Bush's speech on the economy

[TheIndependent]

on now - it's so hard to take this dolt seriously when he talks. more to come ....

[TheIndependent]

lol, he's doing a great job explaining why we should NOT bail anyone out. oh the poor people that made bad decisions we have to bail them out...

he just lied right to the camera "I'm a strong believer of free enterprise". no you aren't you f'ing poser.

[TheIndependent]

god he's tilting me so hard i can't stand it....

[JYoung]

I think he just handed the election to Obama.

[Turtleboy]

god he's tilting me so hard i can't stand it....

I'd love to sit down at a table with you right now.

[smak]

I think he just handed the election to Obama.

8th time this week.

-smak-

[JYoung]

I've been thinking this for this past few weeks but now I'm convinced that this election won't be decided on Foreign Policy, Iraq, or Health Care.
It's going to be decided on the economy.

My thoughts have been:
If the economy rebounds enough, McCain might have been able to eck out a victory against Obama.
If it continues down or it's outlook is doubtful, Obama will win.

Bush basically gave a no confidence in the economy which the voters are going to take to heart.

My prediction:
This economy is going to tank to mid 70's recession level and stay there for years.
(Think Gerald Ford WIN bad.)
Obama will win the Presidency but will be viewed as ineffectual as Jimmy Carter was in 1980 and will not win a second term.

(Goes to dust off some WIN buttons.)

[Turtleboy]

I'm really glad you are back and posting Paul. I am tired and bored of most of the posters here, who are clearly on one side, and just post attacks on the other side. Just thread after thread of not discussion but "the other side is shit."

At least you realize that both sides are shit.

[doom1701]

I've been thinking this for this past few weeks but now I'm convinced that this election won't be decided on Foreign Policy, Iraq, or Health Care.
It's going to be decided on the economy.

You know, I'm usually the first person to claim that Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer at his core...but you do realize he said this in January, right? This isn't really a surprise to anyone.

[Michael]

I'm really glad you are back and posting Paul. I am tired and bored of most of the posters here, who are clearly on one side, and just post attacks on the other side. Just thread after thread of not discussion but "the other side is shit."

At least you realize that both sides are shit.

And we are tired and bored of you :rolleyes:. There is a solution to your boredom you know ;)

[doom1701]

There is a solution to your boredom you know ;)

Whatever they try to tell you, TB, it isn't also a cure for a stuffy nose.

[Turtleboy]

I'm really glad you are back and posting Paul. I am tired and bored of most of the posters here, who are clearly on one side, and just post attacks on the other side. Just thread after thread of not discussion but "the other side is shit."

At least you realize that both sides are shit.

And we are tired and bored of you :rolleyes:. There is a solution to your boredom you know ;)

Go start another thread in which you pretend to ask "right wingers" their opinion but it is really a thinly veiled attack. You are at least a little better at it than Skanter is.

Remember, I am an Obama supporter.

[TheIndependent]

There is a solution to your boredom you know ;)

Whatever they try to tell you, TB, it isn't also a cure for a stuffy nose.

um, can't we still do that AND talk politics (preferably after that obviously :))

[Michael]

I'm really glad you are back and posting Paul. I am tired and bored of most of the posters here, who are clearly on one side, and just post attacks on the other side. Just thread after thread of not discussion but "the other side is shit."

At least you realize that both sides are shit.

And we are tired and bored of you :rolleyes:. There is a solution to your boredom you know ;)

Go start another thread in which you pretend to ask "right wingers" their opinion but it is really a thinly veiled attack. You are at least a little better at it than Skanter is.

Remember, I am an Obama supporter.


You keep telling everyone that, but somehow I don't think that word means what you think it means.

[Turtleboy]

And we are tired and bored of you :rolleyes:. There is a solution to your boredom you know ;)

Go start another thread in which you pretend to ask "right wingers" their opinion but it is really a thinly veiled attack. You are at least a little better at it than Skanter is.

Remember, I am an Obama supporter.


You keep telling everyone that, but somehow I don't think that word means what you think it means.

I gave him money. Did you?

I'll vote for him.

