Bad Movie Logo
"A website to the detriment of good film"
Custom Search
HOMEB-MOVIE REVIEWSREADER REVIEWSFORUMINTERVIEWSUPDATESABOUT
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:58:36 PM
713368 Posts in 53058 Topics by 7725 Members
Latest Member: wibwao
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Other Topics  |  Off Topic Discussion  |  The Debt Crisis . . . Whose fault? And how do we fix it? (PT, PF) « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8
Author Topic: The Debt Crisis . . . Whose fault? And how do we fix it? (PT, PF)  (Read 30681 times)
El Misfit
[Insert witty here]
B-Movie Kraken
*****

Karma: 1103
Posts: 12891


Hi there!


« Reply #75 on: March 25, 2011, 11:52:21 PM »

Actually, America's "Open Door" policy helped keep China from being carved up into multiple colonies the way Africa was.  That being said, I doubt China would ever have fragmented the way Africa did as a result of imperialism - Chinese culture was too homogenous, and the Chinese have a wonderful gift for simply assimilating all foreign influences that invade them.  But, America and China have a past that isn't entirely negative . . . except for that mess in Korea.  The world would be a better place if China had stayed out of that one!
No, It's not about America's "Open Door" policy- It's when there was multiple world powers in Peking during America's Imperialism Era. there was Russia, Japan, Great Britain, France, and I believe Germany that wanted their gov't system to rule peking, hence the Sphere of Influence.



Also, We need to get off of America's deadliest addiction- foreign oil. what we need to do is NOT drive some low mileage, big ass car/truck/SUV/van EVERY DAY. Hey, I'm up for having a boat trip with family and friends every now and then, but not every single friggen day! what we need to do is start driving 30+ MPG cars to help slow down the addiction and try to harness our own oil.
Logged

yeah no.
ulthar
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 368
Posts: 4168


I AM serious, and stop calling me Shirley


WWW
« Reply #76 on: March 26, 2011, 12:11:49 AM »


Also, We need to get off of America's deadliest addiction- foreign oil. what we need to do is NOT drive some low mileage, big ass car/truck/SUV/van EVERY DAY. Hey, I'm up for having a boat trip with family and friends every now and then, but not every single friggen day! what we need to do is start driving 30+ MPG cars to help slow down the addiction and try to harness our own oil.


We did that once a few decades ago.  It helped NOTHING.  Lowered speed limits to save fuel, most people moved to more efficient cars, etc.  It did not take long for the prices to come down so low that people went right back to where they were.

And what is the big deal about 30 MPG?  When I was in high school, I had a truck that was built in 1973 that got 35 MPG.  I traded it in for a car that was built in 1983, and it got 32-35 MPG (if I could stay off it and not try to drive it like it was a sports car).

Small cars should routinely boast 50 MPG by now given 40 years of engineering, eh?

Nice sound bite, though.  The "what other people drive police" likely consume as much, if not more, total resources than people who drive SUVs.  This whole bit is a straw man barking up the wrong tree with no bite.

I could go out on my boat every single day, or even cross the Atlantic Ocean, and not use one single drop of petroleum fuel.  In fact, I've purchased 3 gallons of gasoline for one of my boats in April and still had about 2.5 gallons in October...using the boat 1-3 times per week during that period.

My family of four lives in an area of about 150 sq ft if I'm being OVERLY generous as to our 'space.'  We can live indefinitely by consuming no purchased electricity.  Over the course of a year, this laptop is probably the single largest consumer of electricity we operate.  We probably are in the smallest percentage of so-called "carbon footprints" of any family of four in Western Civilization.

And I drive an SUV.  It's the vehicle that meets MY needs and I am willing to pay for the fuel to operate it.  If gasoline gets too expensive, in my mind, to do that, then I will stop driving it.  Until then, well, the market demands fuel and the suppliers supply it.

 I'd like to hear your thoughts on how lowering foreign oil dependence would solve, or help with, our national debt problem.
Logged

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Professor Hathaway:  I noticed you stopped stuttering.
Bodie:      I've been giving myself shock treatments.
Professor Hathaway: Up the voltage.

