In an effort to ascertain who was at secret meetings for the Administration's evolving energy policy, the GAO (General Accounting Office, a branch of the Congress) has filed papers to sue the White House. This lawsuit is to force the White House to release the information. The White House has hired a solicitor general and a respected lawyer to contest the lawsuit. The outcome is not known.
Years ago, another president, President Clinton, faced a similiar challenge from the GAO. In his case, the meetings were held to discuss a new health care policy. The GAO threatened legal action if this former administration didn't hand over requested information. Like this current administration, Pres. Clinton argued that the White House should be allowed to have secret meetings. However, unlike Pres. Bush's government, Pres. Clinton's administration agreed to the GAO's demand and handed over documents with the requested information.
[ February 22, 2002, 14:09: Message edited by: targetemployee ]
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
I'm guessing the head of the GAO isn't a political appointee. . .
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Nothing new, they've been threatening this for quite some time.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
He is, actually, though it's for a 15 year term. In theory, the GAO is more like the Supreme Court than Congress.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Hooray for public governance!
Posted by Antagonist (Member # 484) on :
Bah! It's public elected officials like the head of the GAO that make political corruption and corporate influence hard to pull of these days.
See George. See George Run. See George get busted. Run George Run!
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Except that George didn't do anything.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Indeed.
See George sit idly by, talking about "terrah" and causing the Yen to fall by "misspeaking" again.
[Don't] see Dick run.
Posted by Tahna Los (Member # 33) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: Except that George didn't do anything.
Don't assume that George is like the angel you perceive him to be. What if he did do something? Will you still defend him then?
A Democrat is suspected of doing something illegal. You jump all over him. A Republican is being suspected of doing something illegal. You defend him. This is a double standard, and a bad one at that.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
It's a deserved double-standard. Remember, humans find patterns. It's what we do. One obvious pattern is "democrat cantidates = mostly dishonest; GOP cantidates = substantially more honest". Of course, the reason for that is that I simply tend to trust people until I have some reason not to. I just happen to have a problem with most congressional Democrats: they defended Bill Clinton, even knowing that he'd had an extramarital affair and had committed perjury on the subject. If someone can claim that these things are not outright WRONG for ANY reason, then what qualms might they have about lying to you? Their credibility is gone.
Bush, OTOH, HAS told the truth about everything I've heard him say. I therefore tend to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Oh, and BTW, we KNOW he didn't do anything wrong in those meetings. Enron asked Bush for help, thinking he'd interfere like Clinton did. He didn't. Simple as that.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
I'm also beginning to see a pattern here:
"Conservative Christians lack brains (or the capacity to use them)."
quote:Of course, the reason for that is that I simply tend to trust people until I have some reason not to.
Except Democrats. They're all eeeeeeeevil!
quote:I just happen to have a problem with most congressional Democrats: they defended Bill Clinton, even knowing that he'd had an extramarital affair and had committed perjury on the subject. If someone can claim that these things are not outright WRONG for ANY reason, then what qualms might they have about lying to you? Their credibility is gone.
The shock! The horror! An EXTRAMARITAL AFFAIR!
Granted, it was wrong to LIE. But do not try to pretend lying isn't a fact of life in YOUR party as well *cough* Nixon *cough*.
quote:Bush, OTOH, HAS told the truth about everything I've heard him say. I therefore tend to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Oh, he's told the truth about everything you heard him say? Well then, no reason to question his credibility! Because if Omega says someone told the truth, it MUST be so.
Take those glasses off, will you? Only being able to see black and white is a Bad Thing.
[ February 25, 2002, 07:10: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
How do you know when a politician is lying?
Their mouth is moving.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Yeah, you also gotta question what they're lying about.
Clinton lied about a blowjob.
Nixon lied about trying to overthrow the whole election process.
Of course, we all know lying about the blowjob was worse.
Interestingly enough, I read a report recently that pretty much said that from the legal language used in cases like these, that Clinton didn't lie (and if he did, burden-of-proof being what it is, the prosecution did a very poor job of proving it), and the only reason he admitted to lying was to get out from under the scandal. Anyways, to provide reading material for interested parties:
quote:defended Bill Clinton, even knowing that he'd had an extramarital affair and had committed perjury on the subject.
Omega, did it ever occur to you that they might have thought Impeachement wasn't an appropriate punishment? Why not censure Clinton, or try him after leaving office? So many options! If the Republican leadership had decided to try another avenue, you might've winded up with a victory while at the same time avoiding a scandal which painted both parties in pretty bad light.