I won't start post after post making silly attacks on "the other side."

I don't hate McCain. I don't hate Republicans. I get tired and bored of all the hateful comments going back and forth from both sides. It's the reason why so many people, not just me, hate, really fucking hate this area and complain about it.

Why do you have to keep attacking? Can't you discuss policy? Can't you discuss the horse race impartially? Why does everything have to be a one sided attack?

[robin]

There is a solution to your boredom you know ;)

Whatever they try to tell you, TB, it isn't also a cure for a stuffy nose.

Damn you. I spit popcorn on my screen.

[DH]

It was an address that he had to give. It was effective in a couple of ways he needed it to be, in that it said to the American people "hey - this thing really is important - so much so that I am actually giving an address about it, which is the last thing I wanted to be doing at this point of my abjectly failed presidency" and it also provided Congress what it wanted, which is basically a fall guy/co-conspirator in the White House. That is to say, they were not going to do this deal unless he made the address. Party leadership on both sides of the aisle made that clear to him for sure.

So expect the deal to get done pretty quickly now.

[DH]

I'm really glad you are back and posting Paul. I am tired and bored of most of the posters here, who are clearly on one side, and just post attacks on the other side. Just thread after thread of not discussion but "the other side is shit."

At least you realize that both sides are shit.

Yes, Paul is an expert in the area of "shit." :2funny:

But come on TB, Paul is no better than anyone here when it comes to attacks. He is just more equal opportunity about it....;)

[TheIndependent]

I'm really glad you are back and posting Paul. I am tired and bored of most of the posters here, who are clearly on one side, and just post attacks on the other side. Just thread after thread of not discussion but "the other side is shit."

At least you realize that both sides are shit.

Yes, Paul is an expert in the area of "shit." :2funny:

But come on TB, Paul is no better than anyone here when it comes to attacks. He is just more equal opportunity about it....;)

i'll repeat a quote i find appropriate.

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly, all experience [has] shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.


But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce [the people] under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776

[JYoung]

I've been thinking this for this past few weeks but now I'm convinced that this election won't be decided on Foreign Policy, Iraq, or Health Care.
It's going to be decided on the economy.

You know, I'm usually the first person to claim that Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer at his core...but you do realize he said this in January, right? This isn't really a surprise to anyone.
Well, I don't listen to Limbaugh.

And I've been aware of the Historical Theory of the Buck since High School.
But the latest financial happenings brought it back to the forefront.

[Skanter]

Go start another thread in which you pretend to ask "right wingers" their opinion but it is really a thinly veiled attack. You are at least a little better at it than Skanter is.

You can't just make things up, TB. Let's see an example of a thread I've started, doing what you claim. I'm waiting...

Remember, I am an Obama supporter....and that proves exactly what? If "both sides are shit", as you say, why do you support anyone?

[smak]

I'm really glad you are back and posting Paul. I am tired and bored of most of the posters here, who are clearly on one side, and just post attacks on the other side. Just thread after thread of not discussion but "the other side is shit."

At least you realize that both sides are shit.

Yes, Paul is an expert in the area of "shit." :2funny:

But come on TB, Paul is no better than anyone here when it comes to attacks. He is just more equal opportunity about it....;)

Yah, Paul's really out on a limb talking shit about Mr 17%.

-smak-

[DH]

I'm really glad you are back and posting Paul. I am tired and bored of most of the posters here, who are clearly on one side, and just post attacks on the other side. Just thread after thread of not discussion but "the other side is shit."

At least you realize that both sides are shit.

Yes, Paul is an expert in the area of "shit." :2funny:

But come on TB, Paul is no better than anyone here when it comes to attacks. He is just more equal opportunity about it....;)

i'll repeat a quote i find appropriate.

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly, all experience [has] shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.


But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce [the people] under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776



Yeah, you're Jeffersonian.......:2funny:

[retrodog]

Yes, Paul is an expert in the area of "shit." :2funny:

But come on TB, Paul is no better than anyone here when it comes to attacks. He is just more equal opportunity about it....;)

i'll repeat a quote i find appropriate.

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly, all experience [has] shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.