--Real Genius
BTM
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 352
Posts: 2865



« Reply #77 on: April 12, 2011, 03:51:19 PM »

BTW guys, have any of you ever seen the movie, The World Without Us?  It's an interesting documentary about what would happen if America decided to withdrawal all it's military forces from around the world.  The filmmakers interview dozens of people from several parts of the world and it presents a lot of views on the subject pro and con.  Although, sadly it doesn't give many areas the depth it deserves (but then, I think you'd need a fifty hour film for that), it still rather interesting, and you can get it on Netflix.

http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/The_World_Without_Us/70104222?trkid=2361637#height36
« Last Edit: April 13, 2011, 06:24:31 AM by BTM » Logged

"Some people mature, some just get older." -Andrew Vachss
BTM
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 352
Posts: 2865



« Reply #78 on: April 12, 2011, 04:05:59 PM »

Okay.
I can see the point there.
But I think its the UN's job. Not one country. We need rules to live by as a global community, we can't just have one person/country as a police man. Global democracy shouldn't allow this. How would you like if it all Laws were to be decided by one person?

Well, the problem is the UN isn't a very reliable group.  I mean, they do good charity work, but that's about it.  In fact, it was what twenty or so conditions of a UN TREATY that Saddam Hussein kept repeatedly violating, and yet the UN just didn't seem to want to do a damn thing about it, except to "Oh, let's give the Inspectors more time!"  I think Team America summed it up best when had the Wolf Blitzer expy threaten Kim Jon by saying he would, "...send him a letter saying how angry they were." 

And speaking of the UN, guess who FUNDS about twenty-five percent of the bills for that little group and sends MORE TROOPS to it than any other country?  Yep, the US.  Frankly, I think THAT'S a pretty big waste of money there, but that's another debate.

What if it was Canada or Britian as the world police man ? Would you feel so comfortable about it then ?

If either of them had the military power to do that, I'd tell them, "Have at it, big shots."  But they don't. 

*Cough*
I didn't realise that my counrty was about to dissapear off the map.
I better get my passport. And head to Canada.

Considering how low the birthrate of native born Europeans has been, that's probably far from the truth, but again, that's another subject...
Logged

"Some people mature, some just get older." -Andrew Vachss
BTM
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 352
Posts: 2865



« Reply #79 on: April 12, 2011, 04:11:38 PM »

Interesting commentary, Dean, thanks!

I got to visit Australia for a few weeks back in 1983 and long to return someday - it is a truly beautiful place and the only locality outside the U.S. I've ever been to that I would enjoy actually living in.


Except everything there is trying to kill you...

http://www.cracked.com/funny-163-australia/
http://www.cracked.com/funny-5997-the-animals-that-make-australia-deathtrap-it-is/
Logged

"Some people mature, some just get older." -Andrew Vachss
ulthar
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 368
Posts: 4168


I AM serious, and stop calling me Shirley


WWW
« Reply #80 on: April 12, 2011, 07:33:52 PM »


The richest 400 people in america have as much money as the 150 million people in the lower 50%. TAX THEM BLUE!


Okay, let's say I'm one of those 400 people.

Do you think I'm going to keep my money "taxable" if you tried to do that?

Less than 20% of the people in this country already pay over 80% of the federal taxes, and that bottom 50% you mention pays less than 3% of taxes.  I suppose you don't fully understand the consequences of that, or of your statement above.  You seem to have no idea what increasing taxation on the richest actually does to revenues, so I guess your only purpose then is to punish...to punish success.

Progressive taxes are stupid and wrong.  The only reason people like them is because it gives the warm fuzzy of feeling like the big guy is getting his. 
Logged

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Professor Hathaway:  I noticed you stopped stuttering.
Bodie:      I've been giving myself shock treatments.
Professor Hathaway: Up the voltage.

--Real Genius
indianasmith
Archeologist, Theologian, Elder Scrolls Addict, and a
B-Movie Kraken
*****

Karma: 2591
Posts: 15182


A good bad movie is like popcorn for the soul!


