Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Chief Justice Roberts
Author Message
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,112
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #21
RE: Chief Justice Roberts
(02-08-2019 12:06 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  
(02-08-2019 11:08 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(02-08-2019 01:23 AM)fsquid Wrote:  What's the statute being argued?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using CSNbbs mobile app

A Louisiana law that requires doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospital.

The vote was whether a temporary stay was required in the law while the matter was resolved. Roberts voted to stay the enforcement of the law, which, makes it a requirement that the Court address the full question of the law at some point.

The minority seemed to want to punt on the stay, and actually argued that a stay was not proper because the issue had not 'ripened'. The stay forces the court to address the full issue -- it locks the controversy into place.

Let's make sure we understand why "admitting privileges" has been written into so many state laws.

Abortions, even legal ones, are very dangerous. The left uses the "coat hanger" phrase to make you think outlawing abortions will be dangerous for the mother, but the truth is they are dangerous period.

Because of how dangerous they are, conservatives believe the life of the mother should be protected by requiring doctors be able to move the mother to a hospital when things turn south. In other words, instead of letting these abortion mills put women at a serious health risk, conservatives are more concerned about protecting the mother.

The leftists only care that abortion stays legal. They say they care about the mother but they fight legislation that actually tries to include her well-being in policy.

Leftists are masters of Bait and Switch.

The numbers and methodologies in the abortion statistics do not bear that out.

First, the vast, vast, vast majority of abortions are chemical induced abortions. The 'failure' (i.e. requirement of hospitalization) rate of this method of abortion as close to zero as practicable.

Next on the list of frequency are the vacuum suction methods. The 'failure' rate on this method is also extremely low. In fact, a good case can be made that a root canal is more intrusive and impactful than this method.

It is only when you get to the D&C type methodologies that there is really any perceptible or realistic risk. And even with that, between 2011 and 2014 there was a grand total of 16 deaths during all abortion procedures.

Look, I understand the moral issues with abortion. But the raw numbers of abortion related mortality and health complications in regulated settings is seriously as close to zero as one can get in any medical environment --- even in the absence of the requirement of admitting privileges.

I am not making a comment on the moral issue surrounding abortion in the slightest -- but the raw facts and stats surrounding the procedure itself really dont support the claim made above for the health issue that Louisiana seeks to put into place.
02-08-2019 12:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,112
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #22
RE: Chief Justice Roberts
(02-08-2019 11:40 AM)solohawks Wrote:  
(02-08-2019 11:38 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(02-08-2019 11:34 AM)solohawks Wrote:  
(02-08-2019 11:03 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Hate to say, but the ruling is one that is only a 'stay' of the law --- a temporary freeze on the current status quo *while* the main questions of that law are in the Supreme Court.

This really looks like a molehill being spun into a mountain.

Roberts is actually forcing SCOTUS to address the main question.

To be blunt, Roberts was on the bad end of the 5-3 SCOTUS vote on the Texas law that addressed nearly the same thing. This stay *requires* the entire court (minus one of the 5 in the Texas case, and with two new people on the court who look very strongly to allow the Louisiana law) to address the issue in full, and not just punt on 'ripeness' grounds like the minority wanted to do.

Roberts' vote here *requires* the *full* court, with one less 'overturn vote' from the Texas case, to look at the kissing cousin of the Texas case. In all honesty, if the Louisiana law is upheld, the case involving Texas pretty much *has* to be overturned explicitly.

I wouldnt start bitching about this until Roberts explicitly votes to overturn the Louisiana law in question.

Great perspective. Thanks for sharing.

I just have a hard time trusting him after his flip flopping on Obamacare. When he had Kennedy in there to be that 5th liberal vote I think it was easier for him to be more conservative, now that he is the new Kennedy I expect him to side with Team Blue Justice more

After a period of tempering, I actually think that Roberts was correct in the Obamacare decision.

The Obamacare regime is fundamentally a power to tax case. And, while I abhor the Obamacare concept and implementation, the proper means of overturning the decision resides with Congress and the voters. Not with a court ruling.

I think that Gorsuch might actually be inclined to see it the same way, to be honest.

And my fundamental disagreement with that philosophy is should the US Government tax you for NOT buying something ???

That is what Muslim nations did to Non Muslims when they were willing to tolerate their existence


That idea is abhorrent to me, but I am a schmuk and Roberts is the Chief Justice so what do I know lol

They can certainly implement an income tax, then allow for a credit against or a deduction from it based on an action. I can think of more than a couple of dozen income tax provisions that are structured that way.

