posted
Kerry was dull and reminds me of one of the statues on mount Rushmore. Why can't why have thrilling cool candidates who are exciting and fascinating and smart without being shrewd tricksy jerks?
Shame Kaoru's Japanese... I'd enjoy presidental addresses if that was the case.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kerry is a whiny elitist a-hole from Massachussetts (sp?!). He's a war-hero pretender. He was never proven to have had nothing to do with Rathergate. People who know him (and don't work for him) have said that his favorite phrase is "do you know who I am?" He's a member of the Democratic party, and that isn't ordinarily a bad thing, but lately they've been skewing crazily left and smelling eerily like Marxist Socialists. He may as well be a Kennedy, and we all know the great evil that all of the offspring of that alcoholic syphilitic bootlegger have done to our country. And this is merely a personal thing, but when he refused to quit his Senator job while he was campaigning...well, I can't respect a guy who so coldly hedges his bets.
Bush? Well, he seriously dropped the ball on immigration and reforming social security. He is a man of faith, though, and committed to our soldiers. He may have settled on a dysfunctional imperial military strategy for Iraq, but the majority of his military decisions have been okay (although some have been countermanded by politico-generals in the Pentagon). No Child Left Behind is generally a success (although it is ridiculed by mediocre, minimum-effort teachers everywhere, which is precisely why it was necessary). The economy is effing BOOMING. And Europe is starting to come around as well: both Germany and France have now elected pro-US, pro-Bush heads of state.
Has Bush done a stellar job? Perhaps not. But would Kerry have made a better president? Not at all. The American people can smell slime and dishonesty. They made the right choice; or at least chose the lesser of the two evils.
Posts: 82 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Roberts would not be the chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
quote:He may as well be a Kennedy, and we all know the great evil that all of the offspring of that alcoholic syphilitic bootlegger have done to our country.
For all the family flaws, I find John, Robert, and Edward Kennedy admirable.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Battler, you had me (about Bush) until this:
quote:No Child Left Behind is generally a success (although it is ridiculed by mediocre, minimum-effort teachers everywhere, which is precisely why it was necessary). The economy is effing BOOMING.
When you call No Child Left Behind a success, what do you consider a success? Because if success is our children being educated, then I would have to disagree. If success is moving children on to the next grade, then I agree.
Also...what do you have against Massachusetts?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: Roberts would not be the chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
quote:He may as well be a Kennedy, and we all know the great evil that all of the offspring of that alcoholic syphilitic bootlegger have done to our country.
For all the family flaws, I find John, Robert, and Edward Kennedy admirable.
Robert betrayed his mafioso buddies. Not saying that's a bad thing, but he shouldn't have been buddies with them in the first place.
John is the Kurt Cobain of presidents. The only reason anybody remembers him fondly is that he was assassinated. I'm amazed that the same people who are so against "imperialist aggression" seem to ignore the colossal blunder that was the Bay of Pigs.
And the big tamale? Honestly? Ted Kennedy is admirable? He MURDERED that poor girl and then used his family connections to get out of it. I don't usually generalize about a region of our country, but people in Massachusetts must be either really ignorant of current events, or really amoral.
Posts: 82 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert: Battler, you had me (about Bush) until this:
quote:No Child Left Behind is generally a success (although it is ridiculed by mediocre, minimum-effort teachers everywhere, which is precisely why it was necessary). The economy is effing BOOMING.
When you call No Child Left Behind a success, what do you consider a success? Because if success is our children being educated, then I would have to disagree. If success is moving children on to the next grade, then I agree.
Also...what do you have against Massachusetts?
I have nothing against Mass. I absolutely LOVE Boston, and this is coming from somebody who HATES seafood, so you know I really like the actual city, and not just the food. I just wish the politicians coming from that fine city would be a little less Beacon Hill and a little more Boondock Saints.