For someone who professes to believe in the Founder's Intent, clearly you can see that there's a big difference between lying about, say, trying to thwart the other partys' election campaigns and getting a blowjob. One is clearly harmful to the national interest (which is what Impeachement is all about: removing that threat). Impeachment is not supposed to be a personal punishment for wrongdoing.
You want to argue Clinton should be punished? Fine. Please explain why impeachment, and not censure, trial after office, or *GASP!* even a prosecutorial decision not to press the case.
Please, explain.
[ February 25, 2002, 14:36: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Or, alternatively, don't. Instead please explain to me the desire to go over this over and over again, without hope of any sort of resolution. Seriouosly, I'd like to know. Please, for the love of God, make me understand!
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Actually, I don't think anyone has discussed on Flare (at least, since I've been here) why Impeachment and not another alternative was the only option. I'd like to see Omega tackle this one, since "he needed to be punished" would've been fulfilled under Censure or another option. Anyhoo.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Given that the previous administration is now previous, I find myself uninterested in revisiting its actions, barring any significant new revelations.
Unless, of course, they start saying that something the current administration does is bad, when they did the same thing and forgave themselves.
But that's not likely. So I vote for letting it rest.
[ February 25, 2002, 16:32: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Ok, but just out of curiousity: do you feel Impeachment should always be the first response when an elected official "lies" under oath, or should other options such as censure and trial after term be utilized depending on the severity of the alleged lie?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
No, I don't think it should be the first response, depending upon the severity.
Fibbing about a bj is not an impeachable offnese, IMHO. However, despite pundit comments to the contrary, that was not the entirety of the charge, though it may have been the part that led to the rest, just as the Watergate break-in (relatively minor) led to the cover-up, etc. that led to the beginning of the (IMHO, also rightful)impeachment against Nixon.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
I can't believe the day has come that I've found someone so utterly lacking in mental capacity as to actually post that in a public forum.
Posted by Tahna Los (Member # 33) on :
[ February 25, 2002, 20:47: Message edited by: Tahna Los ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
And Omega has yet to respond to the questions posed earlier. Or look through some of the links. Or even acknowledge having a brain capable of independent thought.
No surprise.
[ February 26, 2002, 07:18: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
Posted by thoughtcriminal84 (Member # 480) on :
I think they should have just video taped Monica giving Billy a little suck, and then sent it to Hillary while she was at one of her high society tupperware parties. Punishment, most dire.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
For someone who professes to believe in the Founder's Intent, clearly you can see that there's a big difference between lying about, say, trying to thwart the other partys' election campaigns and getting a blowjob.
If you're under oath, there is NO difference. Perjury is perjury is perjury. Simple as that.
Impeachment is not supposed to be a personal punishment for wrongdoing.
Impeachment is for the purpose of removing a criminal from office. Threat to national interests or not is irrelevant.
You want to argue Clinton should be punished? Fine. Please explain why impeachment, and not censure, trial after office, or *GASP!* even a prosecutorial decision not to press the case.
Because that is the legal proceedure. If someone has committed a crime, they should be punished in accordance with the law. They should be tried and convicted by a jury (assuming, of course they're guilty). Since you have to impeach and remove an elected official before they can actually be put on trial, impeachment was the proper response to the President committing a crime. Or are you arguing that the President is above the law?
And Omega has yet to respond to the questions posed earlier.
Oh, no, I've been busy for the last 24 hours. I must be ignoring the threat. Horror of horrors.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:If you're under oath, there is NO difference. Perjury is perjury is perjury. Simple as that.
No one denies that. But, er, why not censure? Or trial after he leaves office ... ?
quote:Impeachment is for the purpose of removing a criminal from office. Threat to national interests or not is irrelevant.
George W. Bush has been convicted of a crime, drunk driving. There's strong evidence to suggest he failed to serve his complete term with the National Guard. Shall we impeach him, too?
quote:Because that is the legal proceedure. If someone has committed a crime, they should be punished in accordance with the law. They should be tried and convicted by a jury (assuming, of course they're guilty). Since you have to impeach and remove an elected official before they can actually be put on trial, impeachment was the proper response to the President committing a crime. Or are you arguing that the President is above the law?
Yeah, you must have not read that one option I presented. Namely, trying him AFTER he was out of office. But, hey, no one on this board expects you to pay attention to all the facts (at least, you've never in the past shown any concern for anything that doesn't fit your brainwashed concerns).
I also noticed you completely avoided those links. Interesting. Then again, those who live in a world of lies generally stay away from anything which might paint things in a new light for them like an educated person from a derenged evangalist.
