Right now, we are in recession and job loss is moving at an astronomical rate. I don't see any new jobs being created, the economy is in the shitter, we can't control our borders, healthcare needs a massive overhaul......and people are talking about Chic-Fil-A coming out against gay marriage. I gotta tell ya, I'm shocked. I mean a die hard conservative Christian comes out and says he's against gay marriage? I'm just blown the fuck away that this is the case.
What the fuck is wrong with you people?
By "you people" I mean you idiots that don't understand that neither will your boycott of Chic-Fil-A hurt the business (they even close on Sunday's), but you look like total fuckwads for uprising against them, yet sitting idly by on your liberal loins while Obama blames the previous administration for every problem he is facing as the country continues to spiral into the shitter. Yet your battle cry at the moment is "gays should be allowed to marry".
Fuck me running backwards.
Let me be clear about my liberal leanings. I am a moderate, or probably even closer to something of a libertarian. I believe that people should be allowed to do what they want to do, so long as they don't impact my life. With that said, I'm also not an idiotic libertarian either. Meaning, I understand that a lot of the things that people do CAN impact my life. For example, I'm fine with legalizing pot and some other illegal drugs. In fact, I believe that doing so could be an awesome way to kick start the economy with jobs and businesses. However crack or meth or any drugs that have made a heterosexual man suck a dick to get a fix for, should never be made legal. Period. Let's not compare pot to meth in any way, shape, or form.
With all of that said, I'm sick of the gay marriage discussion. I don't care one way or the other. If they never make gay marriage legal, that's fine. If they do, that's fine. This is generally my line of thinking about most things that have no bearing on my life. I care about gay marriage about as much as I cared about that turd I flushed down the toilet this morning. However all of the other issues I mentioned above, like the economy, jobs, healthcare, and our borders, can or do have an effect on my life.
The biggest thing that does bother me about gay marriage issue is not gay marriage itself, but the things people are comparing it to. Like this absurd notion, that it's a civil rights issue. It's insulting to people like Martin Luther The King, and those that lost their lives in order to have equality based on factors they had no control over.
"But no one decides to be gay, Paul."
For some, that feels true. I think for many men and women however, it can be a choice. Not all, but enough that's it been documented even in the small group of Hollywood Elite.
There have been plenty enough people that have crossed back and forth between the sexual lines, that there is no clear cut definition on this for EVERYONE. Some people do in fact, decide to be gay, or at least, "try it out".
Don't think so?
Urban Word of the Day
A former lesbian who is now in a heterosexual relationship.
Former being the key word there. Anytime someone is a former anything, they are not that anymore.
A former fat guy.
A former stripper.
A former car mechanic.
If there is a definition for it, then that means for some people there is a choice involved at the time.
But hey, let's belabor this point a little more. From this article........
Some hasbians identify as bisexual, while others say they’re straight and describe their lesbianism as a meaningful but finite phase of their lives, like listening to a lot of Morrissey or campaigning for Dukakis.
Everything about that statement implies a CHOICE.
She thinks there are two kinds of bisexuals—those for whom gender is not a factor (the category she puts herself into) and those who avoid intimacy by shuttling between the sexes.
Everyone's fave bad guy right now, Bane, played by actor Tom Hardy also admitted to crossing the fence into gay land for a while. When asked if he had ever had sex with men this was his reply......
I'm an actor for ****'s sake.
'I've played with everything and everyone. I love the form and the physicality, but now that I'm in my thirties, it doesn't do it for me.
Now that he's in his thirties......it doesn't do it for him. Is it me, or does that sound like a choice?
"When I was a youngster, I loved some god damn G.I. Joe and Saturday morning cartoons. But once I found out about chics and cars, that didn't do it for me anymore."
Ok, so Saturday morning cartoons are still pretty cool.
Nevertheless, the reason I am pointing out these comparisons, is because I can't ever remember a single black man saying "I'm tired of being black, I think I'll be hispanic for a while."
"I'm tired of being white, I think I'll go be Asian for a while. They are smarter, and I'm a total moron, so I will try that out."
It's not a civil rights issue. Stop trying to make it one. It's insulting to the people who fought and died to have equal rights based on factors they were born with. Until someone finds the gay gene, the same cannot be said for sexual orientation. Period.