But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce [the people] under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776



Yeah, you're Jeffersonian.......:2funny:
You can mock turtleboy all you want, but he appears to be right. I haven't been here for a while and come back to see that this forum has eroded into what can only be described as a bunch of foaming-at-the-mouth Bush bashers who jump on anyone who has a single good thing to say about any republican or attempts to show at least a bit of support for a conservative. I don't really care because I don't actually have enough class to be bothered by it, and I just don't really give a shit. But I think it's a little stupid of people to deny it or make fun of Turtleboy for expressing his opinion on something that is so obvious.

[DH]

i'll repeat a quote i find appropriate.



Yeah, you're Jeffersonian.......:2funny:
You can mock turtleboy all you want, but he appears to be right. I haven't been here for a while and come back to see that this forum has eroded into what can only be described as a bunch of foaming-at-the-mouth Bush bashers who jump on anyone who has a single good thing to say about any republican or attempts to show at least a bit of support for a conservative. I don't really care because I don't actually have enough class to be bothered by it, and I just don't really give a shit. But I think it's a little stupid of people to deny it or make fun of Turtleboy for expressing his opinion on something that is so obvious.

Oooh, feigned outrage. How very republican of you.

Noboby's mocking Turtleboy.

I was mocking Paul.

Get a life and give it a rest, dude.

[TheIndependent]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-xKZSRYsXU

0:56 in :)

[DH]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-xKZSRYsXU

0:56 in :)

:D:D:D

[JP]

I gave him money. Did you?Some. Not enough to show up on financial disclosures, I don't think, but yes.

I'll vote for him.Ditto.

I won't start post after post making silly attacks on "the other side."Me neither. None of my attacks on the other side are silly. No smilie, I mean that seriously. Some people may not take them seriously, but I assure you I do.

I don't hate McCain. I don't hate Republicans. I get tired and bored of all the hateful comments going back and forth from both sides. It's the reason why so many people, not just me, hate, really fucking hate this area and complain about it.I don't hate McCain or Republicans either. I don't even hate George. But I do hate many of the things they've done, or encouraged/allowed to happen. I think these are very bad things that we need to stop doing. And I try my best to convince conservative people that I'm right, using logic and cajoling and humor if I think it'd help.

What I've all too often gotten in return for that is being dismissed as a George-hater. By you too, in the past and even now.

Why do you have to keep attacking?Because the people that think all those wrong things were a great idea - whether that was pre-emptively invading other countries, or injecting religion into public schools, or deregulating things left and right and causing chaos, or torturing people we don't like, or rushing madly to give up other people's civil liberties if it gives them even a false sense of greater security - they still think those things are great ideas.

Can't you discuss policy? I do, all the time. I poke fun at the pols I disapprove of, but I can always give you reasons for it line by line and any time you ask I'd be happy to drown you in examples and links to what I'm talking about.

Can't you discuss the horse race impartially?I can do so, but I don't see the point. I'm not actually impartial, so that would be perpetuating a fraud.

The reasons I have for liking some pols better than other pols are actual real reasons, reasons that are very important to me, not the standard horseshit about being peeved George stole the election in 2000 that's so often offered up dismiss them. I expect the conservatives and libertarians feel exactly the same way, just with different pols and different reasons (and with different horseshit they get fed to dismiss their objections - they're racists, sexists, hate the poor, whatever).

Why does everything have to be a one sided attack?Part of that's your own jumping to conclusions. Somebody mentions something the other side's done wrong, a little voice inside your head completes their every sentence with "and of course MY side is perfect, so there, nyah". This isn't actually happening, dude. Nobody thinks their side is perfect. They just think their side is better. And they have reasons for thinking so that make sense to them. I may not agree with those reasons, I may think they're complete baloney, but I don't think they aren't real.

[Turtleboy]

Jpriller =! certain others.

[busyba]

Jpriller =! certain others.

Stop being coy. You got something to say, say it.

[smak]

Jpriller =! certain others.

My problem is I think you are thinking of the 2000-2003 McCain and not the 2007-2008 McCain.

Is there really much to like about this version of McCain?