[ February 26, 2002, 11:22: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
Posted by Tahna Los (Member # 33) on :
Assuming that you would prefer Conservative Candidates over Liberal ones (and assuming that the present political state of the Republicans is Conservative, and Democrat Liberal), please read this Article
Harris is a neo-conservative. Substantially more honest, you say? Then why the hell is he trying to duck all accountability in this case?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
I didn't know suing for libel was an attempt to duck accountability.
I didn't know DEFENDING YOURSELF in a wrongful-death suit was an attempt to duck accountability.
That's extremely poor logic. It demonstrates a clear "guilty until proven innocent" mode of thinking.
Since the article contained no useful data as to whether the premier is or is not actually guilty of anything, there's no way to determine whether the premier is honest or not.
The use of taxpayer funds is no indication... taxpayer funds are often used both to prosecute AND to defend politicians.
[ February 26, 2002, 16:30: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Yeah, you must have not read that one option I presented. Namely, trying him AFTER he was out of office.
Well, you can't very well try him while he's IN office, now can you? That's the entire purpose of the impeachment proceeding.
George W. Bush has been convicted of a crime, drunk driving.
Which he payed the legal penalty for.
here's strong evidence to suggest he failed to serve his complete term with the National Guard.
Assuming it's even true, this was during the Vietnam era, no? Was there not a blanket amnesty declared for all such persons? Further, is there not a statute of limitations?
But, er, why not censure?
Because that is not the legally required punishment for the commission of the crime of perjury, and the President, believe it or not, is not above the law.
Or trial after he leaves office ... ?
And leave a known criminal in office for years? WHY?
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Omega still has yet to take even a glance at the links provided. Probably because he's afraid that if he does, he might have to admit he is wrong about the Clinton/Perjury thing.
Omega, try checking those links. Try responding to them. One wonders why you're avoiding them ... then again, twe do know how you avoid things like "rationalization", "truth", and "shades of grey."
quote:Which he payed the legal penalty for.
Interesting logic. So, when someone pays the penalty for their crimes by getting out of jail, they should get all their rights back? Right to vote, right to own a gun? I thought you were against all of that, Ommiechops?
quote:Assuming it's even true, this was during the Vietnam era, no? Was there not a blanket amnesty declared for all such persons? Further, is there not a statute of limitations?
Ah, I see. And yet you and Rob and JeffR love bringing up Clinton's draft-dodging. Double standard. See, Clinton was at least honest about how he felt about the Vietnam War. George played it safe, got into the National Guard instead of actually having to see combat, got expensive training on the tax-payer's dime to fly jets, then didn't serve his whole commitment. I notice how you resort to a legal defense of George, instead of the "moral" attacks you take against Democrats.
Go take a look at those links, Omega.
[ February 26, 2002, 17:53: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:When President Jimmy Carter was inaugurated on January 20, 1977, his first act was to grant amnesty to draft evaders and some deserters from the Vietnam War.
[ February 26, 2002, 19:22: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Gee, I guess Bush should be impeached and dragged through a humiliating trial. I'm sure Omega, who doesn't want to leave a criminal in office, will lead the charge.
Won't you, Omega?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote: And yet you and Rob and JeffR love bringing up Clinton's draft-dodging.
Lie, lie, LIE!
I DEFY you to find ANY post wherein I mentioned anything about Clinton and the draft.
LIBEL! SLANDER! WHERE'S MY LAWYER?!!
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
So, when someone pays the penalty for their crimes by getting out of jail, they should get all their rights back?
You're assuming that jail is the only way that one pays the penalty for their crimes.
And yet you and Rob and JeffR love bringing up Clinton's draft-dodging.
Clinton hated the military, and had no business being commander-in-chief on that and half a dozen other basies. Bush, OTOH, you can't even prove was AWOL.
I'm sure Omega, who doesn't want to leave a criminal in office, will lead the charge.
*sigh*
Let me see if I can make this simple enough that even your powers of obfuscation will be useless...
1) Anyone who commits a crime must pay the legally required penalty for that crime, whatever that penalty may be.
2) If a sitting president is required to pay for a crime, he must first be removed from office.
3) Bill Clinton committed a crime which he was legally required to pay for while he was President.
Conclusion: Bill Clinton should have been removed from office so that he might pay for his crime in the legally required manner.
The difference is in "3". Bush did NOT commit any crime which he is required to pay for during his term in office.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Well, thank goodness that loving the military is now a criteria for becoming president of the United States. I'll add that on my list of presidental musts right next to always wearing clean underwear and knowing who the president of Pakistan is.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Oh, and I almost forgot about Jeff's vaunted links.
