I forgot what I was going to say about the whole tree thing. Congratulations on distracting from the original point. Which was . . . oh, yeah... trees vs. various substances and circumstances etc.
I think a valid point was made early on, that being that exposure to the various substances would tend to allow a better appreciation of why each depiction was funny. Case in point- not knowing who Chuck Norris is. Granted, it wasn't hysterical- for me, the funny was in the surprise; I wasn't expecting to see a person thrown into the mix. For that matter they could have used the same graphic with Jet Li, Jackie Chan, or one of at least a dozen other martial artists. Inevitably, whoever they had used would have gotten the same response, sooner or later... even if it just somebody being a smart@ss.
Seriously, smart@ss, dumb@ss, sometimes there's a very fine line between the two. I haven't even read the middle pages... I didn't have time this morning. I think I got the general idea of being wildly off-topic halfway through the first page. When I finished that, I just skipped to the last page to see if anyone had bothered trying to steer it back. Nope.
Not that I was expecting any different.
As for Bush- bad idea from the start. Anyone who can't even pronounce his middle initial, should not be allowed on the ballot, let alone anywhere near where he's been the last 71/2 years.
One other thing... if you're going to express such strong opinions and viewpoints, and respond to others' comments, at least rent a set of gonads and don't sign yourself anonymous- regardless of where you're from. It makes it really hard to decipher who's responding to whom.
To everybody trying to wreck another good thing, keep up the good work. At this rate the internet should be useless in no time.
Sincerely,
Just another smart@ss dumb@ss.
PS- My username isn't as dumb as it looks. Figure it out BEFORE posting a flame.
(I've been known to give brownie points.)