As for NCLB, I'm not sure I follow your question. Perhaps I wasn't specific enough: it mandates actual standards for students, which is fantastic. Lots of slimy teachers-union types (down in the south we call "unions" what they really are--organized crime) like to b*tch that these standards are "contrary to self esteem" and whatnot; but that is just lazy teachers not wanting to do their jobs. This is not conjecture; my parents and best friend are all teachers. They LOVE the NCLB standards for making kids (and teachers) accountable again. This "we have to give kids at least a B because their feelings are more important than their minds" crap has GOT to stop. And people wonder why we're behind almost every country in the world in hard sciences.
posted
Was Kerry the best choice out of everyone the Democrats COULD have fielded? No. Would he have been better than Bush? Certainly.
I imagine we'd have started extricating ourselves from Iraq a couple years ago, slowly, securing places like Afghanistan to make sure Al Qaeda can't regrow their power base there.
NCLB has a LOT of holes in it, and I think it ignores a LOT of the problems with US education that need to be addressed, more fundamental problems that earlier this year a major multiyear study heavily talked about. Teachers aren't paid enough, the curriculum is messed up, many teachers aren't qualified enough, and all three of those subjects are linked together. We're using a 1950's focused curriculum in the 21st Century. And Bush did NOTHING to try and solve that. I like that he's increased accountability, but has he really given everyone all the tools they need to really solve the problems?
If you fired EVERY underqualified teacher in the country tomorrow, I really think you'd have to almost shut down the whole thing. Because with what you pay teachers, you aren't going to entice grads just out of school to choose teaching as a career path, and that's what higher salaries does, it encourages the best and brightest to choose teaching over something more lucrative perhaps. A lot of them aren't willing to sacrifice 10's of thousands of dollars just for warm fuzzies.
The economy is booming, at yet a majority of the middle class feels that we were better off economically 5 years ago, and this despite the fact that the DOW just broke 14K for the first time ever. It's because while we might be doing great as a national average, individuals are having problems that aren't being addressed. Healthcare hasn't been fixed, the environment is not only being neglected by the Bush Administration, I believe under his stewardship we've slipped back on decades of progress. States are having to take the lead in the fight, and Bush is not only not leading them, he is actively opposing efforts to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and to help keep the air and water clean. The man is an utter disaster, and whatever Kerry might have been, I think he would have done right by us on those issues.
Bush is a small time politician who doesn't know how to play well with others, he has no big ideas, and is far more interested in short term gains at the expense of long term security. He's a disaster, and Kerry at the very least could not have done worse, and in fact I think he would have helped alleviate at least some of the damage Bush has caused.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know. I don't see No Child Left Behind as being especially effective from some of the things i've read about it. I swear instead of actually improving school, the system just turns it into a dried up prune and a pile of desicated raisans. Where's the fun? Where's the stuff that makes kids WANT to go to school? I have doubts about the president's commiment to the troops, but then again, i just don't trust politicians. They are all good at telling people things they want to hear and obscuring the things they need to know.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn, you brought up something I totally agree with, and that's our dependence on foreign oil. I also think that not only this president but every politician should make it a top priority to relieve us of our dangerous dependence on the Middle East and Venezuela. If nuke stuff is too unpalatable, for instance, they could at least allow the development of oil shale harvesting, which has been aggressively stifled for the last twenty years or so.
I disagree, though, with the idea that Kerry would have been a better president than Bush. Sometimes you can be a good person but a bad leader. But you can never be a bad person and a good leader. Kerry is a bad person. Enough said.
Posts: 82 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: (1) I imagine we'd have started extricating ourselves from Iraq a couple years ago, slowly, securing places like Afghanistan to make sure Al Qaeda can't regrow their power base there...
(2) NCLB has a LOT of holes in it...
(3) The economy is booming, at yet a majority of the middle class feels that we were better off economically 5 years ago, and this despite the fact that the DOW just broke 14K for the first time ever. It's because while we might be doing great as a national average, individuals are having problems that aren't being addressed...
