Release List Reviews Shop Join News DVD Giveaways Video Games Advertise
DVD Reviews | Theatrical Reviews | Price Search Buy Stuff Here
DVD Talk
DVD Reviews DVD Talk Headlines HD Reviews


Add to My Yahoo! - RSS 2.0 - RSS 2.0 - DVD Talk Podcast RSS -


Go Back   DVD Talk Forum > General Discussions > Other Talk > Religion, Politics and World Events

Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

View Poll Results: What % of self-identified Republicans are aware of Obamacare's conservative roots?
0 to 25% 43 78.18%
26 to 50% 2 3.64%
51 to 75% 0 0%
76 to 100% 10 18.18%
Voters: 55. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-02-11, 11:22 AM   #51
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,159
Re: Health Care discussion continues - part 9

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor Simpson View Post
With all due deference to separation of powers, that could bode poorly for next year's State of the Union address.
Yeah, Obama might call out the SCOTUS in front of everyone.

Nah, he has too much respect for the constitution and its separation of powers to be that big of a tool.
__________________
“The illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world.”

― Carl Sagan
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-11, 05:28 PM   #52
DVD Talk Ruler
 
General Zod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Where it all happens - SoCal
Posts: 19,816
Re: Health Care discussion continues - part 9

The senate repealed part of the healthcare law today that required some 1099 reporting. It was exactly the same amendment that was put forward last year by a Republican and it was voted down - but this one was put up by a Democrat and it passed 81-17.
__________________
"Kneel Before Zod"
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-11, 07:31 PM   #53
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 37,548
Re: Health Care discussion continues - part 9

Quote:
Originally Posted by General Zod View Post
The senate repealed part of the healthcare law today that required some 1099 reporting. It was exactly the same amendment that was put forward last year by a Republican and it was voted down - but this one was put up by a Democrat and it passed 81-17.
So ... what? Your feelings are hurt?

(For the record, the amendment that passed was the Stabenow Amendment. It wasn't exactly the same amendment that was put forward last year. Nor is it the same as the amendment supported by Senators Manchin and Johanns. And there was an amendment to amend the Stabenow amendment put forward by Senators Levin and Innouye that failed. All were related to repealing the 1099 requirement, but all had different nuances.)
__________________
These are my DVDs
360 GamerTag: William T Bunny
PSN ID: William_T_Bunny
"JasonF can do no wrong!" -- Rockmjd23
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-11, 10:37 PM   #54
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,159
Re: Health Care discussion continues - part 9

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonF View Post
So ... what? Your feelings are hurt?
That was how I read his post as well. He's a pussy.
__________________
“The illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world.”

― Carl Sagan
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-11, 11:58 PM   #55
X
Administrator
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1987
Location: AA-
Posts: 10,544
Re: Health Care discussion continues - part 9

I thought I was told here that the $600 1099 provision that was just eliminated wasn't any burden on business because they just had to press a button and *voila* the 1099s would be magically produced.

Looks like President Obama (in his SOTU speech even!) and the Senate, controlled by Democrats, didn't agree with that.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-11, 12:04 AM   #56
DVD Talk Hero
 
Th0r S1mpson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 36,411
Re: Health Care discussion continues - part 9

Yeah, but who could have possibly known that in advance?

How does the removal of the provision affect cost estimates?
__________________
Too much bread, too little meat.
-Abob Teff
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-11, 12:06 AM   #57
X
Administrator
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1987
Location: AA-
Posts: 10,544
Re: Health Care discussion continues - part 9

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor Simpson View Post
Yeah, but who could have possibly known that in advance?

How does the removal of the provision affect cost estimates?
I believe it scraped up around $17 billion (eliminating waste and fraud. You know, the kind of stuff you couldn't do without a healthcare bill, like Medicare fraud.)
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-11, 12:07 AM   #58
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Home again, Big D
Posts: 23,334
Re: Health Care discussion continues - part 9

I'm just glad it is total level headed with no scare tactics going on. Or it would really get silly...

Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the Republican repeal movement would "take away a child's right to get health insurance and instead give insurance companies the right to use asthma or diabetes as an excuse to take away that care."
"It would kick kids off their parents' health insurance," Reid said. "It would take away seniors' rights to a free wellness check."
__________________
Live Free. Dine Well. Drink good beer.

