Printable View
hey, great job. you're actually turning into a parody of yourself. just LOL at the young turks. stop posting shit your grandkids send you.Quote:
Originally Posted by MumblesBadly
Cenk Uygar rightfully goes ballistic over this liar’s partisan-fueled hypocrisy.Quote:
Originally Posted by hongkongerQuote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
He argued that Clinton lying to the public was grounds for impeachment. If that's true there wouldn't be anybody left in office.
https://youtu.be/orBPMuSp0Sk
You must be joking. Saying something like this to justify your actions is absurd on so many levels.Quote:
Originally Posted by DalyAlso redacted are throwing Gays off rooftops and women being defacto slaves.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
If your own actions create, or at the very least encourage such extremists. You can not use this as an excuse to justify your original actions.
As to the women comment. Women have WAY MORE power in Muslim countries then those pushing this 'women's rights' nonsense want you to believe. But of course they will continue to cherry pick abuse and try and present this as the norm.
I’m pretty sure the TYT video was a joke. I mean, it had to be, right? I counted 7 “Uh”’s in 12 seconds.
it varies from country to country, but do you think women overall are treated as equals in muslim countries?Quote:
Originally Posted by Salty_Aus
do we really need to list the things women still can’t do in saudi arabia?
do a quick google search. i don’t think this is a road you want to go down
If you seriously want to have a discussion about women's rights it deserves a thread of it's own.Quote:
Originally Posted by blakeit varies from country to country, but do you think women overall are treated as equals in muslim countries?Quote:
Originally Posted by Salty_Aus
do we really need to list the things women still can’t do in saudi arabia?
do a quick google search. i don’t think this is a road you want to go down
In the context of this discussion, the point Daly made is beside the point and not relevant. Bringing women's rights into an argument to justify abuse committed against other countries is outrageous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salty_Aus
Holy shit you are stupid.
But due to America’s ‘exceptionalism’, the U.S. has a God-given right to use its military power, whatever the means and extent, to change the political cultures of countries where women are routinely abused. Right, Hillary?Quote:
Originally Posted by Salty_AusIf you seriously want to have a discussion about women's rights it deserves a thread of it's own.Quote:
Originally Posted by blake
In the context of this discussion, the point Daly made is beside the point and not relevant. Bringing women's rights into an argument to justify abuse committed against other countries is outrageous.
http://theconversation.com/how-hilla...n-policy-60506
But since Trump was elected instead, that ‘exceptionalism’ will just have to used to help Russia politically dominate Eastern Europe.
Dude, it's obvious you don't have the ability to even think for yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by TellafriendQuote:
Originally Posted by Salty_Aus
Holy shit you are stupid.
I think all religions are rather stupid, and hate most of them equally.
Except perhaps some Eastern Religions don't quite evoke hatred. Taoism and Buddhism is kinda funky to name a couple.
Yet, I've witnessed with my own eyes what goes on in many Muslim families.
The woman is usually the boss on most matters, at least 70% - 80% of the family decisions are made by women.
Calling me stupid is a compliment from you.
oh i don’t care about women’s rights. i think daly’s point was that the US didn’t destroy these countries; they’re horrendously fucked up as is, which i think is a point we can all agree with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Salty_AusIf you seriously want to have a discussion about women's rights it deserves a thread of it's own.Quote:
Originally Posted by blake
In the context of this discussion, the point Daly made is beside the point and not relevant. Bringing women's rights into an argument to justify abuse committed against other countries is outrageous.
except dubai in the UAE, which i understand is quite amazing
also this happened today
Trump to NATO: “I am a very stable genius.”
for my fellow americans, what country do you say you’re from when traveling internationally? i’m gonna go with canadian and just throw “eh” in after everything
Nope, you fucked over more countries then I can name off the top off my head... and proclaimed yourselves as the good guys in the process.Quote:
Originally Posted by blakeoh i don’t care about women’s rights. i think daly’s point was that the US didn’t destroy these countries; they’re horrendously fucked up as is, which i think is a point we can all agree with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Salty_Aus
except dubai in the UAE, which i understand is quite amazing
We can beg to differ no problems. :)
You seem to be smarter then the average bear IMO.
