I must admit, I really like Palin. Not saying she's ready to be prez now, maybe in 8 years,, or even 4. Maybe.
I'd like to see how much of her National position changes from now til then, and see how well she is able to marry conservative traditional doctrine and social policy.
Seriously, you don't think gays should spend their lives together? Fine. But PLEASE do not WASTE America's time and money on it. There is no constitutional foundation for not recognizing a gay union.
It is time for a LEADER to step up and lead this nation.
We must unify the people, and make them understand, we're all in this together. America is our home, but Earth is a Neighborhood all living creatures must SHARE.
We must change the way our politicians function, we must return it into a public service, and TOTALLY take away any non individual american human beings from bribing (Lobbying) ourt politicians.
We must ADJUST Capitalism and salt and pepper it with Socialism. Build 10 nuclear power plants, nationalize electricity. The money people save will be redirected to other parts of the economy, and people wont spend 25% of their entire time on earth working to payoff their energy bills.
We must not let Money and Corporations rule the people.
This is the world the Baby Boomers have left us.
We must learn from their mistakes.
or else.
T
Give everyone the lowest form of absolute bare bones healthcare and allow people with more wealth to buy the best healthcare known to man.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: nationalize electricity
Please don't. My utilities are owned by the city, and they're awful. Not only do they charge more than anyone else I've seen in the state, but they shut the power off at the drop of a hat.
Forgot to pay the bill? Power's off before you get the next one. I actually had them steal from me because there was some kind of snafu where I didn't get my payment credited. It didn't matter how many phone calls I made and how many bank statements I faxed them, I had to pay again or they weren't going to turn my power back on.
I forget the name of the agency that usually handles that sort of thing, but they're for regular utilities. I'd have had to go to the City Council with a complaint to get anything done. Nationalize power and you'll have the same problem on a bigger scale.
I'm already mad that I have no choice in who I buy more power from. The last thing America needs is less recourse when the power company makes a mistake.
Aside from that rant, I'm actually disturbed by how much of your post I agree with. Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Palin talked smoother than in the Couric interview but she still had sentences that were just impossible to parse. All she showed was that she could memorize talking points.
Posted by Danlo the Wild (Member # 5378) on :
I would like someone to define "win the war".
Does that mean stay until every terrorist is dead?
Does that mean stay until they have a stable, functional government?
WE DONT HAVE A STABLE, FUNCTIONAL GOVERNMENT
It is like having Michael Jackson sleep in your children's room until he deems you a good parent.
It's like Invading Mexico and staying until "the drug war is over".
If you're going to say "We will not wave the white flag! We will stay til we win!" EXPLAIN TO ME what that means.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Palin may be a Mom and a Governor, both fine things, but she didn't sound like a Vice President.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
"John McCain is a man who knows how to win a war."
Didn't John McCain get shot down and taken prisoner in a war we ended up pulling out of without winning?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I must admit, I really like Palin.
May I ask why, Thor?
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
Incoherence attracts like? Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Javert, we don't want to hear your east coast liberal elite spin. John McCain is a hero and a patriot and you're waving the white flag as Putin is rearing his head over American soil. Every time you don't wink at the camera, the terrorists win. Palin and McCain are the Main Street Mavericks™, Obama and Biden are more of the same.
Posted by Xann. (Member # 11482) on :
I like the idea of nationalizing energy, health-care, and a small amount of temporary housing to better help people on their way.
With that, I think we need to make thousands of jobs putting up homes and wind/solar plants(i mean what else are we using Montana for?) Maybe we could set up a immiggration based work-force to help dissolve our national debt while at the same time helping our national housing crisis and our impending energy crisis.
Maybe i hate 99% of politicians because they don't have the guts to try this kind of thing, and lastly here is to hoping that Mccain and Palin are running on a Lincoln-esk secret platform.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads: Palin talked smoother than in the Couric interview but she still had sentences that were just impossible to parse. All she showed was that she could memorize talking points.
Exactly.
She's good at it, though. I tell ya, if she were running in a pageant, say, for Miss Alaska...
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: "John McCain is a man who knows how to win a war."
Didn't John McCain get shot down and taken prisoner in a war we ended up pulling out of without winning?
That only means (1) his superiors didn't quite know how to win the war at the time and, (2) don't put John McCain in the pilot's seat of an airplane any time soon.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
She came across a hell of a lot better than in the Couric interview. I still think her a lot of her answers were regurgitated bits of info she memorized beforehand, but that's fine, it's really all she had to do to beat expectations, and she did it. She came across as clear and confident, and only a couple times did she look genuinely stumped. I think she did what she had to do.