It's also not a basic human rights issue. I think this one pisses me off even more. Starting a family isn't even a basic human right. Being able to drive on the road isn't a basic human right. It boggles my mind what people perceive as basic human rights.
If they took marriage between as a man and a woman away tomorrow, would it make my life with my wife and family any different than it was today? No. Would it lessen the meaning of the last 18 years? No. Would I even care?
A lifelong commitment to each other has nothing to do with a piece of paper. That's something you decide in your heart of hearts. Not something you ask the government to recognize.
A lifelong commitment to each other has nothing to do with a piece of paper. That's something you decide in your heart of hearts. Not something you ask the government to recognize.
Again, let me state that I don't care if they make gay marriage legal. I'm not against gay marriage. It doesn't have any bearing on my life.
Nor do I give a shit if it's never made legal. I also refuse to weep for people who look at how badly marriage has failed in America, and say to themselves "I want summo that!"
Gay couples soapbox for a while was that they couldn't put their significant other on their health insurance. Well, they don't have that soapbox anymore as here is a list of states and companies that have domestic partnership policies.
So it kiiiinda feels like the push for gay marriage is nothing more than something to rub in the face of the religious righties. Because I get the feeling that even if both sides agreed that civil unions were just fine, there would still be people that would bitch and complain that it wasn't enough, and that they want "marriage". Sorry but, that feels a lot like the argument that non-religious folk bitch about religious folk. Namely, "Don't push your beliefs on me".
Again, my biggest complaint is that this is an issue at the forefront of society right now. On Facebook, in the news, this is a big topic. It's a topic at a time in America where we are in a completely economically fucked situation. It shouldn't be that big of a topic. But it is because of the Chic-Fil-A shit, and it will become an even bigger topic as the election grows near and Obama talks about how he's now for gay marriage where before he was against it (this sounds familiar), and continues to blame the struggles of our country on the former administration. Hey pal, you're supposed to be the elected leader of the free world you fucking pussy. Start acting like a man. Men step the fuck up and get shit done, they don't pass the buck.
If the day comes that they announce that gay marriage is made legal, my response would be the same as if someone told me they bought a green car. Zero fucks would be given, and I'd play some Modern Warfare on whatever shitty console Microsoft had duped me into buying at that time.
Make it legal, don't make it legal, I don't care. But stop acting like this issue should be at the forefront of our politicians agendas. We need someone to step up to the plate to get this country moving in the right direction again. Once that happens and shit looks fancy, make anything you want to be the at the forefront of this countries problems or discussions. Until then, this shit should be irrelevant.
More important than all of the shit I just wrote above, is Jennifer Nicole Lee at the beach.
Succinct and to the point. Not bad broheim.ReplyDelete
a) look up the word "succinct", as this is not that.ReplyDelete
b) what it IS is the most awesome rant I have ever read in my entire 50+ years of life. ever. by anyone. regardless of topic.
Well - if you are gay, without gay marriage you lose all rights to your spouse. When you have to have a list, that is a problem. It should be the default. When gays cannot join an organization because of their sexual orientation, then it is a civil rights issue.ReplyDelete
If you viewed the GDP, it just grew 1.5%, which means another 150k jobs. Is that enough? Not even close. But facts are facts. But unemployment is going down, irrespective of anecdotal evidence. Then again, lets not mention that somehow the rich are getting richer. I guess you and I are lazy, or something like that. For example, when Caterpillar hits record profits, the CEO pays himself $30 million, but demands breaks from the unions - that's just good business.
It's not a civil rights issue. I've already pointed that out.Delete
It *is* a civil rights issue. Civil rights are just "rights of civilians," and what is and isn't a civil right is defined by the government. Saying that something is or isn't a civil right is like saying that something is or isn't a law, it's missing the point. The law is something we can define and change, and we can define what civil rights are as well.Delete
In this case, the supreme court has long ago decided that marriage is a civil right. They've said things like:
* Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man,"
* This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause
I think the question isn't whether marriage is a civil right, that's already been decided, but whether gay marriage is the same of hetero marriage.
It is not a "civil right" in the same sense that black people were kept from voting, or using the same entrance to a resturaunt because they were born a certain way. Your sexual orientation should not be compared to it. So when I speak of civil rights, I speak of minorities and or women, fighting for equal rights that they did not have, due to something they were born with. To my knowledge, no one is born gay and there is no gay gene.Delete
Again, I don't care if they legalize it, however the comparison of it to civil rights of the others mentioned is preposterous.
