No seriously my mom says she thinks he's going to croak, that he has the look of a one foot in the graver and so she's gonna vote for him so John Edwards will be president. I'm kind of having a tough time deciding who to vote for so maybe this will tip the balance
[ July 29, 2004, 03:26 AM: Message edited by: suntranafs ]
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Ha ha! You're so clever, Suntranafs! Gosh, what will that sparkling wit of yours do next? Who knows! Ha ha!
Ha ha!
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
dunno,
good question.
cheney heart-blarsts, george ensures no more jennas by repeatedly racking himself, kerry mistakes his "special sauce" for a disenfranchized 58th variety, or Edwards rethinks his choice of a distrophied arse of a wife but gains the benefit of a SAG backing?
tough questions.
fallow
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
Oh off Lalo, I know I sound stupid. I mean he might die right? it's been done.
Posted by Mean Old Frisco (Member # 6666) on :
I'm no doctor, but I'm pretty sure we're all going to die.
And if you'd watched John Kerry playing ice hockey a few months back, you'd have seen that he seems to be in perfect health. I don't think he's dying any more quickly than any other man his age.
Posted by Mean Old Frisco (Member # 6666) on :
And if you're not going to even try and intelligently state a position, the least you could do is try and make it funny.
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
Oh dang, Oh well.... I mean you're all liars, you'll see! *heads for hemlock farm*
Posted by Mean Old Frisco (Member # 6666) on :
Happy trails. The flat, dark green leaves are particularly tasty.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
It's hard to make killing other folks humorous, regardless of "the sauce".
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
"And if you're not going to even try and intelligently state a position, the least you could do is try and make it funny"
WHOA! Down Boy! If I'd wanted to do either one I would have. I was asking a question, brought on by the fact that I mostly tend consider my mother not expressly clinically insane, if pretty severely intuitive. And if I may say so you will feel pretty stupid if he does get elected and die in office. As for my position, chump, I'm still trying to figure that out.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
kerry's gonna win, strange as that may seem. Kennedy-runt-faced boy, he might be, but he is... better than... well...
the guy who put us here.
*shrugs*
fallow
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
Well if he's definitely going to win, I guess i don't need to vote for him, and I can go with a safer bet, but the fact is that a war time United States President has never lost, so might be a tougher call than just who's got the better campaign.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Well, sometimes even a (physically) healthy person can give an hour-long inaugural in the rain, catch pneumonia, and die.
But I think Kerry's smarter than that. Plus he has the benefit of better doctors than Tippecanoe.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
Sun,
Is that true? A war-mongerer has never lost the election?
fallow
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
Maybe the stress of presidential office will do him in.
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
War-mongerer? interesting implication there. But Yeah to my knoledge it sure is. not during the war at least
[ July 29, 2004, 04:38 AM: Message edited by: suntranafs ]
Posted by Mean Old Frisco (Member # 6666) on :
quote:And if I may say so you will feel pretty stupid if he does get elected and die in office.
What, because someone's "intuitive" mom predicted it? Not likely.
quote:As for my position, chump, I'm still trying to figure that out.
Yes, well. I'm rubber, and you're glue. Everything you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.
If nothing else, I have to say that you give this forum a very chatroom-esque feel, and that brings back fond memories of my own high school blowhard phase. Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
how can a man desert his duty and win a war? (histrionics and current behavior?) not that a republican has anything at stake other than preserving the fancy of the elitist brotherhood he serves.
fallow
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Fallow, I try to make allowances for your peculiar posting style, but if you think I serve any elitist brotherhood--think again.
Look at it this way--the Republicans at least theoretically will allow a person to get rich, even if in practice wealth tends to get confined to those who are already rich. The Democrats want to take all our money so that everyone is poor, then dole it back to us in the form of social programs controlled by the government--which, in turn, must be controlled by Democrats.
Neither is really what I want, but the Republicans are closer.
[ July 29, 2004, 04:50 AM: Message edited by: Mabus ]
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
fricasee,
how come such a late-coming commentator? lover of debate, yet euknuckledhead?
say it or spray it, but don't spay it.
fallow
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
No mean old frisco, not because my mother predicted it, though I could do that via hemlock, but you'd look feel the fool nonetheless, women's intuition is not neccessarily to sneeze at
"If nothing else, I have to say that you give this forum a very chatroom-esque feel, and that brings back fond memories of my own high school blowhard phase"
Why thank you, I was just thinking that myself. I do pretty well at that don't I. not quite Spam but close, very close.