Solar panel tax credit, child credits, adoption credit, school loan interest deduction, medical savings accounts, home interest.....
02-08-2019 01:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #23
RE: Chief Justice Roberts
(02-08-2019 11:38 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(02-08-2019 11:34 AM)solohawks Wrote:  
(02-08-2019 11:03 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Hate to say, but the ruling is one that is only a 'stay' of the law --- a temporary freeze on the current status quo *while* the main questions of that law are in the Supreme Court.
This really looks like a molehill being spun into a mountain.
Roberts is actually forcing SCOTUS to address the main question.
To be blunt, Roberts was on the bad end of the 5-3 SCOTUS vote on the Texas law that addressed nearly the same thing. This stay *requires* the entire court (minus one of the 5 in the Texas case, and with two new people on the court who look very strongly to allow the Louisiana law) to address the issue in full, and not just punt on 'ripeness' grounds like the minority wanted to do.
Roberts' vote here *requires* the *full* court, with one less 'overturn vote' from the Texas case, to look at the kissing cousin of the Texas case. In all honesty, if the Louisiana law is upheld, the case involving Texas pretty much *has* to be overturned explicitly.
I wouldnt start bitching about this until Roberts explicitly votes to overturn the Louisiana law in question.
Great perspective. Thanks for sharing.
I just have a hard time trusting him after his flip flopping on Obamacare. When he had Kennedy in there to be that 5th liberal vote I think it was easier for him to be more conservative, now that he is the new Kennedy I expect him to side with Team Blue Justice more
After a period of tempering, I actually think that Roberts was correct in the Obamacare decision.
The Obamacare regime is fundamentally a power to tax case. And, while I abhor the Obamacare concept and implementation, the proper means of overturning the decision resides with Congress and the voters. Not with a court ruling.
I think that Gorsuch might actually be inclined to see it the same way, to be honest.

The problem I have is that, for clearly political purposes, it was sold as "not a tax" right up to the point in the appellate process when it became evident that it was not going to survive as an exercise in regulating interstate commerce. Query: Had interstate purchases of health insurance been allowed, would it have survived as a regulation of interstate commerce? I think probably so.

I think it is clearly a tax. But that's not the way it was sold, and I think there needs to be some sort of estoppel against this kind of argument.

Had I been a justice sitting on the case, I would have wanted to ask the attorney for the US, "President Obama, Senator Reid, and Representative Pelosi, all assured us during the legislative process that this was not a tax. Now you are arguing that it is a tax. Were they lying then, or are you lying now?" And I would have kept pressing through what I am sure would have been several rounds of evasion, until I would expect counsel to say, "They were lying then." At which point my follow-on question would have been, "So do you believe that it is proper to pass legislation based upon lying and misrepresenting facts?"
(This post was last modified: 02-08-2019 02:09 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
02-08-2019 02:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
atsKnight Offline
Banned

Posts: 941
Joined: Jan 2012
I Root For: UCF
Location:
Post: #24
RE: Chief Justice Roberts
(02-08-2019 02:47 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I think abortion will forever be 5-4. Motivates the GOP to GOTV but always just one vote away

This is why I'm an independent instead of a solid Republican. Plenty of chances to enact meaningful change, but something always seems to change when all the pieces are in place.

Not chasing that carrot anymore.
02-08-2019 02:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #25
RE: Chief Justice Roberts
(02-08-2019 02:39 PM)atsKnight Wrote:  
(02-08-2019 02:47 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I think abortion will forever be 5-4. Motivates the GOP to GOTV but always just one vote away
This is why I'm an independent instead of a solid Republican. Plenty of chances to enact meaningful change, but something always seems to change when all the pieces are in place.
Not chasing that carrot anymore.

Yep. Republicans can't focus. Democrats never take their eyes off the socialist ball. Unfortunately, it's predictable who will win in the end unless that scenario changes.

I think it's because of leadership. I dislike Pelosi and Reid and Schumer, but I admire their chutzpah and their ability to keep their troops in line. Milquetoast wusses like Boehner and McConnell and Ryan (although I'll give Ryan a bit of a pass because he got forced into a job he did not want) couldn't lead an alcoholic to a liquor store.
02-08-2019 03:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
olliebaba Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 28,100
Joined: Jul 2007
Reputation: 2149
I Root For: Christ
Location: El Paso
Post: #26
RE: Chief Justice Roberts
(02-08-2019 10:31 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  
(02-08-2019 06:09 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Eric you don’t know of what you speak. You are a zealot.