Home Theater Build
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-11, 12:10 AM   #59
X
Administrator
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1987
Location: AA-
Posts: 10,544
Re: Health Care discussion continues - part 9

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sdallnct View Post
"It would kick kids off their parents' health insurance," Reid said. "It would take away seniors' rights to a free wellness check."
I can honestly tell you I have no interest in being obligated to insure my kids until they're older than 26. WTF is up with that?

The healthcare house of cards has no clothes!
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-11, 12:26 AM   #60
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Home again, Big D
Posts: 23,334
Re: Health Care discussion continues - part 9

Quote:
Originally Posted by X View Post
I can honestly tell you I have no interest in being obligated to insure my kids until they're older than 26. WTF is up with that?

The healthcare house of cards has no clothes!
And what is with all the "rights" talk?
__________________
Live Free. Dine Well. Drink good beer.

Home Theater Build
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-11, 11:03 AM   #61
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Re: Health Care discussion continues - part 9

Quote:
Originally Posted by General Zod View Post
The senate repealed part of the healthcare law today that required some 1099 reporting. It was exactly the same amendment that was put forward last year by a Republican and it was voted down - but this one was put up by a Democrat and it passed 81-17.
They did vote to repeal that provision.

They technically didn't vote to repeal the rest of the law. A point of order (the amendment violated the budget act) was raised by the Democrats against the amendment proposed by the Minority Leader. A majority of the Senate voted to sustain the point of order. There were no Democrats who voted against the point of order.

Obviously the Majority Leader avoided the embarassment of having some in his caucus vote to repeal the law.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-11, 10:20 AM   #62
Moderator
 
wendersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Nuova Repubblica di Salò
Posts: 31,588
Re: Health Care discussion continues - part 9

Interesting point made today by Jonathan Cohn at The New Republic:

Quote:
Social Security privatization.

You remember privatization, don’t you? The idea was to take Social Security, a mandatory public pension program, and turn it into a system of mandatory personal investment accounts. The schemes evolved over time, with different details, but the gist was always the same. During your working years, you’d make contributions into the accounts, just like you currently pay taxes that fill the Social Security Trust. Over time, you would invest the money in your private account—that is, you’d buy stocks, bonds, and so on—typically within certain guidelines set by the government. Once you hit retirement, you’d start to withdraw from the accounts or perhaps purchase an annuity, relying on subsequent payments for your financial security.

Conservatives presumably thought privatization was constitutional; otherwise, they would not have worked so feverishly to enact it. But if the principle holds for old-age insurance, it ought to hold for medical insurance, too. In other words, if it’s ok for the government to make you pay for regulated private investments, then it should be ok for the government to make you pay for regulated private health insurance. Yet, as far as I can tell, the folks who spent all of those years promoting Social Security as an all-American, free market innovation are the same ones that now insist the Affordable Care Act is an unprecedented threat to liberty.

What's going on here? The truth, I think, is what I said yesterday: Some of the Affordable Care Act's critics are mere opportunists, while the rest are more extreme libertarians who oppose all mandatory schemes of social insurance. But even the hard-core libertarians understand political reality. Social Security is too sacrosanct to attack, politically and constitutionally, so they will make do with privatizing it. The same goes for Medicare, which they dare not challenge directly. But the Affordable Care Act is vulnerable, so they trying for full repeal, making whatever arguments necessary to achieve that goal.

Strategically, it makes perfect sense. But intellectually and morally, it's inconsistent at best.
__________________
"Fifth Element may be as dumb and artless as Johnny Mnemonic, but since a frenchman made it it must be ART!" -Pants
"...I think it's a low blow to draw attention to wendersfan's drunken state. " - dork
"Just because their victims are still alive doesn't mean they didn't commit murder." - grundle
"You concentrate on the sad wanna be hooliganism and let us worry about the actual soccer." - rocketsauce (final score: Columbus 2-Chicago 1)
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-11, 11:19 AM   #63
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 119,786
Re: Health Care discussion continues - part 9

Meh. I don't know if conservatives even considered the constitutional question re: SS privatization.

They may not think SS is constitutional to begin with, but that ship as sailed. So just because they offered up privatization, as presumably, an improvement (a better ROI) to an existing gov't program, doesn't automatically mean they think the underlying program is constitutional to begin with. At least that's how I feel about it (I support privatization assuming we can't can SS altogether) and would figure at least some conservatives would agree. For such conservatives, I don't see the inconsistency.