[ July 29, 2004, 05:13 AM: Message edited by: suntranafs ]
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
mabus,
we all serve something. doltish, coltish, cynical, sinister, or whathaveyou.
fallow
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
"Look at it this way--the Republicans at least theoretically will allow a person to get rich, even if in practice wealth tends to get confined to those who are already rich. The Democrats want to take all our money so that everyone is poor, then dole it back to us in the form of social programs controlled by the government--which, in turn, must be controlled by Democrats."
Well see I've got this new operating revoloutionary theory that maybe they're not all bad, and so maybe I don't have to vote independent or green or what have you or not at all this time.
Posted by Mean Old Frisco (Member # 6666) on :
quote:No mean old frisco, because my mother predicted it, though I could do that via hemlock, but you'd look feel the fool nonetheless, women's intuition is not neccessarily to sneeze at
I have no idea what this means, but I assume it has something to do with your mother's allergies. If it's Benadryl she needs to stop these crazy visions, I have an extra bottle she's welcome to.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
No, Sun, they're not all bad. I was speaking in generalities. There are plenty of individual Republicans who want everyone to have their own, personal, private store of wealth, and plenty of individual Democrats who want to be sure everyone is well-taken-care-of, nothing more. But as groups, and wielding the power of the state to make things go their way, the ideals tend to get twisted into something less noble.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
Mabus,
Given that breakdown, where do you stand (if you don't mind my asking)?
fallow
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
"I have no idea what this means, but I assume it has something to do with your mother's allergies. If it's Benadryl she needs to stop these crazy visions, I have an extra bottle she's welcome to."
ROFLOLOLOL You have no idea what it means because I totally flubbed it up, go back and read the edited version
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
Oh and Frisco I'm going to tell her you said that and she'll probably behead you personally, free of charge
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Fallow, I'd like to be able to take care of myself rather than have someone take care of me--caretakers have this dangerous tendency to get unreliable when there's trouble--and so I theoretically stand with the Republicans. I do recognize that there are some people who can't take care of themselves, and they should be provided for, but the state shouldn't infantilize everyone else to do it.
And I also recognize that the Republican position is all-too-easily twisted, so I reserve the right to support other candidates when I think they'll do a better job.
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
quote:Democrats want to take all our money so that everyone is poor, then dole it back to us in the form of social programs controlled by the government--which, in turn, must be controlled by Democrats.
Let me get this straight--you believe that the Democrats are actually Communists? How odd.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
That would be a very extreme interpretation of what I said, but in a manner of speaking, I suppose you could look at it that way. Democrats want high taxes and big social programs to transfer wealth to the poor. Most of them mean no harm by it--they're just looking to make the poor better off and don't expect to harm the rich much. But in order to do this, they have to put that tax money in the hands of the government, and the government is just people--no more (or less) trustworthy than anyone else. Money is power, and we know what people in power typically do with power--they try to accumulate more.
Remember, I'm not accusing Democrats alone, or any individual Democrat. The moneyed classes that enjoy Republican policies the most are no bettter than the government bureaucrats about taking more money and power for themselves. But at least the Republicans say the money you earn is yours--not the government's.
That's why I said in another thread that, if I thought it were possible, I'd favor heavy estate taxes. Money transferred from generation to generation isn't earned, and therefore isn't (necessarily) deserved. But it's also unfortunately easy to protect.
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
quote:That would be a very extreme interpretation of what I said
Really? You did say that the Democrats want to take and then redistribute all of everyone's money, right? Or did I hallucinate that?
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
ae, read speeches by Democrats. Read the party platform. The constant emphasis is on social welfare projects and higher taxes to support them. What else can you call it?
It's well-meaning, for the most part, but it's real. It's the natural consequence of individual greed. It's just expressed in a different way from the Republican version.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
*sniff*
Yup, the smell of flaming troll.
-Trevor
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Sorry, Trevor....I'm not trying to incite an argument. Fallow asked me what my position was. Each successive post has asked me to clarify.
Truthfully, the results look more and more extreme in my own mind, which could be a sign that I'm on the wrong track, or it could just be a sign that as I clarify I'm accidentally magnifying the extremes.
All I'm saying is that people seek power, those who have more of it can more easily gain still more, and Democrats and Republicans (or more accurately their party machinery and the more corrupt individuals) have their own distinctive methods of gaining it. I'm not even saying one is (much) better than the other.