Only time I've ever been scared while travelling, was landing in Dubai in 1985 for a layover. Walking down the stairs and across the tarmac while there was at least 50 guys in military uniforms carrying machine guns. Perhaps not so scary now, but to a virgin traveler in my teens it was terrifying.
The duty-free even back then was amazing.
i was in brussels last year. great city, but it had the military with the machine guns too (or maybe just assault rifles) patroling the streets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Salty_AusNope, you fucked over more countries then I can name off the top off my head... and proclaimed yourselves as the good guys in the process.Quote:
Originally Posted by blake
We can beg to differ no problems. :)
You seem to be smarter then the average bear IMO.
Only time I've ever been scared while travelling, was landing in Dubai in 1985 for a layover. Walking down the stairs and across the tarmac while there was at least 50 guys in military uniforms carrying machine guns. Perhaps not so scary now, but to a virgin traveler in my teens it was terrifying.
The duty-free even back then was amazing.
kind of creepy yet also a bit reassuring
I think my early experience in Dubai was because they were looking for someone or on high alert.Quote:
Originally Posted by blakei was in brussels last year. great city, but it had the military with the machine guns too (or maybe just assault rifles) patroling the streets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Salty_Aus
kind of creepy yet also a bit reassuring
There was a dozen of these guys at the bottom of the stairs as you get off the plane, literally walking the gauntlet with 6 on each side of us... I was sure they were gonna shoot me LOL
Went there again in 2015, no rolling stairs up to aircraft and walking across tarmac these days, place is amazing.
100's of one kilo bars for sale in the duty free, and even bigger bars of bullion for sale... never seen so much gold in my life.
So, rudely telling a Puerto Rican of one's displeasure with a t-shirt containing the PR flag on it is now a felony hate crime. Lulllz. In Chicago maybe. What a fucking joke. What is the basis for the hate anyway, it can't be nationality since PR is a US terrirtory and being a PR isn't a race? JFC this country has become an abortion.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ma...cid=spartandhp
in fairness, he should be charged with felony stupidity for not knowing PR was a part of the USQuote:
Originally Posted by TellafriendSo, rudely telling a Puerto Rican of one's displeasure with a t-shirt containing the PR flag on it is now a felony hate crime. Lulllz. In Chicago maybe. What a fucking joke. What is the basis for the hate anyway, it can't be nationality since PR is a US terrirtory and being a PR isn't a race? JFC this country has become an abortion.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ma...cid=spartandhp
To be fair it’s entertaining having our resident Aussie lecture Americans about how our ancestors treated minorities all the while ignoring his own country’s shameful past. It’s rich for sure.
The left can't meme.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
Really hoping these "Abolish ICE" protests keep gaining traction. Will definitely ensure a bunch of favorable mid term election results for Trump.
For the record.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellafriend
Our government helped you virtually every time. Our government is nearly as bad as your own.
We're so fucking scared because we can't defend ourselves, that we'll do anything to keep our most favoured nation status. Our government think it helps us financially too to be your besties.
Our two party system and bipartisan support for whatever government you have in power, is nearly as broken as your own.
Don't take it personally, Tellafriend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salty_AusFor the record.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellafriend
Our government helped you virtually every time. Our government is nearly as bad as your own.
We're so fucking scared because we can't defend ourselves, that we'll do anything to keep our most favoured nation status. Our government think it helps us financially too to be your besties.
Our two party system and bipartisan support for whatever government you have in power, is nearly as broken as your own.
Don't take it personally, Tellafriend.
Oh, not personally at all. Why worry yourself about me, after all, I am just a simpleton from the USA. But I would be remise not to point out how you ignore your own nation's shortcomings while continuing to blister ours. You should focus on your own problems, ours don't concern you -- other than when you are begging for our scraps and favor.
Australian politics explainer: the White Australia policy
April 9, 2017 4.01pm EDT
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has repeatedly claimed that Australia is the world’s most successful multicultural nation. While the sentiment has bipartisan support today, for more than half a century after Federation Australia boasted not of multiculturalism, but of its monoculture.
In 1925, Prime Minister Stanley Bruce reassured a worried public that Australia’s racial makeup was 98% British and that this was unlikely to change. The means of maintaining this racial and cultural homogeneity is loosely termed the White Australia policy.