"To my knowledge, no one is born gay and there is no gay gene."Delete
Hey I'm not so sure about this statement Paul...there is more and more scientific evidence building that homosexuality may indeed be a fixed genetic trait. This would be true for the vast majority of homosexuals (makes sense...who in their right mind would choose a lifestyle ostracized by society - a small minority such as the hollywood types you've already pointed out).
But hey - that isn't really relevant and wasn't your point. Your opinion that you are cool with gay marriage but could care less about it - I can respect that. You aren't roadblocking these people.
I happen to think it's an important issue as I have some gay friends. It's important to them, so it's important to me. Same reason why I (try) not to use the word 'fag' anymore as a put down. If people want to use it, that's up to them - to each his own and who am I to judge (personally I think it's better to punch up than punch down, if you get what I mean). But as you said there are bigger fish to fry...this shouldn't be a main election issue...deal with the economy 1st and get to this stuff later.
Anyways - great blog, great advice...will be picking up the ebook in the near future.
If someone were born gay, then that means that identical twins, who share the exact same DNA, would both be gay if one were. However that's not the case.Delete
The rest of what you said is spot on. I have gay friends (lol obviously) and could care less that they are gay. It's hard enough to find a loyal friend in the world today so someones sexual orientation bothers me not.
If the country gets moving in the right direction and this becomes a real issue, fine. But right now gay marriage shouldn't even be on the radar.
Also please refer to stuff such as filibusters, what obamacare really is (it was the Tepublicans plan when Clinton first wanted universal healthcare, etc).ReplyDelete
If there is ANY problem, it is the obstructionism in the Capitol.
The problem is that we are still stuck in the bust phase of a 10+ year government-fueled artifical boom. Under Clinton, interest rates were made too low and gov't guaranteed mortgages, causing moral hazard. If you'll recall, Bush entered office in a recession, the Nasdaq bubble had burst. Rather than let the recession/correction run its course, Bush continued to stimulate with lower interest rates, and all that cheap money then went into housing, causing prices to skyrocket. When housing prices fell, homeowners lost equity and banks became insolvent creating a financial crisis. Fact: had gov't not tampered with the self-imposed regulations of the market, we would not have had a housing bubble. Productive businesses that could have expanded lost access to capital that instead went to build too many houses or send kids to get degrees that have yielded no job prospects. Now Obama has continued the policies of Clinton and Bush but even more so, with interest rates now at 0% for four years now and only 8.2% unemp to show for it, and he continues to misdirect resources. People who try to save money and who hold dollars are being robbed by Obama and Bernanke, we don't need them to save us from lower gas prices ("deflation"). An economy is built on savings and production, not spending and borrowing. Obama/Bernanke have made saving money literally impossible with negative real interest rates. Without savings, we have no capital to invest, so we will have no real growth.Delete
I think this is what bothers me most. People act like all of these guys are so different, but from a political standpoint new boss is same as the old boss. It's one reason Ron Paul eventually won me over. Because his ideas are so radically different (in a good way) than either of the 2 parties.Delete
It's just frightening to me that American's won't let go of such minor issues, so we can all benefit from change in the larger ones.
Also, not to bail out Bush, but the dot com burst also killed the economy wave at the time. People stopped handing out millions for online businesses just based on plans.
I guess I should have figured, with all the general awesomeness that you're responsible for, that you'd be a fan of Ron Paul. The only way he could possibly be improved, as a candidate, would be if he squatted.Delete
Even then the improvement wouldn't be much. He's pretty awesome.Delete
I don't agree with some of your opinions here, but I still respect you and your point of view. I think one of the main problems with our country is that no one seems to be able to do that. Everyone wants to force everyone else to think the same way they do, and if someone has a differing opinion then it's bigotry or immoral. Does it hurt me that you don't feel the way I do? No. Do I care what some shitty sandwich joint does with their money? Hell no. Let's all just agree to disagree and stay the fuck out of each other's business.ReplyDelete
Also, the fact that people think facebook is the way to change the world is silly.