« Reply #81 on: April 12, 2011, 10:46:40 PM »

So . . . you want to punish financial success . . . so there will be less of it?
In the end, what you subsidize, you get more of, what you punish, you get less of.
Say the government confiscates 100% of all personal income over  . . . I dunno . . . how about $10 million?  They'd have HUGE tax revenues the first couple of years, and then . . . nothing.  Because the wealthy would either flee the country, taking their wealth with them, or, they would just not be wealthy anymore.  Where's the motivation to succeed when the fruits of your success are going to be stolen from you by a predatory superstate and redistributed to people who did NOTHING to earn that wealth?

Still, the basic problem is not that we tax too little.  It's that we spend too much.  In a give year our government takes in about 3 - 4 TRILLION in tax revenues.  But then it goes and spends 5 trillion!  Trying to deal with a government addicted to spending by giving them more money to spend is like trying to put out a fire by pouring gasoline on it, or trying to cure a heroin addict by giving him another hit . . . and another, and another!


IT JUST WON'T WORK!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hatred
Logged

"I shall smite you in the nostrils with a rod of iron, and wax your spleen with Efferdent!!"
flackbait
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 109
Posts: 1025


The fate of the last door to door salesmen


« Reply #82 on: April 13, 2011, 12:40:14 AM »


Also, We need to get off of America's deadliest addiction- foreign oil. what we need to do is NOT drive some low mileage, big ass car/truck/SUV/van EVERY DAY. Hey, I'm up for having a boat trip with family and friends every now and then, but not every single friggen day! what we need to do is start driving 30+ MPG cars to help slow down the addiction and try to harness our own oil.


We did that once a few decades ago.  It helped NOTHING.  Lowered speed limits to save fuel, most people moved to more efficient cars, etc.  It did not take long for the prices to come down so low that people went right back to where they were.

And what is the big deal about 30 MPG?  When I was in high school, I had a truck that was built in 1973 that got 35 MPG.  I traded it in for a car that was built in 1983, and it got 32-35 MPG (if I could stay off it and not try to drive it like it was a sports car).

Small cars should routinely boast 50 MPG by now given 40 years of engineering, eh?

Nice sound bite, though.  The "what other people drive police" likely consume as much, if not more, total resources than people who drive SUVs.  This whole bit is a straw man barking up the wrong tree with no bite.

I could go out on my boat every single day, or even cross the Atlantic Ocean, and not use one single drop of petroleum fuel.  In fact, I've purchased 3 gallons of gasoline for one of my boats in April and still had about 2.5 gallons in October...using the boat 1-3 times per week during that period.

My family of four lives in an area of about 150 sq ft if I'm being OVERLY generous as to our 'space.'  We can live indefinitely by consuming no purchased electricity.  Over the course of a year, this laptop is probably the single largest consumer of electricity we operate.  We probably are in the smallest percentage of so-called "carbon footprints" of any family of four in Western Civilization.

And I drive an SUV.  It's the vehicle that meets MY needs and I am willing to pay for the fuel to operate it.  If gasoline gets too expensive, in my mind, to do that, then I will stop driving it.  Until then, well, the market demands fuel and the suppliers supply it.

 I'd like to hear your thoughts on how lowering foreign oil dependence would solve, or help with, our national debt problem.
Okay this'll definitely be off topic so I apologize, but I have a non-environmental reason to try to get an alternative fuel source or at the very least cut down on our foreign oil. In my mind the danger of having to import oil is that we seem to end up mired in foreign politics. This is why we end up having to deal with the cluster#!@! of middle east politics (Iraq and Afghanistan aside), if it wasn't for our dependace of importing oil for the region we'd have a lot less to worry about in the region, but since the middle east is our main supplier of oil we end up dealing with things like the Iranian revolution and the whole Palestian/Israel issue. Of course this is all supposition, but having to import our oil is still a major security risk either way you look at it...Anybody remember the oil embargo?
Logged
indianasmith
Archeologist, Theologian, Elder Scrolls Addict, and a
B-Movie Kraken
*****

Karma: 2591
Posts: 15182


A good bad movie is like popcorn for the soul!