It's certainly no more trollish than the way some of the more liberal people here consistently accuse Republicans (only) of corruption. At least I'm being evenhanded.
Addit: it has suddenly occurred to me that it might be ae you're accusing of trolling.
[ July 29, 2004, 08:39 AM: Message edited by: Mabus ]
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
Please, show me where a Democrat proposes a 100% tax rate with redistribution by the state.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
I have never said anything about a 100% tax rate, ae, and you can see that quite easily. There may be some extremists or very corrupt individuals among the Democrats who might propose it, but they can doubtless see that an action like that would be transparent.
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
quote:Democrats want to take all our money so that everyone is poor, then dole it back to us. . . .
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Transparent, meaning that it's what all Democrats REALLY want, but don't have the guts to say?
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I wondered, for those of you who said in This Thead that you didn't like "southern" accents -- what did you think of John Edwards speech last night?
FG
Posted by Jaiden (Member # 2099) on :
*blinks*
If democrats are all really communists, are republicans all really anarchists?
[ July 29, 2004, 09:11 AM: Message edited by: Jaiden ]
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Ack! You're right, ae--but as I said, I was explaining the basic concept behind the parties, exaggerating for emphasis. If you'll look carefully, I said something equally uncomplimentary about Republicans (they also want to take all our money, but for a few private individuals instead of government bureaucrats). Neither is literally true of either group as a whole; I was describing general tendencies. Consider it a slip of the fingers, or of the mind. If it was offensive, I apologize.
Tom, by "transparent" I meant that if the worst imaginable extremists actually did what they wanted openly, it would be obvious that they were corrupt. It could be that no one is actually so extreme (though I doubt it). I'm describing why I find the root principles of neither major party entirely trustworthy. Fortunately, individuals fail to live up to them entirely.
Addit: I notice so far, only Jaiden has said a word about my characterization of Republicans, and I'm not sure he was responding to me. Is it because you think all Republicans really live up to the "everything for me" principle I abstracted?
[ July 29, 2004, 09:11 AM: Message edited by: Mabus ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think the logical extension of the Ayn Randian principles that you've ascribed to some members of the Republican Party really DO amount to "everything for me" -- or, rather, "I get as much as I can for myself, and expect other people to do the same for themselves." Is this NOT what you're saying?
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Actually Mab - I was accusing sun of trolling.
I think you and ae are the first to turn this into a legitimate discussion.
-Trevor
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Tom, I am indeed saying that. About principles , not a whole class of people. I'm saying that about Democrats and their principles, too; they're just getting there by a different means. And I'm saying that at least the Republican means has some relevance to my goals and principles, one of which is to earn enough money to be able to take care of myself instead of being taken care of by the government.
My problem with ae's characterization is that he seems to think I'm implying that all Democrats are secretly plotting to bring about a Communist revolution. With possible rare exceptions, I don't think that's true at all. As you put it, the problem is the "logical extension of their principles". And, of course, he applies this characterization only to what I say about one party.
Oh, and thanks, Trevor.
[ July 29, 2004, 09:36 AM: Message edited by: Mabus ]
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
quote:Ack! You're right, ae--but as I said, I was explaining the basic concept behind the parties, exaggerating for emphasis. If you'll look carefully, I said something equally uncomplimentary about Republicans (they also want to take all our money, but for a few private individuals instead of government bureaucrats).
Since I'm not a Democrat or for that matter an American, it doesn't really make much of a difference to me. It just seems to me that you're oversimplifying things terribly—and, more to the point, inaccurately.
quote:by "transparent" I meant that if the worst imaginable extremists actually did what they wanted openly, it would be obvious that they were corrupt.
Actually it would be obvious that they were Communists.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No.
</Clyde Bruckman>
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
But everybody dies, as Clyde Bruckman would know. Not too many American Presidents have dies in office, but some have.
Seems sort of gauche to hope for someone to die, though.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Not everyone. Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
That's where we'll just have to differ on opinion, I guess. Have never actually run across a human who'd been around more than 115 years, but I'm told the upper limit is in the 120s.
I hope you're not suggesting that Kerry is a god, 'cause I think that would be sorta gauche, too. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Scully doesn't.
Sorry, Olivia - I don't have time to read everything, so I'm just sort of messing around.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
War and Presidential Change. Hmmm.
If we look at the big wars, WWII, WWI, Civil War, I believe you are right, though neither Lincoln nor Roosevelt survived the wars they were supervising at the time.
However, does that hold for our lesser wars?