For one, it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that someone KNEW they were lying in a case of perjury, or any other case. You can't have evidence of what was going through someone's head when they said something. And yet people are still convicted of it. You have to effectively prove that an average person, short of mental deficiencies (which have to be proven by the defense), would likely have known it. Naturally, such proof is, to some degree, subjective, but any reasonable person would assume that he'd remember an affair.
Second, I really don't give a darn what the Supreme Court says any more. Any court who says that there is NO right to free exercize of religion protected by the Constitution has exactly zero credibility. Any reasonable definition of perjury would simply be violating the oath that one takes upon giving testimony. (Adultery has been similarly redefined, but not by any court of course.) Bill Clinton swore to tell the WHOLE TRUTH. He didn't. He therefore committed perjury, Supreme Court goodspeak or no.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
quote:You have to effectively prove that an average person, short of mental deficiencies (which have to be proven by the defense), would likely have known it.
<low blow>It would therefore appear to be impossible for Bush to ever be convicted of perjury</low blow>
quote:Second, I really don't give a darn what the Supreme Court says any more.
Jeff'll need to clear some room in his .sig
[ February 26, 2002, 20:31: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Oh, Robert.
You've never once mentioned Clinton's draft-dodging? EVER? Why do I find that so hard to believe, given your general comments involving Clinton? And given those, I can make the very reasonable arguement that you believe Clinton's actions during the Vietnam War to be reprehensible. I'm sure I could dig up the appropriate quotes, but I get so tired of shifting through all your crap every time you decide to change the subject and yell 'libel!'
Regardless of this little ploy, your attempt at distraction has failed.
Now, listen. You've said you don't want to take at those links. Okay, fine.
But Omega avoids them like he'll burn to ashes. Why? Why are you scared, Omega?
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Oh, wow. He did look.
Omega says that he swore to tell the whole truth, and by failing to do that, should be impeached.
Omega, if I asked you to tell the "whole truth", say, about the last time you watched TV, would you remember to mention the channel, the show, what you were wearing, who was with you in the room, what room you were in, what time of day it was?
You could say, "I watched JAG."
Is that the whole truth? More so then:
"I watched JAG on the USA Network at seven pm on Tuesday night in the family room in my house. My dad, younger brother, and the family cat was present."
The point is, the whole truth is a lot of stuff. It can get more detailed then that. It's the prosecution's job to ask those questions. If they fail to do so (which happened during the impeachment), then how can you blame the defendent?
What if I said you didn't tell the whole truth (in the above example), because you neglected to say you were eating a bowl of popcorn, had a glass of water, and were wearing no socks, shorts, and a blue t-shirt?
Grow up, little boy.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
The point is, the whole truth is a lot of stuff.
Yes, and it's up to the witness to determine whether something he knows is relevant, seeing as he's sworn to tell the WHOLE truth. Again, rather subjective, but it wouldn't be too hard to prove that Clinton knew things that any reasonable observer would see as relevant to the question at hand. Unless, of course, you'd care to argue that Clinton's a pathological liar or something.
Summary: Clinton was asked a question in relation to a case. He was sworn to give any and all relevant information to that question and that case. He failed to do so.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
*raps Jeff's knuckles*
You're deflating the global price of vitriol.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:He was sworn to give any and all relevant information to that question and that case. He failed to do so.
Wrong. The Prosectuion failed to ask questions which elaborated on said original question. It is their job to understand that what the witness may honestly believe to be the truth may not be, and to interograte to that point. If they fail to ask, it's THEIR fault.
For instance: is a wife alone in the master bedroom if her husband is in the adjoining bathroom? If she says 'yes' under the belief that the bathroom is seperate, is she deliberately lying? If she says 'no' under the belief that its part of the master suite, is she lying? It's the prosecution's job to get specific. If they fail to do so, it's pretty fucking stupid to call the witness a liar.
[ February 26, 2002, 21:00: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Personally, I think Tom is getting funnier and funnier as time rolls on.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
quote:Bush did NOT commit any crime which he is required to pay for during his term in office
Oh good. At least that means you can't complain about Whitewater anymore. No, wait, don't tell me, you've never complained about Clinton and Whitewater, you've never even heard of Whitewater, and it's totally different anyway because Clinton is a crook and Bush isn't. 8)
Posted by Tahna Los (Member # 33) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: I didn't know suing for libel was an attempt to duck accountability.
I didn't know DEFENDING YOURSELF in a wrongful-death suit was an attempt to duck accountability.