« Reply #83 on: April 13, 2011, 06:39:31 AM »

I agree we need an alternative fuel source.  But until someone comes up with one, oil is what we are stuck with.  Like it or not, the world runs on the stuff.  That's why I think we need to use as much of our domestic sources as we can . . .  ANWAR, anyone?
Logged

"I shall smite you in the nostrils with a rod of iron, and wax your spleen with Efferdent!!"
El Misfit
[Insert witty here]
B-Movie Kraken
*****

Karma: 1103
Posts: 12891


Hi there!


« Reply #84 on: April 13, 2011, 07:26:34 AM »

Nissan, Chevy, Fisker, and Tesla has started making pure electric vehicles. Nissan Leaf, Chevy Volt, Tesla Model S, Fisker, though, will use gas, but only to recharge the batteries. As an alternative fuel source, the US has over 100 nuclear power plants, and, even though the dangers are high, we should pursue to use more of it. The main concerns are what happens if there's a melt down and where to put the waste. I'm not sure about the second one, but instead of using Uranium, we should use Thorium, a more stable element than Uranium. Not entirely sure how this will work out, I only heard this from my enviro. science class, as one fellow student said that India is starting to use Thorium and the results are great.
Logged

yeah no.
ulthar
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 368
Posts: 4168


I AM serious, and stop calling me Shirley


WWW
« Reply #85 on: April 13, 2011, 07:42:47 AM »


Okay this'll definitely be off topic so I apologize, but I have a non-environmental reason to try to get an alternative fuel source or at the very least cut down on our foreign oil. In my mind the danger of having to import oil is that we seem to end up mired in foreign politics. This is why we end up having to deal with the cluster#!@! of middle east politics (Iraq and Afghanistan aside), if it wasn't for our dependace of importing oil for the region we'd have a lot less to worry about in the region, but since the middle east is our main supplier of oil we end up dealing with things like the Iranian revolution and the whole Palestian/Israel issue. Of course this is all supposition, but having to import our oil is still a major security risk either way you look at it...Anybody remember the oil embargo?



I hope my post above does not imply that I disagree with anything you've said.  Alternate energy (when it's viable economically) is good, and until then, domestic sources of petroleum are better than importation.

What I was arguing against was the pat, simplistic notion that {insert_problem} is caused by the vehicle people drive.  Try as I might, I have not been able to lay my hand on statistics that show more gasoline is consumed by SUV's than other passenger cars.

The best I can do is to find the break-down in terms of Light Duty Vehicles (passenger cars and commercial trucking up to 8500 lbs GVW) vs Heavy Duty Vehicles.  The Transportation Sector is the largest sector of petroleum use, and Light Duty Vehicles the largest within that sector.  However, there is no data that I could find that shows the breakdown, specifically, SUV's, within the category Light Duty Vehicles.

I did find one assertion that motor vehicle gasoline consumption as a percentage of total petroleum use has NOT increased since 1981, which predates the rise of SUV popularity.  Thus the conclusion was that SUV's have not caused an increase in gasoline use.

To get at the SUV use numbers, we need the percentage of SUV's on the road and the percentage of miles driven as well as miles/gallon numbers.  We don't have the percentage of miles driven...or at least I cannot find it.

The manipulative press on the SUV debate use the lower miles/gallon numbers for SUV's, but completely ignore actual fuel consumed.  The argument goes that if those miles were non-SUV miles, fuel would be saved.

But the flaw is that miles driven is NOT a zero sum problem.  There is no Law of Conservation of Miles Driven in nature.  If a person trades their SUV for a higher mileage car, they might well drive the same miles...or, they might drive more (or less).  The point is, no extrapolation can be made, and any assertion that simple substitution of one vehicle for another is asinine on its face.

Finally, consider that when sitting still, all vehicles are getting 0 mpg:




All of this is relevant to the general debt discussion because there are too many arguments made that are pat little cutesy catch-phrases that have no basis in the real world, and they often get more press than any actual analysis.
Logged

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Professor Hathaway:  I noticed you stopped stuttering.
Bodie:      I've been giving myself shock treatments.
Professor Hathaway: Up the voltage.

