.

Here is what the actual First Amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of
the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So following your statement, I guess if it’s un-American for corporations to ban you for your political beliefs…then it’s also un-American to allow
organizations like the NAACP, ACLU and KKK to exist right?!?!?

No so because the First Amendment is specifically relating to the GOVERNMENT ladies, not corporations. The Constitution of the United States was created to protect individuals from Government.

"The constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by
themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property and
freedom of the press." Thomas Jefferson

If you follow this thinking then you would see that true liberty maintains that humans are naturally in â€˜a State of perfect Freedom to order their Actionsâ€¦as
they think fitâ€¦without asking leave, or depending on the Will of any other Man.â€™

That’s what free speech means!

So just like you can ban a corporation by not purchasing their goods/services, so can a corporation ban you!

Just grow up and accept the fact that you said something that offended
alot of people and that your status
as a "celebrity" will cause you to be reminded of it for a LONG TIME to come.

It’s not like you got fired or were put in the poor house over it.
(more…)

Bookmark and Share

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Copy HTML:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.

Written by Admin in: America |

Oct
06
2004

God bless America!

I wasn’t sure where to put this article at first. I planned on
placing it in the ‘America’ category saying it "commemorates the American
ingenuity."

However, the more I thought about it and the more I looked at the site and
everything it had, I realized the simple truth of the matter….

The models are just hot (though they have a long way to go to
get to the level of Wicked Weasel:

http://www.wickedweasel.com)

http://www.bikini-beach.com/bikinijoes6.htm just browse the entire site and
you’ll see what I mean.
(more…)

Bookmark and Share

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Copy HTML:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.

Written by Admin in: Babes |

Oct
01
2004

Kerry up a point after debate!

From zero that is….

Here’s what I saw in the debate last night. One person debated an individual and his choices in a job. The other person debated the ability to do a job.

They NEVER debated each other and their “plans” for the future of the country and foreign policy strategy was not that much different.

So has my vote changed? Have I decided to vote for Kerry.

NOPE.

Kerry talked a good talk however his speech was just ‘armchair quarterbacking’ IMHO.

Anyone can talk about what they would do after the fact. Anyone can say their choices would be different. When I was a kid, there was a saying I heard people say in my old neighborhood in New York City — “if youz was in my shoes…you’dz get athletes foot.”

Seriously, would any of us made different choices during 9/11 or the war on terrorism? Possibly, but until you’re in the hot seat you can’t KNOW for sure.

Now to switch gears…from a ‘statesman’ point of view I was EXTREMELY IMPRESSED with John Kerry. He’s a great speaker, highly intellignet, and well versed. Compared to his Harvard opponent, he showed a great humility and his words flowed versus the stammering texan.

Switching back, all I saw in the debate was two guys who sounded ALOT alike, who dressed so close only the ties distinguisned them (sorry, but they BOTH have elephant ears in my opinion).

One was ‘smoother’ in his speaking, but his plans were pretty much the same…even when he said it would be different.

So while I’m on the fence I’m still leaning towards GW.

Vote for the slacker from Harvard (dubious military career, no business sense, SKULL & BONES society member) or the slacker from Yale (dubious military career, never tried at business, SKULL & BONES society member)?

Sorry, but I still feel like a prison bitch on dance night.
(more…)

Bookmark and Share

Close Bookmark and Share This Page