"A lifelong commitment to each other has nothing to do with a piece of paper." Absolutely spot on.ReplyDelete
Just live and let live.ReplyDelete
Gay or not gay, who cares...
Man that was a good one. It wasn't even that long. I'm not even American.ReplyDelete
hahahahah I laughed.Delete
There is not one most important issue.ReplyDelete
My church will marry same-sex partners, but the "righties" in my state want to pass a law to make that illegal forever. So that makes it an important freedom of religion issue.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but I can see what's fair and what isn't.
As a guy that isn't even religious anymore, I can't comprehend a so called "Christian" church marrying gay couples, since it's clearly forbidden in the Bible. That seems like social pandering to me and it's disturbing.Delete
Well, they also marry couples without confirming the wife is a virgin, or killing her if she is found to be otherwise (Deuteronomy 22: 13-21) so this sort of pandering is well established.Delete
The generation of the contextually challenged......Delete
Deuteronomy 22:13-21 I assume the "problem" with these verses isthat they proscribe the death penalty for a woman who lied about her virginity. To understand what is happening, and why God have this law, we need to understand what the historical context is and what God is doing. First, here are the verses we're talking about.
This is what Deuteronomy 22:13-21 says (NLT):
"Suppose a man marries a woman and, after sleeping with her, changes his mind about her and falsely accuses her of having slept with another man. He might say, "I discovered she was not a virgin when I married her." If the man does this, the woman's father and mother must bring the proof of her virginity to the leaders of the town. Her father must tell them, "I gave my daughter to this man to be his wife, and now he has turned against her. He has accused her of shameful things, claiming that she was not a virgin when he married her. But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity." Then they must spread the cloth before the judges. The judges must then punish the man. They will fine him 100 pieces of silver, for he falsely accused a virgin of Israel. The payment will be made to the woman's father. The woman will then remain the man's wife, and he may never divorce her.
But suppose the man's accusations are true, and her virginity could not be proved.In such cases, the judges must take the girl to the door of her father's home, and the net of the town Wellstone hurt to death. She has committed a disgraceful crying in Israel by being promiscuous while living in her parents home. Such evil must be cleansed from among you."
To start, there are three types of law in the Old Testament. The moral law, the ceremonial law and the civil law.
The moral law includes things such as the Ten Commandments, and prohibitions against homosexuality. The moral law is still in effect today.
The ceremonial law is related to the Temple and atonement for sin. The ceremonial law ended when Christ was crucified.
The civil law, which is the category in which the above verses fall, was provided to guide the Israelites in their relationships with other people, and to keep them healthy and safe--just as the civil law provided by our federal, state and local governments does. The civil law of the Bible no longer applies because we no longer face many of the problems and situations the Israelites faced in 1,500 B.C..
The civil law of the BIble also had an additional purpose, but first some historical background:
Deuteronomy is a record of Moses final speach just before he died and just before the Israelite entered the promised land. In Deuteronomy Moses is summarizing God's instructions to the Isratelite people. It is approximately 40 years after they left Egypt. Israele is not yet a nation, they are just a group of people. Their have a background of 400 years of living in the pagan culture of Egypt. They are about to enter a land in which the current occupants are heavily involved with sexual practices as a part of their religion. God does not want His people to accept and become involved in those religious practices.
Check the comment I replied to. If you take Leviticus to be relevant in the modern context, then you must also take Deuteronomy. While I've read the whole, disgusting quote you cited, and was aware of it when I made the post, I don't intend to soften my replies to people who cite Leviticus in any modern context. Churches should, according to that logic, endorse honor killings and check for virginity.Delete
How about killing adulterers? Or people who wear two kinds of fabric at once? Are we to massacre the unclean football players who have touched a leather ball? Owning slaves, of course, is fine.
There's a reason that the entire field of Christian Apologetics exists, due in no small part to Jesus's proclamation that "For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven"
There are, of course, ways to imply this stands only for the moral law. In that case, however, you have to cease and desist with all the bullshit associated with one line of Leviticus. You still take that line from Leviticus and declare it to be the MORAL LAW, which remains relevant today.
What is your logic for adopting one line of Leviticus as part of the moral law and disregarding the rest?
There are 8 different types of legal marriage in the Bible.Delete
Can you please show me the one where two men were involved? Thanks.