It's a rather silly premise. Am I entirely precluded from advocating policy improvement to programs that I deem are unconstitutional under enumerated powers?

I found Charles Lane's piece in the WP good (Prof. Barnett posted it on volokh):
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/pos...ve_me_hea.html

Quote:
Give me liberty or give me health care
By Charles Lane

Judge Roger Vinson's ruling striking down the health-care law's individual mandate and, with it, the rest of the statute, may or may not stand up in higher courts. But it's more convincing than some arguments I've read on the other side.

My colleague Ezra Klein, for example, argues that "whatever the legal argument about the individual mandate is about, it's not, as some of its detractors would have it, a question of liberty." The individual mandate involves less intrusion in private markets and more personal choice than alternatives such as a single-payer system, Ezra notes -- borrowing the point from no less a conservative eminence than Charles Fried of Harvard Law School. Indeed, quite a few liberty-loving Republicans have supported various individual mandates in the past. This proves, according to Ezra, that conservative and Republican opposition to the current iteration of the individual mandate is just legal pettifoggery and political opportunism.

Uh, no.

As a policy matter, there is a case to be made that an individual mandate to buy certain health insurance from certain companies, enforceable by a monetary penalty, involves less direct federal intervention in the private economy than conceivable alternatives. But in constitutional law, this is immaterial. Nor does it matter that some Republicans once approved of the idea -- or that President Obama once fervently opposed it. The only consideration is whether Congress has enacted the mandate pursuant to one of its enumerated constitutional powers.

Conservatives, therefore, are not hypocritical to suggest that a single-payer system would be less libertarian but more constitutional than the health-care law's individual mandate. Single-payer -- and any reduction in liberty it might entail -- would be clearly authorized under Congress's power to raise revenue and spend it on the general welfare (Article 1, Sec. 8). Ditto for a state individual mandate like the one Massachusetts enacted under its sovereign police power, which raises no question of congressional authority at all (see the much-maligned Tenth Amendment).

The point Ezra misses -- by a country mile -- is that the threat to liberty, if any, comes not so much from the individual mandate itself, but from the other things Congress might do if it gets away with claiming authority for this measure under the commerce clause.

Fairly stated, this is the conservative constitutional argument: Health care for all is a good cause. But if, in the name of that noble goal, you construe Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce so broadly as to encompass individual choices that have never previously been thought of as commercial, much less interstate, there would be nothing left of the commerce clause's restraints on Congress's power. And then, the argument goes, Congress would be free to impose far more intrusive mandates. Judge Vinson suggested that Congress "could require that people buy and consume broccoli at regular intervals," and that is hardly the most absurd or mischievous imaginable consequence.

There may be a convincing rebuttal, but I haven't heard it yet. (Orin Kerr attempts one, and Jonathan Adler counters it.) Rather, it looks like the law's drafters never took such concerns very seriously and are paying a price now for their legal overconfidence. It's not terribly persuasive to suggest, as the Obama administration has done, that the health-care market is "unique" -- that's asking the courts for a ticket good on one train only.

Ezra says this is all about "semantics." Congress has the power to levy taxes; and the "penalty" attached the mandate really is a tax, but Congress couldn't use the word "tax," because it's politically "toxic." "I don't believe our forefathers risked their lives to make sure the word 'penalty' was eschewed in favor of the word 'tax,'" he writes. Wrong again: Actually, one purpose of the Constitution is to prevent government from engaging in politically expedient deception. The modern term, I believe, is "transparency."

This passage from New York v. United States, from which Judge Vinson also aptly quoted, puts it rather well:

Quote:
Some truths are so basic that, like the air around us, they are easily overlooked. Much of the Constitution is concerned with setting forth the form of our government, and the courts have traditionally invalidated measures deviating from that form. The result may appear "formalistic" in a given case to partisans of the measure at issue, because such measures are typically the product of the era's perceived necessity. But the Constitution protects us from our own best intentions: It divides power among sovereigns and among branches of government precisely so that we may resist the temptation to concentrate power in one location as an expedient solution to the crisis of the day.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor -- not exactly a right-wing nut -- wrote those words, in 1992. What she was basically saying is that, under our Constitution, the ends do not justify the means.