Korean War--Lots of presidents have changed hands since this began, and with no peace treaty ever signed, its still going on.
There was an armistice signed in 1953, and that was the year Truman and the Democrats lost to Eisenhower and the Republicans. Hence they lost before the war was concluded.
Vietnam War--Started in 1964, under the Democrats of Johnson. Ended in 1973, under the Republicans of Nixon.
Is our war on terror, or our invasion of Iraq more like WWII or these lesser wars?
Does the fact that the US has been directly attacked make it WWIIish?
Does the fact that no formal declaration of war has been enacted make it more like the Korean Conflict?
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
quote:but the fact is that a war time United States President has never lost
But does it count if you started the war...perhaps just so you could be a wartime president, and therefore win the subsequent election?
quote:Democrats want high taxes and big social programs to transfer wealth to the poor
As opposed to Republicans who 1) lower taxes, and 2) cut social programs, in order to 3) transfer money to the wealthy. (And, by the way, they leave huge deficits, too. Clinton left office with a Federal budget SURPLUS, and he got a little extra nookie on the side).
Maybe you'll find this in the the Republicans' political platform, but you'll surely find it if you examine how they enact legislation.
[ July 29, 2004, 12:50 PM: Message edited by: ssywak ]
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:But does it count if you started the war...perhaps just so you could be a wartime president, and therefore win the subsequent election?
Hold on. You can claim he mishandled or misdirected the war. He didn't make it up out of whole cloth just to boost his presidency. We were freaking attacked on our own freaking soil.
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
By Saddam Hussein?
Posted by Mean Old Frisco (Member # 6666) on :
My thoughts exactly. There's still a significant portion of the country, I think, that believes that this war was started by the WTC pilots.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Wait a second - you mean the pilots of the various airplanes which ended up flying into the WTC?
-Trevor
Posted by Mean Old Frisco (Member # 6666) on :
Were there people piloting the buildings themselves?
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
You mean to tell me you think the original pilots of those planes opted to go along with the hijackers and crash into the buildings?
-Trevor
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Is our war on terror, or our invasion of Iraq more like WWII or these lesser wars?
Does the fact that the US has been directly attacked make it WWIIish?
I would say that this war isn't even like Vietnam yet, since there is no draft.
In order to become like WWII, I'd say that it would have to get to the point where the war impacts the everyday lives of Americans. Right now, if you wanted to ignore the war on terror, you could.
Posted by Mean Old Frisco (Member # 6666) on :
quote:You mean to tell me you think the original pilots of those planes opted to go along with the hijackers and crash into the buildings?
I said no such thing. I meant the actual terrorists who either ordered or piloted the planes into the buildings.
Why would you assume I was talking about normal airline pilots? Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
That's why I was trying to clarify.
-Trevor
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
How many wars do we have going on?
That is the question.
We are fighting a war on terrorism.
But wars are defined as military conflicts between two nations, ideologies, or groups. Terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy.
Perhaps then what we mean by "war on terrorism" is war against the terrorists who attacked us.
War on AlQueda and their supporters (ie Taliban).
That explains our invasion of Afghanistan, but it does not explain our invasion of Iraq.
Is Iraq a separate war from the war on Terrorism? Iraq did very little to support terror. He paid off a few families of Hamas suicide bombers, and one Al-Queda person may or may not have been in his country. Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia have done far more to back and support Al Queda.
The current reason we toppled Hussein, according to the President of the US, is because he was an evil dangerous man.
Fine. Good job.
However, that does not make him a terrorist ally.
So perhaps we are fighting two wars, one on Al-Queda and one on Iraq.
Wait, we won the one in Iraq. The evil man is out of power. The evil army is scattered. Now Iraq is full of Terrorists, so maybe we are fighting just the war on terror.
But congress never declared a war so officially we are not at war.
Then again, congress never declared war on Korea or Vietnam either.
I'm gettign confused.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Interesting point.
I'm not sure we ever had a clearly defined set of objectives in Iraq or Afghanistan.
And declaring a "war on terror" is like declaring a "war on drugs" - not intended in the literal or legal sense, but as a PR campagin. Some sort of overwhelming effort designed to beat the problem into submission.
-Trevor
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Hold on. You can claim he mishandled or misdirected the war. He didn't make it up out of whole cloth just to boost his presidency. We were freaking attacked on our own freaking soil.
I never thought I'd use this smiley:
Refresh my memory: which of the 9/11 terrorists were Iraqi again? I forgot which ones they were...