Really?

Which part of his statement do you disagree with?


Millions? Do you think it will be less than millions over the coming years? More? Since 1973 the death count is already in the 10s of millions.

Babies? Are you saying they're not babies? If so, what are they then?

Murdered? Are you saying you don't believe killing an innocent is murder?


Your reply was pointedly aggressive. Just curious what caused that kind of emotional response.


Is that why our population is dwindling. No wonder, our future Americans are being killed off.
02-08-2019 03:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
atsKnight Offline
Banned

Posts: 941
Joined: Jan 2012
I Root For: UCF
Location:
Post: #27
RE: Chief Justice Roberts
(02-08-2019 03:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(02-08-2019 02:39 PM)atsKnight Wrote:  
(02-08-2019 02:47 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I think abortion will forever be 5-4. Motivates the GOP to GOTV but always just one vote away
This is why I'm an independent instead of a solid Republican. Plenty of chances to enact meaningful change, but something always seems to change when all the pieces are in place.
Not chasing that carrot anymore.

Yep. Republicans can't focus. Democrats never take their eyes off the socialist ball. Unfortunately, it's predictable who will win in the end unless that scenario changes.

I think it's because of leadership. I dislike Pelosi and Reid and Schumer, but I admire their chutzpah and their ability to keep their troops in line. Milquetoast wusses like Boehner and McConnell and Ryan (although I'll give Ryan a bit of a pass because he got forced into a job he did not want) couldn't lead an alcoholic to a liquor store.

The other side feels the same way. Go on DailyKos and see what they thought of Reid, Pelosi, and Schumer. At the same time, they talk about McConnell as the evil turtle outsmarting the Dems at every turn and actually dictating the direction of the country.

I don't think it's a focus or staying in line problem. Republicans keep nominating justices that are fuzzier on pro-life issues than advertised.

Evangelicals were rooting for Kavanaugh because he was so pro-life, except for Collins, who voted for him because he was pro-choice. That seems like a lack of focus by evangelical associations, but an intentional oversight by "pro-life" senators that didn't want to clarify that.
02-08-2019 03:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
solohawks Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 20,782
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 810
I Root For: UNCW
Location: Wilmington, NC
Post: #28
RE: Chief Justice Roberts
(02-08-2019 01:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(02-08-2019 11:40 AM)solohawks Wrote:  
(02-08-2019 11:38 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(02-08-2019 11:34 AM)solohawks Wrote:  
(02-08-2019 11:03 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Hate to say, but the ruling is one that is only a 'stay' of the law --- a temporary freeze on the current status quo *while* the main questions of that law are in the Supreme Court.

This really looks like a molehill being spun into a mountain.

Roberts is actually forcing SCOTUS to address the main question.

To be blunt, Roberts was on the bad end of the 5-3 SCOTUS vote on the Texas law that addressed nearly the same thing. This stay *requires* the entire court (minus one of the 5 in the Texas case, and with two new people on the court who look very strongly to allow the Louisiana law) to address the issue in full, and not just punt on 'ripeness' grounds like the minority wanted to do.

Roberts' vote here *requires* the *full* court, with one less 'overturn vote' from the Texas case, to look at the kissing cousin of the Texas case. In all honesty, if the Louisiana law is upheld, the case involving Texas pretty much *has* to be overturned explicitly.

I wouldnt start bitching about this until Roberts explicitly votes to overturn the Louisiana law in question.

Great perspective. Thanks for sharing.

I just have a hard time trusting him after his flip flopping on Obamacare. When he had Kennedy in there to be that 5th liberal vote I think it was easier for him to be more conservative, now that he is the new Kennedy I expect him to side with Team Blue Justice more

After a period of tempering, I actually think that Roberts was correct in the Obamacare decision.

The Obamacare regime is fundamentally a power to tax case. And, while I abhor the Obamacare concept and implementation, the proper means of overturning the decision resides with Congress and the voters. Not with a court ruling.

I think that Gorsuch might actually be inclined to see it the same way, to be honest.

And my fundamental disagreement with that philosophy is should the US Government tax you for NOT buying something ???