(4) Healthcare hasn't been fixed...
(5) the environment is not only being neglected by the Bush Administration...
(6) States are having to take the lead in the fight...
(7) whatever Kerry might have been, I think he would have done right by us on those issues... I think he would have helped alleviate at least some of the damage Bush has caused...
I've numbered your points (if I've neglected any, please let me know) in order to respond to them more efficiently.
1. We don't want to "extricate" ourselves from Iraq. Our security is partially contingent upon our success there; not to mention, it is the newest colony in the American Empire. A change of strategy? Maybe. But abandoning our imperial duty? Never.
2. I fail to see what they are. Again, the only people who I've heard have huge problems with it are a) teachers union reps (ie, the mafia) and b) mediocre teachers who don't want a standard because they know they can't meet it.
3. Hate to sound like I'm regurgitating talking points, but have you ever considered that maybe the reason people don't FEEL like they're doing well financially is because...well...the media is TELLING them they're not? Also, the last time I checked, the people around me who complain about the economy all have iPods and cell phones and computers.
4. Healthcare hasn't been fixed? What does that mean, exactly? Do you mean there is no communist health care system? Because the lack of socialist medicine doesn't need to be fixed.
5. The environment can taken care of itself. Anybody who buys into the latest chicken-little, disgraced-former-vice-president hyperbole is falling victim to the state of fear. Read Crichton's book about it. It's illuminating.
6. States SHOULD take the lead. That was the intention of our founding fathers. As little federal intervention as possible.
7. Seriously. Kerry is slime. While I agree wholeheartedly that Bush was merely the least repugnant Republican candidate...come on. Like I said earlier: the American people can smell a rat. The elected the less "ratty" of the two.
Posts: 82 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Teachers who dislike that NCLB means many of their students are suffering are "mafia" and "organized crime"???
I do not believe any relative of yours is an actual teacher. Almost every actual teacher I know (including private school teachers, who aren't even affected by NCLB) thinks NCLB is making things worse, not better.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Funny, it took me until the second paragraph of Battler's first post before I realized it wasn't a joke. Am I losing my touch?
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Battler03: Like I said earlier: the American people can smell a rat. The elected the less "ratty" of the two.
I was under the impression that Bush got elected because the people who voted for him liked him, not that they hated him least.
Posts: 299 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
Time and money that could be spent on programs goes to tests. And preparing for tests. And scoring tests.
If you had to get rid of your custodians, your music program, and any hope of getting textbooks written in the same decade, you will get tests... And they will tell you what you already know about your school.
It's much like the "Texas Miracle", wherein students who made schools' numbers look bad were shuffled off the books. Don't fix it, just get rid of it.
"No Child Left Behind", "Clear Skies", "Healthy Forests"... The PR is a grand spectacle. The policy is hogwash.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You guys are forgetting that your personal lord and savior, Ted Kennedy, actually wrote NCLB. I'm not saying that the program has no flaws whatsoever; I'm just saying that a program that encourages standards over feelgood self-esteem nonsense is better.
We shouldn't get caught up in a narrow tangent, though. Education is just ONE of the many ways that Bush is far superior to John "I got a purple heart for a paper cut" Kerry.
Posts: 82 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: NCLB means... Tests.
Time and money that could be spent on programs goes to tests. And preparing for tests. And scoring tests.
If you had to get rid of your custodians, your music program, and any hope of getting textbooks written in the same decade, you will get tests... And they will tell you what you already know about your school.
Very well put.
And I've never been a big fan of Ted Kennedy. *shrug*
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Um, pooka . . . Gore didn't run in 2004. The slate was Kerry-Edwards.
Right, but as long as we're playing political fantasy, why not pretend Bush was never president at all?
Gore's response to September 11th:
"If my plan for a biodiesel/hybrid electic airplane had been implemented, this never would have happened."