Immediately following Federation in 1901, policies were designed to keep Australia white and British. Non-racial language was used to minimise international condemnation, but the xenophobic concern was plainly evident. Australia’s first prime minister, Edmund Barton, explicitly stated his belief in white superiority:
There is no racial equality. There is that basic inequality. These races are, in comparison with white races – I think no-one wants convincing of this fact – unequal and inferior.
The White Australia policy was in place for seven decades after 1901 and had a profound impact on the newly federated Commonwealth.
What happened?
The White Australia policy was not a single government directive but a series of acts with a common goal: to achieve and maintain a white, British national character. The Immigration Restriction Act, Pacific Island Labourers Act and the Post and Telegraph Act (all passed in 1901) formed the initial legislative foundation.
The Immigration Restriction Act in particular epitomises the spirit of the White Australia policy, and its hypocrisy. It never mentioned the words “white” or “race”, but the parliamentary debates – and its application – make clear it was a tool of racial exclusion.
The act’s most infamous feature was a dictation test. Migrants could be asked to write 50 words in any European language. Officers could manipulate the test to exclude any undesired person.
The most famous example was Jewish communist Egon Kisch. Fluent in several European languages, he was arrested after failing to recite the Lord’s Prayer in Scottish Gaelic.
Between 1901 and 1958 (when it was dumped), only around 2,000 people ever took the test. Despite the non-racial terminology, its purpose was understood. As a direct result, non-whites largely avoided coming to Australia, and overseas shipping companies did not issue tickets to people likely to fail the test.
The White Australia policy received bipartisan support, but was gradually dismantled by both sides. Conservative governments introduced the Migration Act in 1958 and its significant modification in 1966.
Driven partly by the “populate or perish” doctrine, non-Europeans were allowed to come to Australia based on skills and suitability rather than race. Eventually they were offered the same pathway to citizenship as Europeans.
The progressive Whitlam government symbolically buried the last remnants of the White Australia policy in 1973. The Racial Discrimination Act made it illegal to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” someone because of their race. Those words are from Section 18C of that act, which the current government is seeking to amend.
What was its impact?
The legal mechanisms of the White Australia policy were tied to a widespread belief in the superiority of British civilisation and the white race generally during this era.
The masthead of the popular Bulletin magazine read:
Australia for the White Man.
The object of the White Australia board game was to:
… get the coloured men out and the white men in.
There were White Australia theatre productions, songs, pins and badges, soaps, and even a White Australia brand of sliced pineapple in syrup. It was as much a cultural as political phenomenon, and it could not be simply extinguished with an act of parliament.
The acceptance of large numbers of Vietnamese refugees under the Fraser government was seen as a litmus test of whether the White Australia policy was really gone.
The White Australia Game was registered in 1914 and was popular throughout the 1920s. Migration Heritage Centre
What are its contemporary implications?
Both major parties have endorsed multiculturalism for nearly half a century. Even in this era of Trumpian populist politics, it is inconceivable that Australia would ever return to race-based immigration policies.
But if the White Australia policy is dead, has the White Australia ideology survived?
In the 1980s, the Garnaut report made the economic case for greater Asia literacy. However, the region was – and still is – viewed by many with suspicion. In 1996, Pauline Hanson warned parliament that Australia risked being “swamped by Asians”.
In the lead-up to the 2001 election, Norwegian container ship the MV Tampa rescued 438 asylum seekers and attempted to enter Australian waters. Prime Minister John Howard refused to accept them, causing a tense diplomatic stand-off. The widespread support for Howard, which arguably helped him secure election victory, has been seen by some as evidence of a lingering White Australia mindset.
Academics James Jupp and Gwenda Tavan have argued that the White Australia ideology is still shaping Australian immigration policies in the 21st century, especially in regard to refugees. The bipartisan commitment to offshore processing and the re-emergence of Hanson’s One Nation party following the 2016 election lend some weight to this view.
The dictation test was undoubtedly political spin to justify a racist agenda. A century later, similar charges have been levelled at the “stopping deaths at sea” defence, which is used to justify the current “harsh” treatment of predominantly non-white asylum seekers.