That is what Muslim nations did to Non Muslims when they were willing to tolerate their existence


That idea is abhorrent to me, but I am a schmuk and Roberts is the Chief Justice so what do I know lol

They can certainly implement an income tax, then allow for a credit against or a deduction from it based on an action. I can think of more than a couple of dozen income tax provisions that are structured that way.

Solar panel tax credit, child credits, adoption credit, school loan interest deduction, medical savings accounts, home interest.....

But being directly taxed for not buying something is much different then being rewarded with lower income tax for buying something.
02-08-2019 04:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,112
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #29
RE: Chief Justice Roberts
(02-08-2019 04:27 PM)solohawks Wrote:  
(02-08-2019 01:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(02-08-2019 11:40 AM)solohawks Wrote:  
(02-08-2019 11:38 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(02-08-2019 11:34 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Great perspective. Thanks for sharing.

I just have a hard time trusting him after his flip flopping on Obamacare. When he had Kennedy in there to be that 5th liberal vote I think it was easier for him to be more conservative, now that he is the new Kennedy I expect him to side with Team Blue Justice more

After a period of tempering, I actually think that Roberts was correct in the Obamacare decision.

The Obamacare regime is fundamentally a power to tax case. And, while I abhor the Obamacare concept and implementation, the proper means of overturning the decision resides with Congress and the voters. Not with a court ruling.

I think that Gorsuch might actually be inclined to see it the same way, to be honest.

And my fundamental disagreement with that philosophy is should the US Government tax you for NOT buying something ???

That is what Muslim nations did to Non Muslims when they were willing to tolerate their existence


That idea is abhorrent to me, but I am a schmuk and Roberts is the Chief Justice so what do I know lol

They can certainly implement an income tax, then allow for a credit against or a deduction from it based on an action. I can think of more than a couple of dozen income tax provisions that are structured that way.

Solar panel tax credit, child credits, adoption credit, school loan interest deduction, medical savings accounts, home interest.....

But being directly taxed for not buying something is much different then being rewarded with lower income tax for buying something.

What fundamental difference do you see between the two? I see zero difference between a tax for non-participation, and a blanket tax with an exemption for participation.

The Congress could have structured it with a simple 'extra little bit' on top of the normal income tax, and you got a set deduction equal to the 'extra little bit' with proof of participation. Functional result of exactly the same as what you complain about.

The distinction between it being a tax with an exemption for participation or a tax for non-participation seems logically iffy at best.

Functionally speaking there is zero difference. However, the optics of it being cast as a 'tax unless you participate' are terrible.

But legality and functionality on one hand are not the same as public relations stances like optics.
(This post was last modified: 02-08-2019 04:43 PM by tanqtonic.)
02-08-2019 04:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
solohawks Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 20,782
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 810
I Root For: UNCW
Location: Wilmington, NC
Post: #30
RE: Chief Justice Roberts
(02-08-2019 04:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(02-08-2019 04:27 PM)solohawks Wrote:  
(02-08-2019 01:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(02-08-2019 11:40 AM)solohawks Wrote:  
(02-08-2019 11:38 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  After a period of tempering, I actually think that Roberts was correct in the Obamacare decision.

The Obamacare regime is fundamentally a power to tax case. And, while I abhor the Obamacare concept and implementation, the proper means of overturning the decision resides with Congress and the voters. Not with a court ruling.

I think that Gorsuch might actually be inclined to see it the same way, to be honest.

And my fundamental disagreement with that philosophy is should the US Government tax you for NOT buying something ???

That is what Muslim nations did to Non Muslims when they were willing to tolerate their existence


That idea is abhorrent to me, but I am a schmuk and Roberts is the Chief Justice so what do I know lol

They can certainly implement an income tax, then allow for a credit against or a deduction from it based on an action. I can think of more than a couple of dozen income tax provisions that are structured that way.

Solar panel tax credit, child credits, adoption credit, school loan interest deduction, medical savings accounts, home interest.....

But being directly taxed for not buying something is much different then being rewarded with lower income tax for buying something.

What fundamental difference do you see between the two? I see zero difference between a tax for non-participation, and a blanket tax with an exemption for participation.

The Congress could have structured it with a simple 'extra little bit' on top of the normal income tax, and you got a set deduction equal to the 'extra little bit' with proof of participation. Functional result of exactly the same as what you complain about.

The distinction between it being a tax with an exemption for participation or a tax for non-participation seems logically iffy at best.

If they had made it a tax credit for purchasing insurance I would not have 1 issue.