I agree - from a precedential constitutional and policy perspective, single-payer would stand on much firmer constitutional ground under the tax/spending clause than Obamacare can stand on the commerce clause, even with the all-of-the-above nature that clause has been warped into over the years.
__________________
"A question for you. Would you rather Bucknell make the NCAA's once every 20 years or so and get ass raped by teams like Kansas in the first round or have them drop down a rung to a confernce where they can compete for a title?"
- Josh Hinkle
1st Round Final Scores: Bucknell 64 Kansas 63 | Bucknell 59 Arkansas 55
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-11, 11:39 AM   #64
X
Administrator
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1987
Location: AA-
Posts: 10,544
Re: Health Care discussion continues - part 9

Why would giving an alternative to mandatorily forcing people to put their money into one particular fund (SS) be unconstitutional if forcing them to put it into the original fund isn't? It's simply adding a choice. And as I recall people wouldn't be forced to move out of SS, they would just be allowed to move a portion out if they wanted to.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-11, 11:40 AM   #65
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Re: Health Care discussion continues - part 9

Why do people say Social Security is sacrosanct?

It's been changed a bunch of times. It was changed when I worked for Social Security.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-11, 07:21 PM   #66
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Land of the Lobstrosities
Posts: 10,297
Re: Health Care discussion continues - part 9

If I pay the SS tax I am entitled to collect SS benefits. If the healthcare "penalty" is really just a euphemism for tax, then does paying the "tax" entitle me to healthcare coverage?
__________________
!TRIGGER WARNING!:This post may contain opinions which differ from your own.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-11, 12:26 AM   #67
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,159
Re: Health Care discussion continues - part 9

Quote:
Ezra says this is all about "semantics." Congress has the power to levy taxes; and the "penalty" attached the mandate really is a tax, but Congress couldn't use the word "tax," because it's politically "toxic." "I don't believe our forefathers risked their lives to make sure the word 'penalty' was eschewed in favor of the word 'tax,'" he writes. Wrong again: Actually, one purpose of the Constitution is to prevent government from engaging in politically expedient deception. The modern term, I believe, is "transparency."
Excellent point. I thought the big mistake in Obamacare (and I thought it was discussed when they wrote it) was in not calling it a tax. Congress clearly has the right to levy taxes. But they couldn't change anything in reconcilliation because they lost the Kennedy seat (which some believe had absolutely nothing to do with health care). I doubt that they would have changed the wording because it is politically toxic and would violate the Obama promise of no taxes on the poor. But I think that was their undoing. They are not taxing us for healthcare like they do for medicare, they are telling us that we must buy a commercial product or face a fine. That is a very different situation.
__________________
“The illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world.”

― Carl Sagan
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-11, 05:16 PM   #68
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Formerly known as "orangecrush18" - still legal though
Posts: 13,846
Re: Health Care discussion continues - part 9

I remember the proposals being made at the time were for the option of investing.
__________________
Everyone else is bound to leave, but you.
And they swear their love is real;
They mean, I like the way you make me feel.

gamertag: IAMNOTwiththem
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-11, 08:02 PM   #69
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,159
Re: Health Care discussion continues - part 9

Option is to conservative as mandate is to liberal. They view it as the same thing.
__________________
“The illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world.”

― Carl Sagan
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-11, 09:04 PM   #70
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
BKenn01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Big Blue Nation!
Posts: 4,496
Re: Health Care discussion continues - part 9

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Dog View Post
Meh. I don't know if conservatives even considered the constitutional question re: SS privatization.

They may not think SS is constitutional to begin with, but that ship as sailed. So just because they offered up privatization, as presumably, an improvement (a better ROI) to an existing gov't program, doesn't automatically mean they think the underlying program is constitutional to begin with. At least that's how I feel about it (I support privatization assuming we can't can SS altogether) and would figure at least some conservatives would agree. For such conservatives, I don't see the inconsistency.

It's a rather silly premise. Am I entirely precluded from advocating policy improvement to programs that I deem are unconstitutional under enumerated powers?