As a policy, White Australia is gone. But as an ideology, it arguably lingers on. There certainly is a minority who want to “reclaim” an imagined idyllic Australia of yesteryear, with its white monoculture.
An overwhelming majority, however, agree with the prime minister. Multiculturalism is here to stay.
http://theconversation.com/australia...a-policy-74084
Until next time,
You are a special kind of stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by TellafriendQuote:
Originally Posted by Salty_Aus
Oh, not personally at all. Why worry yourself about me, after all, I am just a simpleton from the USA. But I would be remise not to point out how you ignore your own nation's shortcomings while continuing to blister ours. You should focus on your own problems, ours don't concern you -- other than when you are begging for our scraps and favor.
Australian politics explainer: the White Australia policy
April 9, 2017 4.01pm EDT
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has repeatedly claimed that Australia is the world’s most successful multicultural nation. While the sentiment has bipartisan support today, for more than half a century after Federation Australia boasted not of multiculturalism, but of its monoculture.
In 1925, Prime Minister Stanley Bruce reassured a worried public that Australia’s racial makeup was 98% British and that this was unlikely to change. The means of maintaining this racial and cultural homogeneity is loosely termed the White Australia policy.
Immediately following Federation in 1901, policies were designed to keep Australia white and British. Non-racial language was used to minimise international condemnation, but the xenophobic concern was plainly evident. Australia’s first prime minister, Edmund Barton, explicitly stated his belief in white superiority:
There is no racial equality. There is that basic inequality. These races are, in comparison with white races – I think no-one wants convincing of this fact – unequal and inferior.
The White Australia policy was in place for seven decades after 1901 and had a profound impact on the newly federated Commonwealth.
What happened?
The White Australia policy was not a single government directive but a series of acts with a common goal: to achieve and maintain a white, British national character. The Immigration Restriction Act, Pacific Island Labourers Act and the Post and Telegraph Act (all passed in 1901) formed the initial legislative foundation.
The Immigration Restriction Act in particular epitomises the spirit of the White Australia policy, and its hypocrisy. It never mentioned the words “white” or “race”, but the parliamentary debates – and its application – make clear it was a tool of racial exclusion.
The act’s most infamous feature was a dictation test. Migrants could be asked to write 50 words in any European language. Officers could manipulate the test to exclude any undesired person.
The most famous example was Jewish communist Egon Kisch. Fluent in several European languages, he was arrested after failing to recite the Lord’s Prayer in Scottish Gaelic.
Between 1901 and 1958 (when it was dumped), only around 2,000 people ever took the test. Despite the non-racial terminology, its purpose was understood. As a direct result, non-whites largely avoided coming to Australia, and overseas shipping companies did not issue tickets to people likely to fail the test.
The White Australia policy received bipartisan support, but was gradually dismantled by both sides. Conservative governments introduced the Migration Act in 1958 and its significant modification in 1966.
Driven partly by the “populate or perish” doctrine, non-Europeans were allowed to come to Australia based on skills and suitability rather than race. Eventually they were offered the same pathway to citizenship as Europeans.
The progressive Whitlam government symbolically buried the last remnants of the White Australia policy in 1973. The Racial Discrimination Act made it illegal to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” someone because of their race. Those words are from Section 18C of that act, which the current government is seeking to amend.
What was its impact?
The legal mechanisms of the White Australia policy were tied to a widespread belief in the superiority of British civilisation and the white race generally during this era.
The masthead of the popular Bulletin magazine read:
Australia for the White Man.
The object of the White Australia board game was to:
… get the coloured men out and the white men in.
There were White Australia theatre productions, songs, pins and badges, soaps, and even a White Australia brand of sliced pineapple in syrup. It was as much a cultural as political phenomenon, and it could not be simply extinguished with an act of parliament.
The acceptance of large numbers of Vietnamese refugees under the Fraser government was seen as a litmus test of whether the White Australia policy was really gone.
The White Australia Game was registered in 1914 and was popular throughout the 1920s. Migration Heritage Centre
What are its contemporary implications?
Both major parties have endorsed multiculturalism for nearly half a century. Even in this era of Trumpian populist politics, it is inconceivable that Australia would ever return to race-based immigration policies.