-smak-

[Skanter]

Jpriller =! certain others.



Go start another thread in which you pretend to ask "right wingers" their opinion but it is really a thinly veiled attack. You are at least a little better at it than Skanter is.SkanterYou can't just make things up, TB. Let's see an example of a thread I've started, doing what you claim. I'm waiting...I'm still waiting for you to point to a thread where I've "pretended to ask 'right wingers' their opinion but it is really a thinly veiled attack."

[retrodog]

Jpriller =! certain others.



Go start another thread in which you pretend to ask "right wingers" their opinion but it is really a thinly veiled attack. You are at least a little better at it than Skanter is.SkanterYou can't just make things up, TB. Let's see an example of a thread I've started, doing what you claim. I'm waiting...I'm still waiting for you to point to a thread where I've "pretended to ask 'right wingers' their opinion but it is really a thinly veiled attack."
Hey, you accuse me of baiting you all the time. Maybe he's just making some Skanterisms.

:D

[Marco]

Jpriller =! certain others.

My problem is I think you are thinking of the 2000-2003 McCain and not the 2007-2008 McCain.

Is there really much to like about this version of McCain?

Actually, I believe if McCain wins the election he will tend to revert to the "Straight Talk" McCain, and veer away from the "Any Lie for a Vote" McCain.

So there's that. :)

[smak]

Jpriller =! certain others.



Go start another thread in which you pretend to ask "right wingers" their opinion but it is really a thinly veiled attack. You are at least a little better at it than Skanter is.SkanterYou can't just make things up, TB. Let's see an example of a thread I've started, doing what you claim. I'm waiting...I'm still waiting for you to point to a thread where I've "pretended to ask 'right wingers' their opinion but it is really a thinly veiled attack."

TB has a real job, give him some time.

-smak-

[Skanter]

Jpriller =! certain others.

SkanterYou can't just make things up, TB. Let's see an example of a thread I've started, doing what you claim. I'm waiting...I'm still waiting for you to point to a thread where I've "pretended to ask 'right wingers' their opinion but it is really a thinly veiled attack."
Hey, you accuse me of baiting you all the time. Maybe he's just making some Skanterisms.

:D

No, I've accused you of sometimes baiting everyone here (not just me) with inflammatory threads - and sigs. This is nothing new. Problem is, its not working for you here like it did on TCF.

I think that you just don't like me or respect my opinions on things when they differ from yours so you try to make me look like I'm out to offend you and then you play the victim so that others will believe that I'm evil.

I think you are having a slight paranoia issue. If you (or anyone else) post something I consider offensive or wrong on the debate forum, I'll tell you or them about it. I am not attempting to convince other people that you "are evil". The response to the Anne Frank sig was pretty much unanimous, although others used much stronger words of criticism than my relatively mild ones, "dubious" and "heavy-handed".

BTW, thanks for taking it down. I really do appreciate it...

Edit: the new one is not offensive at all - but maybe beating a dead horse a bit? Maybe its in the "oldie but goodie" caregory?:)

[busyba]

Edit: the new one is not offensive at all - but maybe beating a dead horse a bit? Maybe its in the "oldie but goodie" caregory?:)

Considering that he supports McCain, I imagine that he's a big fan of Oldies. :D

[bryce1012]

The response to the Anne Frank sig was pretty much unanimousYeah, how 'bout we don't make things up?

You and procrastinator called it offensive.

Retrodog obviously didn't think so. Langree said, "I don't find it offensive at all." Fofer didn't like it, but admitted he was not "offended."

If you're gonna call that a "unanimous response," you need to lay off the pot.

[TheIndependent]

i thought the anne frank sig was comical.

[Skanter]

The response to the Anne Frank sig was pretty much unanimousYeah, how 'bout we don't make things up?

You and procrastinator called it offensive.

Retrodog obviously didn't think so. Langree said, "I don't find it offensive at all." Fofer didn't like it, but admitted he was not "offended."

If you're gonna call that a "unanimous response," you need to lay off the pot.