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Battler, just an FYI on NCLB. One of the complaints is that it has no upper cap. If your stundents improve, they still hit the upper level of their ability at some point. In a small town with mostly the same pool of kids every year, your school will eventually be hurt by the lack of progress even if the kids are doing fine.
I like to compare the NCLB status of a school with it's grade here in Florida. If it's an A school that isn't passing NCLB, that's a good place for an average student but not one with special needs. A C school that is passing might not be good for a gifted kid but better for one that does need help. Both standards give you part of the story, but not all of it.
In defense of NCLB, it didn't dictate the curriculum. The schools had their 50s lesson plans in place long before Bush got there. He's just testing on what they were actually doing. The administrators keep the teachers on a fairly tight leash at my mom's school. They're pretty big fans of the status quo and don't like teachers trying new things. I don't know how wide spread that would be, but I'm always a bit leery of an enormous bureaucracy.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
[quote]You guys are forgetting that your personal lord and savior, Ted Kennedy, actually wrote NCLB.[\quote]
Might I ask who here at hatrack has ever proclaimed they liked Ted Kennedy let alone revered him as their personal lord and savior?
It absolutely enrages me when right winger assume that if you dislike Bush it automatically indicates you love Ted Kennedy or Bill Clinton. Its as if you believe the political spectrum is a giant magnet with two opposing polls. If you are repulsed by one you must necessarily be attracted to the other.
I expect better critical thinking skills than that here at Hatrack.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the record, both my parents, my sister and my brother-in-law are all teachers or retired teachers. None of them have good things to say about NCLB. They also don't have good things to say about teacher unions.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Rabbit: Battler's original tirade about the Kennedys (aside from an offhanded insult in his first post) was in direct response to Irami saying he liked... or at least admired... the Kennedys. Obviously "lord and savior" is ridiculous hyperbole (but then so is the rest of his posts)... but it is ridiculous hyperbole with some basis in this thread.
As an aside, when I pluralize Kennedys I really want to spell it Kennedies. Am I the only person with this urge?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it is impossible to know whether or not Kerry would have been a good president or a poor one. However, I think we were quite foolish to instead pick someone who had already proven himself to be a poor president.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nope. I can't say I admire the Kennedys (almost spelled it Kennedies) that much myself. The way John F. Kennedy and his brother treated Marilyn Monroe. I just think politicians are vile for the most part. I read this fascinating book called Tempting Faith by David Kuo who worked with President Bush. He talked about how Bush specifically manipulated evangelicals into voting for him. How Bush used his faith based initiatives to gain more votes, but once he was in office, dried up the funding for them. I just don't trust any politicians, especially Bush.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
I adored Profiles in Courage. I think it's a simple and profound study of political courage, a quality too few people understand today. I believe that if that book were taught in every high school in America, not only would our children have a better respect for the problems of democracy, they'd be deeper people and better citizens.
In addition, the man started the Peace Corp and put a man on the moon on the strength of a speech. It's one of the reasons I'm disheartened every time Bush lies in his State of the Union. It's like our current President makes a game out of America and the Presidential rostrum. If Bush had believed what he said like JFK believed what he said, we'd already be a nation dependent upon clean, sustainable energy. If Guiliani is judged by picking up the New York after 9/11, Kennedy should be judged by having the moral insight and courage to guiding this country morally.
Robert Kennedy:
quote:“It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope.”....“Few will have the greatness to bend history itself; but each of us can work to change a small portion of events, and in the total of all those acts will be written the history of this generation.”
Ted Kennedy for all his boarishness, he is a blue blood who has spent his life in service as a champion for the less fortunate. I don't put him in the league with Bill Bradley, but I think him to be a good man.
If I were Joe Kennedy, I'd be proud to call these three men my sons.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: (1) I imagine we'd have started extricating ourselves from Iraq a couple years ago, slowly, securing places like Afghanistan to make sure Al Qaeda can't regrow their power base there...