But if the White Australia policy is dead, has the White Australia ideology survived?
In the 1980s, the Garnaut report made the economic case for greater Asia literacy. However, the region was – and still is – viewed by many with suspicion. In 1996, Pauline Hanson warned parliament that Australia risked being “swamped by Asians”.
In the lead-up to the 2001 election, Norwegian container ship the MV Tampa rescued 438 asylum seekers and attempted to enter Australian waters. Prime Minister John Howard refused to accept them, causing a tense diplomatic stand-off. The widespread support for Howard, which arguably helped him secure election victory, has been seen by some as evidence of a lingering White Australia mindset.
Academics James Jupp and Gwenda Tavan have argued that the White Australia ideology is still shaping Australian immigration policies in the 21st century, especially in regard to refugees. The bipartisan commitment to offshore processing and the re-emergence of Hanson’s One Nation party following the 2016 election lend some weight to this view.
The dictation test was undoubtedly political spin to justify a racist agenda. A century later, similar charges have been levelled at the “stopping deaths at sea” defence, which is used to justify the current “harsh” treatment of predominantly non-white asylum seekers.
As a policy, White Australia is gone. But as an ideology, it arguably lingers on. There certainly is a minority who want to “reclaim” an imagined idyllic Australia of yesteryear, with its white monoculture.
An overwhelming majority, however, agree with the prime minister. Multiculturalism is here to stay.
http://theconversation.com/australia...a-policy-74084
Until next time,
Distort the argument away from the points I've made with nonsense that is TOTALLY irrelevant.
I stand by my point that many of you are too ignorant or brainwashed and nothing will change... I'll even concede we're in the same boat in this country to a large degree.
People like Sheldon and the Koch brothers are to blame. Standing up to a corrupt system does not make you unpatriotic... contrary to what you're led to believe.
Have a nice day.
GOD SAVE THE QUEEN. nice job england on losing the soccer game so u can focus on trump teaching u a thing or 2
Whats up with this Rosenstein press conf?
I don't think I would characterize Australia as having a "shortcoming" per se. True multiculturalism (at least the way we interpret it now, which means shit on your own culture and glorify other cultures which suck even worse) is pretty much national suicide. So I wouldn't really fault Australia for not committing cultural suicide the way we currently are.
I mean, sure we can always look back and say we are different now than we were 200 years ago and things that were ok then aren't now. But this constant shitting on our culture and rising up of others that absolutely suck much worse is just ridiculous.
You mean on how to be an worldwide embarrassment to one’s country?Quote:
Originally Posted by thesidedish
Aren't you already a multicultural country?Quote:
Originally Posted by verminaard
Your president is German/Scottish. Even the Koch brothers have Dutch ancestors. Hillary comes from Welsh/Dutch parents, Bernie Sanders is Jewish along with Adelson. Bush is German yeah?... and JFK has Irish bloodlines. Sorros is Hungarian and Musk from SA. Bezos has Mexican ancestors... and you're Jewish.
These are just a few I can think of without googling like a monkey. Your country was built by immigrant's.
Am I missing something, is my definition of multiculturalism askew?
for anyone looking for some straight forward analysis of todays revelation that a reporter has directly linked trump to russian interference in the election:
https://www.pastemagazine.com/articl...-to-the-f.html
Lol.....nerds answer this for me, what happens when you hack someone's computer, someone that you don't like, and you happen to find all sorts of incriminating information, oh let's just say anything from pedophile porn, child sex rings, a conspiracy to ensure a candidates victory in a primary, shit like that, what happens when said nerd finds out it was you and said nerd goes to the authorities???........Please....some nerd enlighten me.....
Well, your defining culture as an inherited immutable characteristic (basically race); whereas what most people refer to when they talk about culture is shared, learned behavior from a community of people. For example, Trump doesn't practice any Scottish or German cultural practices. American cultural practices are more like speaking English, barbecuing hamburgers, watching the same TV shows/sports, etc. The current zeitgeist is that having shared experiences is actually bad somehow, and everyone doing their own thing is better, aka multiculturalism. But this is actually bullshit. It is shared experience/commonalities that are what makes a community feel invested in itself and allow people to get along with each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Salty_AusAren't you already a multicultural country?Quote:
Originally Posted by verminaard
Your president is German/Scottish. Even the Koch brothers have Dutch ancestors. Hillary comes from Welsh/Dutch parents, Bernie Sanders is Jewish along with Adelson. Bush is German yeah?... and JFK has Irish bloodlines. Sorros is Hungarian and Musk from SA. Bezos has Mexican ancestors... and you're Jewish.