Biden for his part I think won on the issues, and didn't trip over himself at all. I was happy to see him finally answer some of McCain's more ridiculous charges, and he did so head on, though I wish he would have mentioned that the Energy bill that Obama voted for actually had a net tax INCREASE on oil companies, that might have shut her up faster.
A lot of her answers were non-answers, but really, what's new? It's not like I'm going to hold her to a higher standard to any other VP or P candidate who gives tons of non-answers. My biggest problem with her performance? All the country bumpkin stuff. I think the "Say it ain't so Joe, there you go again," line was ridiculously over the top, and sounded like it was trying way too hard to fit a Reagan reference in there when it really didn't fit. I kept expecting her to end every line with "boy howdy." Too much down home charm lavished on there.
And cripes, get her an ice pack for her arm, it has to be sore from all the patting on the back she gave herself. She must have called herself and McCain mavericks a dozen times, then in the next breath she'd emphasize ad naseum how she just arrived in Washington the other day straight from field dressing a moose! So she wasn't part of the crowd. I know you're supposed to talk yourself up but jeez, how about at least SOMETHING of substance instead of the same three points of biography about yourself?
Also, I was worried for a second that Biden was actually going to cry. I don't think it was a staged moment, certainly not like what Clinton's moment might have been though it did maybe seem a little out of place. It looked like he was reacting to a charge that Palin didn't make against him, though maybe he was just speaking in general about views towards men and women, but it seemed real to me. I don't think he's that good of an actor, else he wouldn't have made so many errors over the years.
Posted by Danlo the Wild (Member # 5378) on :
Anyone?
Anyone want to define how we "win the war"?
Anyone?
it's kinda important.
and if the economy REALLY crashes will the 'we will stay there 100 years if we have to' attitude change?
Tom - I like Sarah because she's spunky. And, her, lips, are, um, er, ah, uhm, oh, dang I gotta go, something, somewhere is on fire.
and, technically, I like everyone. to start. then they can 'Barney Frank' or 'Nancy Pelosi' or 'Pat Robertson', then i still love them, but i from them one I refer to them as assjuice hobopile butt-cheezits.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Danlo the Wild: Anyone?
Anyone want to define how we "win the war"?
Anyone?
it's kinda important.
I would have liked that question. Specifically, "What is a victory in Iraq, and how will we know we've achieved it?"
I'm not satisfied with the answer, "The war is over when the ground commanders tell us its over."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I just figured it out! Palin reminded me of someone throughout the entire debate, and it just clicked in my head who Biden was really debating against! Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
teehee
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: ...i mean what else are we using Montana for?
To be gorgeous? My Dad loves to vacation in western Montana and watch the herds of elk wander around.
Now North Dakota might work. There's a state you never hear about. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Someone let me know when there's a transcript up. I tried to watch and just can't make myself, I prefer to read the ts.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
It was "smarmy" vs. "vapid", imo.
Neither one came across as likeable, but at least Biden came across like someone who knew what he was talking about.
I was switching back and forth between the debate and the USF v. Pitt game. Every time I switched back, Palin was either saying "energy plan", "back up there in Alaska", or "energy state".
It didn't matter what the question was... she'd just lead off with "I want to go back to..." whenever she didn't have an answer.
My favorite part was the "I don't want to talk about the causes of global warming"... then went on to say how we had to cut emissions, pollution, etc. If she really thinks it's cyclical and there isn't human impact, why would any of this help?
She was like a Talking Points Barbie up there.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: If she really thinks it's cyclical and there isn't human impact, why would any of this help?
That wasn't what she said about the causes. You should have listened to the whole thing.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
I miss Peter Jennings and how he liked to rip through some of these guys with hard hitting questions. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I think Biden nearly cried because he was talking about raising two children on his own, and that was clearly a reference to his wife and (daughter?) dying while his two sons were critically wounded in that auto accident just as he took office.
I was pleased to see Palin improve by a hop, skip, and a jump from previous interviews. I think she'll be a fine governor of Alaska, but needs to hold off on Vice Presidential ambitions right now.
I actually think her and Biden's debate was far more congenial and directed towards each other than McCain and Obama's. Say what you want about Palin's ignorance, inexperience, ineligibility, etc I was glad to see her be so polite and agreeable.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Gov Palin showed nothng more than I expected, rehearsed answered that didn't necessarily match the questions that were asked. My opinion of her hasn't changed.