That way you are being rewarded with less tax for taking action in buying the product but not being penalized with more tax for taking no action for not buying the product.

Instead if take no action in buying the product you are being taxed extra for inaction.

Rewarding for action is fine

Penalizing for inaction is not fine
02-08-2019 04:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,112
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #31
RE: Chief Justice Roberts
(02-08-2019 04:44 PM)solohawks Wrote:  
(02-08-2019 04:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(02-08-2019 04:27 PM)solohawks Wrote:  
(02-08-2019 01:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(02-08-2019 11:40 AM)solohawks Wrote:  And my fundamental disagreement with that philosophy is should the US Government tax you for NOT buying something ???

That is what Muslim nations did to Non Muslims when they were willing to tolerate their existence


That idea is abhorrent to me, but I am a schmuk and Roberts is the Chief Justice so what do I know lol

They can certainly implement an income tax, then allow for a credit against or a deduction from it based on an action. I can think of more than a couple of dozen income tax provisions that are structured that way.

Solar panel tax credit, child credits, adoption credit, school loan interest deduction, medical savings accounts, home interest.....

But being directly taxed for not buying something is much different then being rewarded with lower income tax for buying something.

What fundamental difference do you see between the two? I see zero difference between a tax for non-participation, and a blanket tax with an exemption for participation.

The Congress could have structured it with a simple 'extra little bit' on top of the normal income tax, and you got a set deduction equal to the 'extra little bit' with proof of participation. Functional result of exactly the same as what you complain about.

The distinction between it being a tax with an exemption for participation or a tax for non-participation seems logically iffy at best.

If they had made it a tax credit for purchasing insurance I would not have 1 issue.

Would you have had an issue with a further blanket tax, followed by a credit or deduction for purchase? That is the real question.

Quote:That way you are being rewarded with less tax for taking action in buying the product but not being penalized with more tax for taking no action for not buying the product.

When the functional result is the same, I dont understand the issue. Truly. Not meaning to be a sarcastic prig, but I really do not.

The end result is the same no matter which avenue is done. The end result is 'If I buy insurance I pay less in taxes'.
02-08-2019 05:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
solohawks Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 20,782
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 810
I Root For: UNCW
Location: Wilmington, NC
Post: #32
RE: Chief Justice Roberts
(02-08-2019 05:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(02-08-2019 04:44 PM)solohawks Wrote:  
(02-08-2019 04:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(02-08-2019 04:27 PM)solohawks Wrote:  
(02-08-2019 01:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  They can certainly implement an income tax, then allow for a credit against or a deduction from it based on an action. I can think of more than a couple of dozen income tax provisions that are structured that way.

Solar panel tax credit, child credits, adoption credit, school loan interest deduction, medical savings accounts, home interest.....

But being directly taxed for not buying something is much different then being rewarded with lower income tax for buying something.

What fundamental difference do you see between the two? I see zero difference between a tax for non-participation, and a blanket tax with an exemption for participation.

The Congress could have structured it with a simple 'extra little bit' on top of the normal income tax, and you got a set deduction equal to the 'extra little bit' with proof of participation. Functional result of exactly the same as what you complain about.

The distinction between it being a tax with an exemption for participation or a tax for non-participation seems logically iffy at best.

If they had made it a tax credit for purchasing insurance I would not have 1 issue.

Would you have had an issue with a further blanket tax, followed by a credit or deduction for purchase? That is the real question.

Quote:That way you are being rewarded with less tax for taking action in buying the product but not being penalized with more tax for taking no action for not buying the product.

When the functional result is the same, I dont understand the issue. Truly. Not meaning to be a sarcastic prig, but I really do not.

The end result is the same no matter which avenue is done. The end result is 'If I buy insurance I pay less in taxes'.

Sure that would be fine.

If a blanket tax increase can pass through Congress with a credit for taking a certain action that would be completely acceptable.

Its about the process.

Obamacare is a tax that was masqueraded as something it is not to the American people. If they had been forced to be honest about it and raise everyone's taxes with generous credits for compliance with the desired action, it would not have passed.

Now the Supreme Court has set a precedent that you can be taxed for inaction. If you haven't bought a "Green Friendly" car you can be taxed until you buy one. If you haven't bought the right type of healthy food, you can be taxed until you do. If you haven't donated to the right cause you can be taxed until you do. The possibilities are endless. I find that very scary
(This post was last modified: 02-08-2019 08:05 PM by solohawks.)
02-08-2019 07:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.