I said the response was pretty much unanimous - implied was "negative response".
Langree was the only positive, and retrodog obviously doesn't count in the response to his own sig, does he?

I made nothing up, and smoking pot would be a good idea if I had some on hand.

[TheIndependent]

smoking pot would be a good idea if I had some on hand.

AGREE!!!!!! see, can't we all get along ;)

[Skanter]

smoking pot would be a good idea if I had some on hand.

AGREE!!!!!! see, can't we all get along ;)

...i would be smoking now if those damn uptight Republicans hadn't made it illegal and so hard to get!

(just kidding);)

[TheIndependent]

smoking pot would be a good idea if I had some on hand.

AGREE!!!!!! see, can't we all get along ;)

...i would be smoking now if those damn uptight Republicans hadn't made it illegal and so hard to get!

(just kidding);)

one thing you have to like about the L party is our stance on drugs. i highly doubt Obama is as 'liberal' as we are on that issue :)

[retrodog]

smoking pot would be a good idea if I had some on hand.

AGREE!!!!!! see, can't we all get along ;)

...i would be smoking now if those damn uptight Republicans hadn't made it illegal and so hard to get!

(just kidding);)
You don't have to kid about that, as I think you're correct. But in all honesty, it's probably both parties. It only seems that the democrats support drugs cause more of them are open to the option.

Congress, and in general all of government (local and federal) want to do whatever makes them the most money. That's why tobacco is still legal, cause they make so much money off of it.

Making pot legal would really screw things up for all the drug makers (valiuum and xanax and the like) because no one would need to buy their product any longer. And pot is so easy to grow that it's almost impossible to get rid of. So there's no way that they could control it or get revenue from it. And that is retrodog's theory on why pot is illegal. :p

[Turtleboy]

smoking pot would be a good idea if I had some on hand.

AGREE!!!!!! see, can't we all get along ;)

...i would be smoking now if those damn uptight Republicans hadn't made it illegal and so hard to get!

(just kidding);)

I agree with you 100%. I'd love to smoke a bowl with you one day Skanter.

[Skanter]

AGREE!!!!!! see, can't we all get along ;)

...i would be smoking now if those damn uptight Republicans hadn't made it illegal and so hard to get!

(just kidding);)

one thing you have to like about the L party is our stance on drugs. i highly doubt Obama is as 'liberal' as we are on that issue :)


...I seem to remember this pic of you from one of your old campaign ads:












http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,5332768,00.jpg

[Skanter]

AGREE!!!!!! see, can't we all get along ;)

...i would be smoking now if those damn uptight Republicans hadn't made it illegal and so hard to get!

(just kidding);)

I agree with you 100%. I'd love to smoke a bowl with you one day Skanter.

Now we're talkin'! ;)

...and let me say that I'd be glad to smoke a joint or have a beer (or both) with anyone here given the opportunity - even those who I've butted heads with on occasion.

(Strangely enough - as a certified hippie from the sixties, and one who has indulged in every type of mind-altering substance imaginable - I rarely have anything but a few beers these days. Not that I think anything's wrong with responsible drug use - adult responsibilities (parenting, running a business, etc.) make little time for getting stoned. Its a problem that I plan to rectify ASAP!

[Turtleboy]

If the Democrats stopped being pussies about legalization pot, and actually started to fight for it, I think they might win more votes than they lose.

[Skanter]

AGREE!!!!!! see, can't we all get along ;)

...i would be smoking now if those damn uptight Republicans hadn't made it illegal and so hard to get!

(just kidding);)
You don't have to kid about that, as I think you're correct. But in all honesty, it's probably both parties. It only seems that the democrats support drugs cause more of them are open to the option.

Congress, and in general all of government (local and federal) want to do whatever makes them the most money. That's why tobacco is still legal, cause they make so much money off of it.