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
So, when I was in High School--the summer between Junior and Senior year, this kid snuck up behind me and whacked me on the head with a large stick.
I went looking for him for months, but he must have gone off on vacation or something, because I could never find him.
But there was this other kid, who I never really liked, who was always picking on the other kids in his class (none of my friends, though), and who flipped me the bird every once in a while.
So I told everyone that he had hit me with a large stick, and I pounded the living crap out of him.
Wanna be my friend? Wanna help me hold this kid down so we can all beat on him some more?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Johnson would have lost, had he run for reelection. Instead, his party did.
According to Bush, our mission in Iraq was accomplished. So we are not physically at way at this moment, neh? Theoretically, the War on Terror goes on, but on what front are we currently fighting it? I would say that Bush junior qualifies as a wartime president no more than Bush senior did, and he will go down in pretty much exactly the same flames.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
And Mabus, I seem to recall having read that wealthy Americans became wealthier during the Clinton administration, not poorer.
I don't believe that the policies of the Bush administration have led to opportunities for people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, as you seem to think republican policies do. Lessee . . . jobs are outsourcing overseas, and I heard today on the radio news that the IRS reported that wages decreased for the second straight year last year, for the first time in the last fifty years.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: However, that does not make him a terrorist ally.
No, but there are completely other things that made him a terrorist ally.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:No, but there are completely other things that made him a terrorist ally.
Can you list some, with verified sources cited?
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Icarus, I believe I said that that was a theoretical Republican ideal--not something that necessarily gets translated into practice.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote: Look at it this way--the Republicans at least theoretically will allow a person to get rich, even if in practice wealth tends to get confined to those who are already rich. The Democrats want to take all our money so that everyone is poor, then dole it back to us in the form of social programs controlled by the government
The implication is that democratic policies are less likely to allow a person to get rich than republican ones. And all I'm saying is that during the last sixteen years, the presidency under which most people prospered most was a democratic one.
I'm not trying to read anything into your statement that you didn't say, just pointing out that it doesn't seem to describe recent history.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
The wealthy will almost always get wealthier.
But how about the poor? And the middle class?
How did they fare under Clinton, or other Democratic administrations?
GWB really opened up the flood-gates for the wealthy to get wealthier. To do so, he both put the country into a huge debt, and cut out many social programs for the poorer classes.
I went to Google the following phrase, to see who created it. The results page, however, is pretty telling in its own right:
See how people typically judge nations. Then consider what GWB has actually DONE (not what he says he will do--what he has actually DONE) based on the various criteria listed. The GWB way (and I would propose the "Republican" way) is diametrically opposed to treating is poor and downtrodden with anything remotely approaching compassion. Their actions almost uniformly tend to benefit the well-to-do, at the expense of the less-well-off.
If you're not already rich, you will not become rich under Republican rule. Or, at least, you will have a better chance under Democratic rule. I'll have to back that up, but it feels true, and makes sense based on what my wife and I have experienced (she used to be an attorney who represented this same lower-economic-class, and saw what Ronald Reagan's laws did to these people). But it's the type of statement that demands verification.
The Democrats are commonly called "Tax and Spend" by Republicans trying to shame them. However, the Republicans have shown themselves as "Borrow and Spend." But, for some reason, when Clinton did it (Tax & Spend), the nation as a whole prospered. With GWB doing it (Borrow & Spend), the nation as a whole is backsliding economically, and has a multi-hundred-TRILLION dollar defecit.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
deficit, schmefizit!
We're a country of borrowers. Honorable ones. We can pay it off. And, in a pinch, well, we can sell somebody some planes, and tanks...
fallow
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I'm pretty sure the deficit is only 450 billion. But the national debt is a hair less 7 trillion dollars, and each one of these deficits adds to the debt.
The kicker is, we have to pay interest on this debt. And the interest payments account for the third largest expenditure in the nation, social security excluded.
There is the virtue of fiscal responsibility. The lower our debt is, the more money we are going to have in the long term, and the strong the integrity of the nation. Running at a deficit is like inheriting a property with a whole lot of bills attached to it. The best the country can do is chip away, every year, chip away, but people like credit cards.
[ July 30, 2004, 08:24 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
Irami,
"We" don't hafta pay jack. We "forgive" the debts owed us.
fallow
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I just read this entire thread thinking people were talking about the pyschic "I talk to dead people" John Edward.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I mean he might die right? it's been done.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)