By the way, I am genuinely interested in how you would make such a decision. I have zero faith in the Abrahamic religions, but find putting together pieces of scripture to form an attempt at cohesive philosophy to be very interesting.Delete
I've read about the notion of the three kinds of laws before, but I've seen no real support to date for cherry-picking pieces of the Old Testament laws and including them among moral law. The commandments, of course, are cited by Jesus on various occasions, and all the work that has looked relatively logical to me comes from using these as the permanent standard, and certainly not Leviticus, Deuteronomy, etc. Do you have any quotations to that effect?
Ah Jzargo, the old christian 'context' argument. Christians will use all kinds of mental gymnastics to rationalize the immoral bullshit that fills the bible...advocation of slavery, condemnation of homosexuality, subjugation of women...it's all 'context' 'eh? Theists will forgive their god for anything.Delete
How about this context...there is not a shred of evidence that Moses was an actual person. Israeli archeologists have been looking for evidence of the journey out of egypt (for example) for 100 years. And have found nothing. Nada (kind of hard to live in the desert for 40 years without leaving a trace). Because - like everything else in the bible - it's a story, an allegory. It has little relevance in todays culture. I learned better morals from aesops fables.
Human morality existed for thousands of years before the bible books and letters. We've elvolved past this childish devotion to the 2000 year old babbling of iron age desert nomads.
I just want to get back to having harems as being legal. Can we do that? That's all I really care about.Delete
Eight kinds of marriage? This I did not know. Did any of them involve horses and/or camels?Delete
Ok, now that I've looked them up, I understand and wish they did deal more with licensed bestiality. That'd be a lot less fucked up.
I have a grown daughter about to marry(a man). Her Maid of Honor used to be lesbian. When this woman decided that being gay wasn't who she really was, all her gay friends rejected her.Without exception they broke off all contact with her.ReplyDelete
Now, I am what people would label a "religious righty" and I get accused of being a hater. Yet this young woman has always been welcome in my house, when she was lesbian and when straight.
Who's the hater now?
Tiff and I are friends with a lesbian woman and the hate for bisexual women among the lesbian community has always been at a fever pitch. Because lesbians fear that the bi woman will leave them for a man someday.Delete
Women seem to be more capable of crossing back and forth between the fences than men.
I'm glad you pointed out that this isn't a civil rights issue. People yelling that it's a civil rights issue are full of shit and clearly can't look at the situation objectively.ReplyDelete
I actually agree with you, Paul, but I wish you'd get fired up about the other stuff as well. I wish that homosexuals would stop wasting all this energy on useless shit like gay marriage. It doesn't do any good, and it doesn't help. As far as I'm concerned, it's a sideshow to distract the public from the fact that the country is in the process of being ransacked by the House of Have. How much is the Walton clan worth? How much is Bill Gates worth? How much money are the executives at Goldman Sachs, BP, General Electric, and so on sitting on right now? I don't dispute that these people earned their money, although in some cases I have my doubts about whether they earned it fair and square. What I object to is how these individuals have made themselves fantastically wealthy, at the expense of just about everyone else.ReplyDelete
Right now, it is almost impossible to support a family on a single income, and most Americans haven't seen an actual wage increase since 1979; all the money's been gobbled up by inflation and by profits and bonuses to the bosses. The industrial base of this country is being hollowed out, because some asshole decided it'd be a good idea to ship all those jobs overseas to save some money. Organized labor can't fight back for shit, because they've been taking it in the teeth from business ever since that bastard Reagan fucked over PATCO. And business, by and large, doesn't seem to give a damn about the working man. But the very worst of this system we have built are the guys at Wall Street and Goldman Sachs and the hedge funds who make money out of thin air, who literally do nothing, produce nothing, add nothing of value to this great nation of ours, put other peoples' money at risk, and get paid fantastic sums for their so-called labor.
Everything is all twisted up, fucked up, wrong. We've created a society in which everyone's competing against everybody else, in which everybody's trying to make a buck, and someone else making a buck earns only envy and a desire to get that person's buck. It shouldn't fucking be like this. I don't want labor and business to be at each others' throats, but at the same time I don't want to get bent over and metaphorically fucked by my boss either. When did we get this way? When did we stop thinking of ourselves as communities of people? When did we lose sight of the idea that we're all in this together, that a rising tide lifts all boats?