I don't know who does debate prep for the Democrats, but they just don't seem to know how to capitalize on the weakness of their opponents.
I think most people in America who have been paying attention know the Gov Palin can handle scripted responses, but is extremely weak when asked to get into details and specifics or asked to apply her own reasoning to Vice Presidential issues. There were multiple opportunities for Sen Biden to push for a more detailed response.
The biggest one I saw was the "We're going to apply the Surge™ to Afghanistan." line, where the commander in charge of Afghanistan has said "Trying the Surge™ strategy here won't work." Yes, it made her and Sen McCain look clueless, but the finishing move would be to point out that the commander doesn't seem to think this is the case, but how does she mean?
Asking her how in response to many of the things she said seems like a no brainer that would have destroyed her and, I don't think, come across as mean or bullying at all.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Oh, biggest what the heck moment for us watching was actually Sen Biden talking about the renegotiating the principle in bankruptcy. That sounds like a really, really terrible idea.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I have seen the word "principal" misspelled so many times today.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: It didn't matter what the question was... she'd just lead off with "I want to go back to..."
quote: Dear Ask A High-School Student Who Didn't Do The Required Reading,
I recently discovered that two of my coworkers are carrying on an office affair. Now, normally, this sort of thing would be none of my beeswax, but I have reason to suspect that they're actually doing some of their "carrying on" on other employees' desks! I often show up in the morning to find papers disheveled, and one time, I found part of what I'll tactfully call a "suspicious-looking wrapper" on my mousepad. What should I do?
—Upset In Upper Darby Dear Upset,
What is Tom Sawyer about, you ask? Well, basically, the book Tom Sawyer is about the olden days, back in the days of Huckleberry Finn. Back then, many people were so poor, they had no shoes and often wore only overalls with no shirt. The main character, whose name is Tom Sawyer, was so poor he had to paint something to earn money. Which is tough work, as I know, because I once had to paint a garage, and it took a long time. It's too bad times were so tough when the Sawyers were around, but it's important to keep in mind that this was the olden days. I would say things have certainly changed since the book took place, what with TV and movies and all. Things were simpler back then, for sure, but people like the ones in the book Tom Sawyer were pretty happy living the way they did. What's that? How would I respond to charges that Tom Sawyer is racist? Well, in the book Tom Sawyer, there is some of that, but we need to keep in mind as readers of today that that kind of thing is unacceptable. At the same time, though, that's how things were back then, so the book is also like a history book, if you think about it that way.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I have seen the word "principal" misspelled so many times today.
There is really no reason to pass judgement and embarass people who who inadvertantly have on occassional occurrance of a misspelled word.
It is common courtesy to withold mean spirited judgement. I hope you can join with me and make a comitmment to accomodate those who do not have the occassion to use there spell-checker.
Thank you for your patients...
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I love FactCheck.org just because it is so hard for the average person to know who is telling the truth and who is stretching the truth when they are debating like that, without knowing the specifics of all they refer to. Looks like both sides had some stretching.
Posted by Xann. (Member # 11482) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader:
quote: ...i mean what else are we using Montana for?
To be gorgeous? My Dad loves to vacation in western Montana and watch the herds of elk wander around.
It will be even better with big fancy windmills and shiny things there, only in the notoriously large plains do we need windmills, and solor panels should really be on every building, not only in Montana but in our country.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl: I love FactCheck.org just because it is so hard for the average person to know who is telling the truth and who is stretching the truth when they are debating like that, without knowing the specifics of all they refer to. Looks like both sides had some stretching.
It looks like most of Sen Biden's "Sen McCain voted the same way" gotchas weren't actually correct.
Even though I regard simplistic, contextless "He voted for/against X" as an almost entirely worthless part of a debate, that's still disappointing.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
It's not a matter of misspelling, but usage.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Farmgirl:
quote:I'm not one to attribute every man -- activity of man to the changes in the climate. There is something to be said also for man's activities, but also for the cyclical temperature changes on our planet.
But there are real changes going on in our climate. And I don't want to argue about the causes. What I want to argue about is, how are we going to get there to positively affect the impacts?
We have got to clean up this planet. We have got to encourage other nations also to come along with us with the impacts of climate change, what we can do about that.
As governor, I was the first governor to form a climate change sub-cabinet to start dealing with the impacts. We've got to reduce emissions.
She doesn't want to argue about causes, but instead focus on impacts Yet, she then says we have to reduce emissions.
She's trying to address "causes" such as emissions and pollution in her statement, but she is also trying to dismiss discussion on causes.