--Real Genius
flackbait
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 109
Posts: 1025


The fate of the last door to door salesmen


« Reply #86 on: April 13, 2011, 10:37:59 AM »


Okay this'll definitely be off topic so I apologize, but I have a non-environmental reason to try to get an alternative fuel source or at the very least cut down on our foreign oil. In my mind the danger of having to import oil is that we seem to end up mired in foreign politics. This is why we end up having to deal with the cluster#!@! of middle east politics (Iraq and Afghanistan aside), if it wasn't for our dependace of importing oil for the region we'd have a lot less to worry about in the region, but since the middle east is our main supplier of oil we end up dealing with things like the Iranian revolution and the whole Palestian/Israel issue. Of course this is all supposition, but having to import our oil is still a major security risk either way you look at it...Anybody remember the oil embargo?



I hope my post above does not imply that I disagree with anything you've said.  Alternate energy (when it's viable economically) is good, and until then, domestic sources of petroleum are better than importation.

What I was arguing against was the pat, simplistic notion that {insert_problem} is caused by the vehicle people drive.  Try as I might, I have not been able to lay my hand on statistics that show more gasoline is consumed by SUV's than other passenger cars.

The best I can do is to find the break-down in terms of Light Duty Vehicles (passenger cars and commercial trucking up to 8500 lbs GVW) vs Heavy Duty Vehicles.  The Transportation Sector is the largest sector of petroleum use, and Light Duty Vehicles the largest within that sector.  However, there is no data that I could find that shows the breakdown, specifically, SUV's, within the category Light Duty Vehicles.

I did find one assertion that motor vehicle gasoline consumption as a percentage of total petroleum use has NOT increased since 1981, which predates the rise of SUV popularity.  Thus the conclusion was that SUV's have not caused an increase in gasoline use.

To get at the SUV use numbers, we need the percentage of SUV's on the road and the percentage of miles driven as well as miles/gallon numbers.  We don't have the percentage of miles driven...or at least I cannot find it.

The manipulative press on the SUV debate use the lower miles/gallon numbers for SUV's, but completely ignore actual fuel consumed.  The argument goes that if those miles were non-SUV miles, fuel would be saved.

But the flaw is that miles driven is NOT a zero sum problem.  There is no Law of Conservation of Miles Driven in nature.  If a person trades their SUV for a higher mileage car, they might well drive the same miles...or, they might drive more (or less).  The point is, no extrapolation can be made, and any assertion that simple substitution of one vehicle for another is asinine on its face.

Finally, consider that when sitting still, all vehicles are getting 0 mpg:




All of this is relevant to the general debt discussion because there are too many arguments made that are pat little cutesy catch-phrases that have no basis in the real world, and they often get more press than any actual analysis.

Good point, I was not trying to disagree with you. As you said,it's not just a simple cut and dry issue, I just find everytime people  trying to make an arguement to cut down on oil use they always seem to leave the whole national security problem and go for the enviormental point instead.
Logged
lester1/2jr
B-Movie Kraken
*****

Karma: 1109
Posts: 12268



WWW
« Reply #87 on: April 13, 2011, 10:40:54 AM »

I don't see the opint of developing alternative fuels. our government intervenes in the middle east in large part to secure Israel and to a lesser extent countries like Saudi Arabia and Jordan and whichever dictatorships we are paying off this week. Might as well get somethign out of it and that something is cheap energy.
Logged
Hammock Rider
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 255
Posts: 1916



« Reply #88 on: April 13, 2011, 12:17:28 PM »

  The Debt Crisis, the Financial Meltdown, is a result of criminal activity. The people who engineered it should be prosecuted like the criminals that they are. But Too Big to Fail also means Too Big to Go to Jail, so we'll never see that happen.  I'm not trying to convince anyone to change their mind if they don't agree with me. I'm just stating my point of view.

    Some very unscrupulous people found a way to maneuver the financial system to there advatage and didn't care that millions of lives would be ruined in the process. There are a lot of people making huge fortunes from foreclosing on residences as well as businesses. I'm listening to a conference call regarding this right now. The people involved are rolling in clover.