Making pot legal would really screw things up for all the drug makers (valiuum and xanax and the like) because no one would need to buy their product any longer. And pot is so easy to grow that it's almost impossible to get rid of. So there's no way that they could control it or get revenue from it. And that is retrodog's theory on why pot is illegal. :p

I totally agree with you that the government's hipocrisy regarding drugs has only to do with $$$. Obviously alcohol, tobacco and prescription drugs do more harm than marijuana. I'm not sure MJ is a substitute for Valium or Xanax as they would probably be in the category of depressants (dulling the senses) while MJ - while it is relaxing - is a stimulant which heightens the senses. I'm no medical expert on this stuff, and am basically talking from personal experience. ;)

[TheIndependent]

MJ is a stimulant? huh?

[Fofer]

The response to the Anne Frank sig was pretty much unanimousYeah, how 'bout we don't make things up?

You and procrastinator called it offensive.

Retrodog obviously didn't think so. Langree said, "I don't find it offensive at all." Fofer didn't like it, but admitted he was not "offended."


Not to beat a dead horse, but to clarify: the only thing that came close to "offending" me was that the quote itself was made up, and attributed to Anne Frank "to get people's attention."

If that was an actual Anne Frank quote, I have to imagine it wouldn't have bothered me quite as much. But since it wasn't, it seemed deliberately provocative and insensitive, that's all.

I'll conclude by saying I appreciated retro's reasonable response and am happy we were able to have a civil conversation about it.

[TheIndependent]

I'll conclude by saying I appreciated retro's reasonable response and am happy we were able to have a civil conversation about it.

reminds me of the old engineering joke.. 'what's the difference between a civil engineer and an aerospace engineer'??

one builds weapons. the other, targets :)

yeah, no clue why that pop'd into my head, but meh, :)

[Skanter]

MJ is a stimulant? huh?

It seems there's a lot of debate on this subject, as MJ has both stimulant and depressive effects which vary with the individual. As I said, I'm not sure what the definitive medical classification is, or if that is even relevant.

I've always considered it a stimulant in that for me it heightens all the senses while drugs like alcohol and sedatives dull the senses.

I'm certainly open to your input about this...

[Fofer]

I'll conclude by saying I appreciated retro's reasonable response and am happy we were able to have a civil conversation about it.

reminds me of the old engineering joke.. 'what's the difference between a civil engineer and an aerospace engineer'??

one builds weapons. the other, targets :)

yeah, no clue why that pop'd into my head, but meh, :)



I'm going to guess it was the word "civil." :)


Now stop bogarting, and pass that dutchie on the left hand side, please.

[TheIndependent]

MJ is a stimulant? huh?

It seems there's a lot of debate on this subject, as MJ has both stimulant and depressive effects which vary with the individual. As I said, I'm not sure what the definitive medical classification is, or if that is even relevant.

I've always considered it a stimulant in that for me it heightens all the senses while drugs like alcohol and sedatives dull the senses.

I'm certainly open to your input about this...

i've never thought it to be a stimulant, perhaps just the variants i've tried. i do remember one evening driving home thinking i was speeding when i passed a cop and looking down to see i was going 25 in a 40. so maybe i was so stimulated i drove slow? lol

[TheIndependent]

I'm going to guess it was the word "civil." :)
omg you found it! :)


Now stop bogarting, and pass that dutchie on the left hand side, please.
puff puff pass puff puff pass

:)

[Skanter]

MJ is a stimulant? huh?

It seems there's a lot of debate on this subject, as MJ has both stimulant and depressive effects which vary with the individual. As I said, I'm not sure what the definitive medical classification is, or if that is even relevant.

I've always considered it a stimulant in that for me it heightens all the senses while drugs like alcohol and sedatives dull the senses.

I'm certainly open to your input about this...

i've never thought it to be a stimulant, perhaps just the variants i've tried. i do remember one evening driving home thinking i was speeding when i passed a cop and looking down to see i was going 25 in a 40. so maybe i was so stimulated i drove slow? lol

Well, its certainly an appetite stimulant - aka the munchies!

Driving? Makes you drive much slower - probably because of heightened senses; your sense of speed and movement is distorted and exaggerated.

All this talk is making me think I may have to take a look in the back of my desk drawer - there may be some old buds lying around in there!:)

[DH]

http://www.ganja.co.uk/cannabis-seeds/lit/large-images/The-Emperor-Wears.jpg

http://www.jackherer.com/chapters.html