You can't have it both ways. Either human actions are a significant cause to climate change - and, therefore, there is an opportunity to change behavior and therefore reduce impact - or they are incidental, in which case changes to human behavior would be incidental.
She's both trying to downplay human impact and call upon human behavior changes to reduce the impact.... but you can't have it both ways.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl: I love FactCheck.org just because it is so hard for the average person to know who is telling the truth and who is stretching the truth when they are debating like that, without knowing the specifics of all they refer to. Looks like both sides had some stretching.
It looks like most of Sen Biden's "Sen McCain voted the same way" gotchas weren't actually correct.
Even though I regard simplistic, contextless "He voted for/against X" as an almost entirely worthless part of a debate, that's still disappointing.
FactCheck may have the facts but not the truth in context.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Thanks for posting her exact quote, Flying Cow.
Yes, I agree that I felt she said it was BOTH - humans weren't helping, but they also aren't the sole cause (as we have discussed in other threads) - but she says we need to look forward on what we can all do to reverse the effects regardless of whether or not they are man-made. Personal stewardship, is how I like to think of it.
And that was the "take" on it I got from her comments, as well.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Did anyone else think the moderator last night was awful? She kept asking the two candidates different questions with many parts, making it difficult to stay on topic and easy for the candidates to dodge.
I do have to say, though, that I thought both held their own very well, even Pailin, who I didn't have much hope for due to the way I'd seen her interview. She is a politician, no question about that! She knows how to dodge and spin. I guess that's what being a hockey mom teaches you?
Posted by Danlo the Wild (Member # 5378) on :
I miss Tim Russert.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, Biden used the wrong language on some of this BAM retort moments, but I think he was fundamentally right.
On the point about McCain and Obama voting to cut off funding for the troops, McCain opposed and urged a veto on a measure that provided funding and had a timetable, Obama voted against the other measure that didn't have a timetable. McCain skipped the vote though. Had he been there he would have voted no. So he did a little misspeaking, but his point was still there.
I was glad to see Biden take her to task over that whole 'forget the causes, let's find the solutions' gibberish.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
*warning - there is one instance of a profane word in there*
[ October 03, 2008, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: Strider ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
That ...
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:but she says we need to look forward on what we can all do to reverse the effects regardless of whether or not they are man-made
Here's my issue with that, though. If someone feels that the effects aren't man-made, then we can't do anything to reverse them. If mankind's actions did not create the problem, then adjusting mankind's actions won't do anything.
It shows a lack of understanding about cause and effect. In order to change the effect, you have to understand the cause.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow:
quote:but she says we need to look forward on what we can all do to reverse the effects regardless of whether or not they are man-made
Here's my issue with that, though. If someone feels that the effects aren't man-made, then we can't do anything to reverse them. If mankind's actions did not create the problem, then adjusting mankind's actions won't do anything.
It shows a lack of understanding about cause and effect. In order to change the effect, you have to understand the cause.
I'm not sure how that follows. Just because something occurs naturally does not mean mankind is incapable of devising a means to manipulate it.
For example say the planet was cooling and we were heading for an ice age, why couldn't we flood the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, and methane, as well as killing plants left and right to heat thing up? Not saying this is a good idea to prevent cooling, but eventually it would have an effect right?
Posted by LargeTuna (Member # 10512) on :
LOL i know it's unrelated but Jo Biden is my neighbor, GO DELAWARE! Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:For example say the planet was cooling and we were heading for an ice age, why couldn't we flood the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, and methane, as well as killing plants left and right to heat thing up? Not saying this is a good idea to prevent cooling, but eventually it would have an effect right?
This is probably more Rabbit's area, but, I would think it depends on what kind of cooling. Is it because the atmosphere isn't trapping enough greenhouse gases? Is it because the ocean conveyor thing has stopped working? Is it local? Is it global? I mean, cause DOES matter. I'll agree that we MIGHT be able to fix it even if it isn't manmade, but the cause matters. I think it's hard to fix something without knowing what broke it (sometimes), but especially if you want it to stay fixed.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: I'm already mad that I have no choice in who I buy more power from.
Buy a doghouse.
You see what I did there? You know what I'm talking about? Do ya? Do ya?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:For example say the planet was cooling and we were heading for an ice age, why couldn't we flood the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, and methane, as well as killing plants left and right to heat thing up? Not saying this is a good idea to prevent cooling, but eventually it would have an effect right?