(2) NCLB has a LOT of holes in it...
(3) The economy is booming, at yet a majority of the middle class feels that we were better off economically 5 years ago, and this despite the fact that the DOW just broke 14K for the first time ever. It's because while we might be doing great as a national average, individuals are having problems that aren't being addressed...
(4) Healthcare hasn't been fixed...
(5) the environment is not only being neglected by the Bush Administration...
(6) States are having to take the lead in the fight...
(7) whatever Kerry might have been, I think he would have done right by us on those issues... I think he would have helped alleviate at least some of the damage Bush has caused...
I've numbered your points (if I've neglected any, please let me know) in order to respond to them more efficiently.
1. We don't want to "extricate" ourselves from Iraq. Our security is partially contingent upon our success there; not to mention, it is the newest colony in the American Empire. A change of strategy? Maybe. But abandoning our imperial duty? Never.
2. I fail to see what they are. Again, the only people who I've heard have huge problems with it are a) teachers union reps (ie, the mafia) and b) mediocre teachers who don't want a standard because they know they can't meet it.
3. Hate to sound like I'm regurgitating talking points, but have you ever considered that maybe the reason people don't FEEL like they're doing well financially is because...well...the media is TELLING them they're not? Also, the last time I checked, the people around me who complain about the economy all have iPods and cell phones and computers.
4. Healthcare hasn't been fixed? What does that mean, exactly? Do you mean there is no communist health care system? Because the lack of socialist medicine doesn't need to be fixed.
5. The environment can taken care of itself. Anybody who buys into the latest chicken-little, disgraced-former-vice-president hyperbole is falling victim to the state of fear. Read Crichton's book about it. It's illuminating.
6. States SHOULD take the lead. That was the intention of our founding fathers. As little federal intervention as possible.
7. Seriously. Kerry is slime. While I agree wholeheartedly that Bush was merely the least repugnant Republican candidate...come on. Like I said earlier: the American people can smell a rat. The elected the less "ratty" of the two.
1 I'd suggest you extricate yourself from the delusion you're under. The Army and Marines are near the breaking point. Almost our entire force of military machinery are in Iraq right now. Read this article in TIME. We are going to be leaving soon whether you or the president likes it or not. This has been one of the most disastrous military actions and policies and badly bungled wars in history, and is I think the worst managed and executed in US history. We've destroyed our power to influence world events, we're running up huge debts and ignoring the consequences of those actions, we're smashing our military power, and it will take years and billions to rebuild it to pre-war status. I'm going to ignore your talk about Imperialism, as you're either crazy, or joking. Over the course of the last five years, Bush keeps telling us we're that much closer, Al Qaeda is half dead, 3/4ths dead, almost there...and yet the recent NIE that was released the other day says that Iraq has been a boon in recruiting and funding for Al Qaeda, and under our watch they've taken up root in Pakistan, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Fighting them in Iraq ignores the thousands of fighters ELSEWHERE IN THE WORLD. And with all our forces in one nice little spot, we don't have the power to fight them globally. This war is stupid and irresponsible, and it’s far past the time that we get ourselves out of it, start salvaging what we can, and rebuild our place in the world. Even if we did break Al Qaeda in Iraq, the work it will take to make Iraq into a stable nation, if that’s even possible, is the work of a generation, not a quick fix. And we are NOT staying in Iraq for a generation.
2. You can read what others have to say about it, but it really doesn’t so much strike me as a plan for education as it is a plan for accountability to the exclusion of all else. You can make all the rules you want for making sure teachers are up to snuff, but then what? How do you replace the bad ones with quality ones? You look at making sure kids are tested and don’t move on before they past tests, but what is being tested and what is being taught? Is our curriculum one that can compete in the new global marketplace? Are we really preparing our kids for the world that is out there? Those are the questions that need to be answered in our education system, and they aren’t answered by NCLB.