And as an aside... I'll probably be voting for Obama, because the alternative is far worse. Even if I trusted Romney, I don't trust the Republican Party. I am forced to choose between the Party of Well Meaning Incompetency and General Ineffectualness, and the Party of Madness and Service to the Aristocracy. Between fools and economic royalists, I'll choose fools any day.
So getting back to what I was saying earlier, I wish that you would talk about this stuff a little bit more, instead of sideshow shit like gay marriage. Yes, it needed to be said that shit like that is stupid, but the hollowing out of this country is a much bigger story, I think.
Boy are you ever the biggest idiot I've ever read on the internet. But I guess that's what you want, attention no matter how stupid it makes you look. Congratulations CHILD, you know exactly how to get people to NOT read your blog anymore.ReplyDelete
Go eat a bag of Lexington Steel dicks.Delete
WTF!!! handera.... let a man have his opinion. damn...Delete
i come here for the training advice and what paul s opinion is i read and dont give a fuck...
for me there are two type of gays.
1/ they are gay know it do it and leave it
2/ they are gay everybody has to know it and everybody has to be 'cool' with it.... the rub it inners.....
1 is ok for me 2 i hate ( fuck them!!! )
Is that you Faggatron?Delete
I think Faggatron is dead, however he can take over as the new Faggatron. Like a shitty B sequel.Delete
So... freedom of religion is not a civil right? Because religion is a choice?ReplyDelete
I agree that it's not a basic human right, but civil rights are protections from discrimination, and disallowing marriage is a form of discrimination, so gay marriage is clearly a civil rights issue. Is it as big as race or gender rights? Of course not. But it's still a civil rights issue.
However, I also agree that it probably shouldn't be the foremost issue. I do have a tendency to pay attention to social issues when voting (that would be voting in Australia, where I live and where the two main parties are 95% identical), but it's given less weighting to other bigger issues like economic policies, etc. Still a bigger issue is probably the fact that most people vote for whatever party they've always voted for rather than caring about the issues at all - that is, if they even vote (this referring back to the US; in Australia voting is compulsory).
You're still comparing apples and oranges. You can practice whatever religion you want to practice, and no one has to know anything of it. Where with marriage you're asking the state and federal government to recognize your marriage.Delete
Again, I think this "allow gay marriage" is more about rubbing it in the conservatives faces than getting something they want like health insurance for their partner.
Jennifer Nicole Lee is hot...damn beautifull womanReplyDelete
Question about training Paul,ReplyDelete
Chins vs Pulldowns wich one is king?
I think both are paupers and should be treated as such. I like both of them but for different reasons. Just use them appropriately in your training programming.Delete
For example one of the chin routines that has worked awesome for me is...
week 1 - chins - 5,4,3,2,1,1,1, 1x3-5, 1xAMAP
week 2 - chins - 5-7 sets @ 5-7 reps bodyweight only
week 3 - pulldowns - 6-8 sets of 8-10 reps heavy
week 4 - repeat but go heavier
I read this in your book...and it's looking good.Delete
Programming (assistance) lifts based on percentages..good or bad?
That would all depend on the individual. I kind of wing it with most of my support work. If anything now I just try to get in a set number of reps or volume and I don't really worry too much about the weight on the bar.Delete
Let me clarify "wing it". I know what support work I am going to do, and why I am going to do it, however I don't try to go too heavy on support work and focus more on getting a shit ton of reps in.Delete
I do not just pick "an" supportive exercise..i have a reason for every exercise i choose...must bang for your buck.Delete
But now a whole different question...do you believe in your opinion that most guys will be better of with a 3 day kind of split?
Like your lrb template for example..
Currently i am doing 531 twice a week conditiniong 3 times a week...just need to lose some weight(fat).
I realy like 531 because is has no bull shit in it.
Just like your programs.
I mean for me personaly..my body is telling me 3 days a week is good enough...but my mind says 4 days a week.
Because of that i am lately in doubt what to choose...
For intermediate guys I usually tell them to go to 4.Delete
Great post Paul, but "Martin Luther THE King"! Really? I'm hoping that was your, sometimes 90 y/o pussy, dry sense of humor.ReplyDelete
Black guy who's still gonna read every post
It's a Coming to America reference. If you were REALLY a black guy, you would have gotten it. ;)Delete