This is probably more Rabbit's area, but, I would think it depends on what kind of cooling. Is it because the atmosphere isn't trapping enough greenhouse gases? Is it because the ocean conveyor thing has stopped working? Is it local? Is it global? I mean, cause DOES matter. I'll agree that we MIGHT be able to fix it even if it isn't manmade, but the cause matters. I think it's hard to fix something without knowing what broke it (sometimes), but especially if you want it to stay fixed.
My point was more that man is entirely capable of interfering with natural processes that have existed longer than our species has been around.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: Farmgirl:
quote:I'm not one to attribute every man -- activity of man to the changes in the climate. There is something to be said also for man's activities, but also for the cyclical temperature changes on our planet.
But there are real changes going on in our climate. And I don't want to argue about the causes. What I want to argue about is, how are we going to get there to positively affect the impacts?
We have got to clean up this planet. We have got to encourage other nations also to come along with us with the impacts of climate change, what we can do about that.
As governor, I was the first governor to form a climate change sub-cabinet to start dealing with the impacts. We've got to reduce emissions.
She doesn't want to argue about causes, but instead focus on impacts Yet, she then says we have to reduce emissions.
She's trying to address "causes" such as emissions and pollution in her statement, but she is also trying to dismiss discussion on causes.
You can't have it both ways. Either human actions are a significant cause to climate change - and, therefore, there is an opportunity to change behavior and therefore reduce impact - or they are incidental, in which case changes to human behavior would be incidental.
She's both trying to downplay human impact and call upon human behavior changes to reduce the impact.... but you can't have it both ways.
Yes, you can. You can puke up semi-cogent statements from off your debate prep cards until your two minutes are up and as long as you look good doing it, you win.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I think I'll read it tomorrow, I have better things to do tonight...
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:For example say the planet was cooling and we were heading for an ice age, why couldn't we flood the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, and methane, as well as killing plants left and right to heat thing up? Not saying this is a good idea to prevent cooling, but eventually it would have an effect right?
This is probably more Rabbit's area, but, I would think it depends on what kind of cooling. Is it because the atmosphere isn't trapping enough greenhouse gases? Is it because the ocean conveyor thing has stopped working? Is it local? Is it global? I mean, cause DOES matter. I'll agree that we MIGHT be able to fix it even if it isn't manmade, but the cause matters. I think it's hard to fix something without knowing what broke it (sometimes), but especially if you want it to stay fixed.
My point was more that man is entirely capable of interfering with natural processes that have existed longer than our species has been around.
I wasn't disputing that.
My point was that, regardless of that ability, causation is still of great importance, otherwise that interference may not have the desired effect we're aiming for.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
BlackBlade -
Yes, you can do that - in fact, we have been. And the theory is that if we stop doing those things, we can have impact on warming.
But you have to accept the fact that mankind has been a cause of global climate change if you think that by stopping certain behaviors we can impact climate change at all.
What were her solutions? "Cleaning up this planet" and "reducing emissions". She has also mentioned "pollution". That all speaks to curbing human behavior so as to curb the impact of climate change.
Her "solutions" all shout "humans cause climate change" from a bullhorn, but she doesn't publicly acknowledge that is the case.
Likely this is because polls say that people like to hear phrases like "reduce emissions", "clean up the planet", and "stop pollution". Keep repeating those talking points, and you'll sound like someone who knows what they're talking about, regardless of whether you belive those things to be true.... so long as no one listens to closely to what you say.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
FC: I think I see what you are saying currently, I don't think we are arguing.
Environment aside was alittle surprised to hear Palin say that she wouldn't interfere with certain rights granted to those in a same sex relationship, ie: hospital visits, wills, joint property ownership, etc.
I haven't really seen strict conservative responses to this statement, but I wonder if there was some sort of mini uproar over this.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
From what I have heard from pro-gay rights people, Palin's statement didn't really make them happy. They felt like it was code for don't worry, I won't actually change anything- I just need to say something mildly tolerant in order to get elected.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: From what I have heard from pro-gay rights people, Palin's statement didn't really make them happy. They felt like it was code for don't worry, I won't actually change anything- I just need to say something mildly tolerant in order to get elected.
Better that then, "I'm gonna pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage...etc."
I think folks should recognize when anyone takes even a tiny step forward. Ten years ago Palin would likely have been able to get away with simply saying nothing on the issue.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: You see what I did there? You know what I'm talking about? Do ya? Do ya?
Nice obscure OSC short-story reference. 10 points! But you lose nine of them for making me think really hard. And for the smilies.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)