That's extremely poor logic. It demonstrates a clear "guilty until proven innocent" mode of thinking.
Since the article contained no useful data as to whether the premier is or is not actually guilty of anything, there's no way to determine whether the premier is honest or not.
The use of taxpayer funds is no indication... taxpayer funds are often used both to prosecute AND to defend politicians.
Unfortunately, the article does not present all the facts. This case is more than 3 years old, and it runs to this day. Evidence gathered in memos, letters, witnesses to a very secret meeting indicate that Harris himself wanted whatever means necessary to remove the protesters, even by force. He even ruled over the objections over the commander who was overseeing the affair.
Like Clinton, he is denying it. Denying it in front of a plethora of evidence.
Harris is resigning to avoid having criminal charges laid against him. He knows it. The public knows it.
This is ducking accountability. Not by just saying "I didn't do it" and leaving it at that, but by not having an independant party (Kenneth Starr?) looking at this matter.
Someone is dead. Harris ordered the protesters off the park by whatever means necessary (which is ILLEGAL in Ontario, interference in a police matter). This is either Obstruction of Justice or Criminal Negligence. And far worse than lying about a blowjob.
Harris is part of the Conservative party. Or because he is a lying SOAB does it make him a liberal?
[ February 27, 2002, 09:03: Message edited by: Tahna Los ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Okay, that's much more helpful information.
Assuming the accusations can be proven (in court, don'cha know), yeah, the guy should be fried. On high heat.
Not that I have all that much sympathy for 'protesters' depending on what they're protesting, but using "any means necessary" against (we assume) unarmed nonviolent people is unacceptable.
A. Some people are Conservative. B. Some people are Liberal.
a. Some people are a$$holes. b. Some people aren't.
Sets of A or B will contain sets of a and b. The proportions remain unclarified.
Posted by Tahna Los (Member # 33) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: Okay, that's much more helpful information. but using "any means necessary" against (we assume) unarmed nonviolent people is unacceptable.
Exactly. The protesters WERE unarmed when the shooting started.
quote: A. Some people are Conservative. B. Some people are Liberal.
a. Some people are a$$holes. b. Some people aren't.
Sets of A or B will contain sets of a and b. The proportions remain unclarified.
Now if Omega could realize that argument instead of matching B to a and A to b. Personal experience does not count.
[ February 27, 2002, 12:35: Message edited by: Tahna Los ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Actually, I believe he said "tends" rather than "are," and someone took a "usually" to be an "always."
Of course, this depends on your point-of-view as to the definition of "a$$holes," too.
The Liberals have gun-grabbers, PC'ists, race-baiters, overlitigators, mass-abortionists, criminal-coddlers, Marxists, China-snoggers, and envirokooks.
The Conservatives have kill-em-alls, racists, 'Freemen,' creationists, land despoilers, Fundies, censors, arch-nationalists, and greedy corporate buggers.
Both have conspiracy wackos, and apologists, and display an unpleasant tendency to defend their own no matter how badly they've done.
*Personal experience DOES count! How else do you think I came to these conclusions?
[ February 27, 2002, 13:45: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
I DO realize that argument. I classify you as a liberal, remember. Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
If Omega classifies Rob as a liberal, and most everyone else classifies him as a conservative, it stands to reason he's a libertarian.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Crap. Rob posted while I was typing. I meant that to be directed at Tahna.
Posted by Tahna Los (Member # 33) on :
Going by how you TEND to see Liberals, does that make me an asshole, then?
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Well, it apparently makes you more likely to be a liar.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
I believe I said that about Democrats, i.e. members of the US Democratic Party, not liberals in general.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Yes, but given your constant irrationality, it's reasonable to assume you don't know the difference.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
But surely all liberals in the world are members of the US Democratic party? I mean, there can't be other parties. That wouldn't be allowed.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Quite right. Two parties good, more parties bad. If you're not with us, you're against us.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Yes, but given your constant irrationality, it's reasonable to assume you don't know the difference.
Nice little campaign you've got going trying to convince people of that. Too bad I don't particularly care.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Hey, man, if I'm running a campaign to discredit you, you're doing all my work for me! Keep it up, please, by all means.
[ February 28, 2002, 18:52: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:Of course, to hear the White House spin it, this unprecedented legal showdown between the legislative and executive branches -- prompted by last week's filing by the General Accounting Office -- isn't really about lifting the veil on the energy industry's influence over the administration's regressive energy policy. It's about protecting freedom, liberty, the Constitution, motherhood, puppies and everything good.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)