These are just a few I can think of without googling like a monkey. Your country was built by immigrant's.
Am I missing something, is my definition of multiculturalism askew?
I am not even arguing that a specific culture is good or bad. It is just necessary for any functioning society to have a dominant culture, and if you don't your community isn't going to function properly, which is exactly where we are going with all our multiculturalism bullshit.
According to who???Quote:
Originally Posted by MumblesBadlyYou mean on how to be an worldwide embarrassment to one’s country?Quote:
Originally Posted by thesidedish
Yeah I'm REAL concerned I'll be on the wrong side of these history making times
IS TRUMP YOUR EXCELLENCY???
Quote:
Originally Posted by thesidedish
VIVA LA TRUMP!!
I've read this post a couple of times, and I still don't quite understand what you're saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by verminaardWell, your defining culture as an inherited immutable characteristic (basically race); whereas what most people refer to when they talk about culture is shared, learned behavior from a community of people. For example, Trump doesn't practice any Scottish or German cultural practices. American cultural practices are more like speaking English, barbecuing hamburgers, watching the same TV shows/sports, etc. The current zeitgeist is that having shared experiences is actually bad somehow, and everyone doing their own thing is better, aka multiculturalism. But this is actually bullshit. It is shared experience/commonalities that are what makes a community feel invested in itself and allow people to get along with each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Salty_Aus
I am not even arguing that a specific culture is good or bad. It is just necessary for any functioning society to have a dominant culture, and if you don't your community isn't going to function properly, which is exactly where we are going with all our multiculturalism bullshit.
Your country is founded by immigrants, and has been built in large by immigrants. Just about everybody in your country is related to somebody that immigrated and your entire culture is based on immigrants mostly.
The only folks who didn't immigrate were the indigenous people, and technically those who didn't chose to come. These people have perhaps not assimilated into your current culture quite as well as those who chose a new life in your country. I believe those who immigrated have assimilated quite well in general, and have enhanced your culture in a mostly positive manner.
The current zeitgeist? Why you chose a German concept to describe what you're trying to say has me perplexed, especially in the context of this discussion.
Such a hard word to translate and apply to your domestic situation, is the invisible spirit of the times even relevant? One thing I've learnt over the years is Americans do as they please and prefer to create world history then follow such concepts.
Or are you saying the popular spirit of the age in the United States, is that people are saying shared experiences are bad and they're encouraging folks to do their own thing?
You already have an extremely dominant culture that's not close to being threatened.
----- edit
I think we're splitting hairs and being pedantic. *shrugs*
The USA is a multicultural melting pot already, millions of overlapping cultures and many things people have kept from their origins. Pizza, St Paddies Day, Celebrating the Chinese New Year or Bastille Day. Bar mitzvahs, sushi, craw fish and a kebab or two. I could carry on and make a huge list.
You're a supermarket. :)
Peace
What's your point? Because the USA was "founded on immigration", we should continue with that? Why?
That wasn't my point. My point is your culture is already multicultural, and a melting pot.Quote:
Originally Posted by RS_
Should you continue?
That's for the majority of your citizens to decide and my opinion is not valid with all due respect. :)
Come on how can you not love someone named Godfrey Elfwick, a guy in a vagina tunic, an all night fife and bongo session and a completely innocuous German-language sign?Quote:
Originally Posted by thesidedish
http://youtu.be/gaXigSu72A4
Do these people know how to party or what?
Why is the opinion of outside observers invalid? Sometimes they have the clearest viewpoint.Quote:
Originally Posted by Salty_AusThat wasn't my point. My point is your culture is already multicultural, and a melting pot.Quote:
Originally Posted by RS_
Should you continue?
That's for the majority of your citizens to decide and my opinion is not valid with all due respect. :)