  I'm not talking about hard working people who have earned their money. I'm talking about swindlers and criminals who have bent they system to their own needs and in the process destroyed millions of individuals lives as well as national economies. Those people should be punished.
Logged

Jumping Kings and Making Haste Ain't my Cup of Meat
Flick James
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 489
Posts: 4642


Honorary Bastard of Arts


« Reply #89 on: April 13, 2011, 01:20:55 PM »

 The Debt Crisis, the Financial Meltdown, is a result of criminal activity. The people who engineered it should be prosecuted like the criminals that they are. But Too Big to Fail also means Too Big to Go to Jail, so we'll never see that happen.  I'm not trying to convince anyone to change their mind if they don't agree with me. I'm just stating my point of view.

    Some very unscrupulous people found a way to maneuver the financial system to there advatage and didn't care that millions of lives would be ruined in the process. There are a lot of people making huge fortunes from foreclosing on residences as well as businesses. I'm listening to a conference call regarding this right now. The people involved are rolling in clover.

  I'm not talking about hard working people who have earned their money. I'm talking about swindlers and criminals who have bent they system to their own needs and in the process destroyed millions of individuals lives as well as national economies. Those people should be punished.

What you're talking about is crony capitalism. It's a bastardization of capitalism that this country has found itself increasingly embracing. It's also sometimes referred to as corporatism. The two may not hold the same exact definition, but they are close enough to be equated to what our economic system has become. Laissez-faire capitalism prohibits the federal government from creating fiscal policy to influence the economy. That is, a complete separation of business and state. Pure laissez-faire means there is no Federal Reserve, meaning that the free market sets it's own interest rates organically based on market conditions. The Fed cannot artificially manipulate interest rates to prevent economic downturns. This is usually employed by administrations to create illusory economic booms to make their party look good. Ultimately it is destructive and just encourages more fiat money and credit expansion. Further, laissez-faire capitalism does not allow government to subsidize corporations. Laissez-faire is not a perfect system, but what it does do is make government accountable for government and business accountable for business. It also eliminates the type of corruption between corporations and government that runs rampant in our system now.

Unfortunately, crony capitalism, or corporatism, gets confused with true capitalism by the left, who use this confusion to their advantage to point out how evil capitalism is. Equally as unfortunate, the right have all but forgotten what capitalism really is and have fully embraced and defend corporatism. If you were to ask your average Republican or Democrat to define capitalism, they will not be able to. The average advocate of capitalism that I talk to is actually advocating corporatism, and many of them have never even heard of Ayn Rand or Austrian School economics, let alone have any familiarization with these foundational concepts that actually define how capitalism is supposed to work.

Bottom line: Laissez-fair capitalism, like it or not, would never have allowed such a debt crisis. It would have been impossible.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2011, 01:23:14 PM by Flick James » Logged

I don't always talk about bad movies, but when I do, I prefer badmovies.org
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Other Topics  |  Off Topic Discussion  |  The Debt Crisis . . . Whose fault? And how do we fix it? (PT, PF) « previous next »
    Jump to:  


    RSS Feed Subscribe Subscribe by RSS
    Email Subscribe Subscribe by Email


    Popular Articles
    How To Find A Bad Movie

    The Champions of Justice

    Plan 9 from Outer Space

    Manos, The Hands of Fate

    Podcast: Todd the Convenience Store Clerk

    Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

    Dragonball: The Magic Begins

    Cool As Ice

    The Educational Archives: Driver's Ed

    Godzilla vs. Monster Zero

    Do you have a zombie plan?

    FROM THE BADMOVIES.ORG ARCHIVES
    ImageThe Giant Claw - Slime drop

    Earth is visited by a GIANT ANTIMATTER SPACE BUZZARD! Gawk at the amazingly bad bird puppet, or chuckle over the silly dialog. This is one of the greatest b-movies ever made.

    Lesson Learned:
    • Osmosis: os·mo·sis (oz-mo'sis, os-) n., 1. When a bird eats something.

    Subscribe to Badmovies.org and get updates by email:

    HOME B-Movie Reviews Reader Reviews Forum Interviews TV Shows Advertising Information Sideshows Links Contact

    Badmovies.org is owned and operated by Andrew Borntreger. All original content is © 1998 - 2014 by its respective author(s). Image, video, and audio files are used in accordance with the Fair Use Law, and are property of the film copyright holders. You may freely link to any page (.html or .php) on this website, but reproduction in any other form must be authorized by the copyright holder.