I found Charles Lane's piece in the WP good (Prof. Barnett posted it on volokh):
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/pos...ve_me_hea.html




I agree - from a precedential constitutional and policy perspective, single-payer would stand on much firmer constitutional ground under the tax/spending clause than Obamacare can stand on the commerce clause, even with the all-of-the-above nature that clause has been warped into over the years.
While I dont label myself as a full fledged conservative anymore, I really didnt give one thought to wether it was constitutional or not. I just know I would be better off with investing on my own than the negative return I get now. Hell I could get better in a money market than the piece of crap SS is right now.
__________________
"I hate Conservatives, but I really fucking hate Liberals" - Matt Stone co-creator of South Park
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-11, 04:26 PM   #71
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Home again, Big D
Posts: 23,334
Re: Health Care discussion continues - part 9

Quote:
Originally Posted by kvrdave View Post
Excellent point. I thought the big mistake in Obamacare (and I thought it was discussed when they wrote it) was in not calling it a tax. Congress clearly has the right to levy taxes. But they couldn't change anything in reconcilliation because they lost the Kennedy seat (which some believe had absolutely nothing to do with health care). I doubt that they would have changed the wording because it is politically toxic and would violate the Obama promise of no taxes on the poor. But I think that was their undoing. They are not taxing us for healthcare like they do for medicare, they are telling us that we must buy a commercial product or face a fine. That is a very different situation.
I agree. But it is worse than that. Not only must we buy a commercial product, we have to buy a specific one. They are taking away choices I have and had. Maybe I was ok with a high deductible if is saved me premium dollars. Or ok with no life time limits if it saved me premiums. Maybe I was ok with co-pays, etc.....
__________________
Live Free. Dine Well. Drink good beer.

Home Theater Build
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-11, 05:27 PM   #72
Moderator
 
TheBigDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Florida
Posts: 8,879
Re: Health Care discussion continues - part 9

All you redneck morons that are too stupid to understand the brilliance of Obamacare. Don't worry, we're making a comic book version for you.

Quote:
Comic treatment for health plan
MIT econ whiz’s hip idea to explain overhaul

The MIT economics whiz who crafted President Obama’s national health-care overhaul now plans to explain the complex and controversial plan to the masses — in one long comic book.

Jonathan Gruber, a nationally recognized health economist who devised the economic underpinnings of Obamacare (Gruber hates the term), said his three comic-loving kids encouraged him to use the hip format of the graphic novel — basically an expensive comic published in book form — to tell the story of the complicated plan to 300 million Americans.

Unlike most comic books, Gruber’s won’t have a superhero like Batman or Captain America or a villain like the Joker, he said.

“I’m going to use the facts to tell the story,” Gruber, 45, told the Pulse yesterday. “I’m the narrator guiding the reader through the law. It’ll have lots of pictures and text.”

Hill and Wang, a division of publishing powerhouse Farrar, Straus and Giroux, plans to release Gruber’s book, tentatively titled “Health Care Reform: What It Is, Why It’s Necessary, How it Works” this fall.

It’s an unusual venture for Gruber, a brilliant Massachusetts Institute of Technology academic and a key architect of Romneycare, who spent much of the last decade telling national leaders why the American health-care system is broken, and how to fix it.

Now Gruber is breaking down the president’s 2,400-page legislation into illustrated, bite-sized panels for non-wonks who either don’t understand or don’t like the national plan.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/reg...icleid=1315137
__________________
Speedy thing goes in. Speedy thing comes out.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-11, 05:46 PM   #73
DVD Talk Hero
 
Th0r S1mpson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 36,411
Re: Health Care discussion continues - part 9

The Onion is sometimes funny.

Oh, wait.
__________________
Too much bread, too little meat.
-Abob Teff
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-11, 09:35 PM   #74
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: in Bush territory!
Posts: 11,613
Re: Health Care discussion continues - part 9

http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/28/news...ates/index.htm

1 in 5 Americans are now on Medicaid......projected soon to be 1 in 4 in another year.
__________________
wabio's Economic Threat-O-Meter:
[ ] No biggie. [ ] This sucks. [ ] Oh sh_t! [X] The wheels are coming off!! [ ] Time to fear GOD!!!
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-11, 03:58 PM   #75
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Re: Health Care discussion continues - part 9

On 2/16/11 I had open heart surgery (repair of an ascending aortic aneurysm & replacement of the aortic valve). I received the bill for the 6 day stay in the hospital - $107,800.00. This didn't include the surgeons bill or the anestheologists bill.

All contributions may be made to.................................

Is the unbelievable rise in health care ever going to stop?
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:09 AM.


Copyright 2011 DVDTalk.com All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0