3. I would say it’s possible that television’s portrayal of what we all should want might have to do with people not feeling they are rich enough, but I think that has nothing to do with not being able to pay the electric bill.
4. You’re a Republican aren’t you? Doesn’t that mean you’re supposed to scratch the back of your buddies in the business world? Businesses are the loudest ones complaining about needing a fix to healthcare. Costs are out of control, and our nation is sick. What do I want? I want a healthy nation who doesn’t bankrupt itself trying to pay for an aspirin. I want our businesses to not have to pay through the nose in costs for their sick employees when the nations they are competing with have a distinct advantage. I want an efficient economy and an efficient country. Efficiency means lowering our healthcare costs without punishing the industry, but the HMO healthcare industry doesn’t care about your health, they care about your bottom line, and that is bad for the nation, even if it is good for the industry. And I can’t imagine there’s an argument you’ll be able to make that’ll sway me that opposes healthy citizens and lower costs.
5. Read more than a science fiction book buddy. I’m not only talking about carbon emissions, actually, I’m not talking AT ALL about carbon emissions. I’m talking about Bush allowing deforestation, allowing dirtier air, allowing dirtier water. I’m talking about his opposition to Green initiatives that will save our businesses and homes billions of dollars in energy savings from efficiency. I want clean water, clean air, big forests, protected wildlife, and to pay as little for energy as I can without sacrificing the other things. If you’re against those things, I don’t know what to tell you. And by the way ‘the environment can take care of itself,’ is a great sign that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Getting your facts from Crichton and being proud of it is pretty good confirmation too. Do some reading, learn your facts. Also read interviews from Christine Todd Whitman, former head of the EPA under Bush. She quit because she couldn’t put up with anymore of Bush’s interference with protecting the environment. He hid reports or buried information that showed his policies were damaging. But hey, the trees can take care of themselves right?
6. Fine, if that’s your position then why aren’t you opposed to Bush taking them to court to take away their rights as states to set their own standards? They want clean air and water and Bush is saying no, lower your standards and toe the line, or else. Is that the Federal government you want?
7. Don’t much care for the man, I care about his policies. His policies lined up fairly well with many of my issues, and Bush lines up about 98% of the time against them. If he wants to be slime personally but still serve my interests in the morning, that’s fine with me. I can’t imagine for a minute that he’d do the 180 that Bush did on his campaign promises.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was being sarcastic. I'd think you'd be able to identify that.
Besides, I don't think he's a Republican anyway. I might not like what a lot of Republicans stand for, but they aren't THAT out of touch.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
NCLB has taken all the teaching out of my job. I don't go to my class every day to bring new and exciting material to my kids. I go every day to prepare them for a test. My whole exsitense as a teacher has shifted to collection of data. We test these kids every week. Usually multiple times in multiple calssrooms. On average I lose two full days of teaching every week to give tests that will track progress of the kids over material I no longer have time to adequately cover. All of this for the big one that comes at the end of the year to determine our schools score. And the kicker is that each year our school loses money because the scores are not up to snuff, so in order to help us encourage our students and create new opportunities to help them grow the goverment takes money away. My first year as a teacher, which was in 2001, I recieved 500.00 at the beginnning of the year to use towards school supplies in the room for the kids. I haven't recieved a dime in the past two years and don't expect any this coming year either. How is that helpful? And it's not because, as Battler03 put it, our school is full of mediocre teachers who don't want to work hard. I work in a very urban district with kids from families with all kinds of problems and difficulties and many times school is much less important to them than weather or not they will eat that night or see their mother. Our teachers work their butts off. The teachers in our district work twice as hard to accomplish half the results of other teachers in a more suburban area with parents and community members who are supportive. So everything about your "mediocre" comment is absolute absurd to me. And I find it very hard to believe you really have relatives who love the NCLB act. I have yet to meet a teacher who thinks like that. It has done nothing but hurt education in the US.
Posts: 1294 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
