Follow us on...
Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Facebook Watch us on YouTube
Register
Page 1 of 7 1234 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 96
  1. #1
    Damage your reputation seenbad's Avatar
    Join Date
    02.24.00
    Age
    45
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    26,946
    Favorite VH Album

    Halen 1
    Favorite VH Song

    I'm the one
    Last Online

    12.15.17 @ 10:48 AM
    Likes
    73
    Liked 257 Times in 92 Posts


    Donor

    Default Obama fact check

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090429/...ct_check_obama

    Geez. Guess we'll need to hook him up to a lie detector every time he opens his mouth. What convoluted, even dumb things to say.

    WASHINGTON – "That wasn't me," President Barack Obama said on his 100th day in office, disclaiming responsibility for the huge budget deficit waiting for him on Day One. It actually was him — and the other Democrats controlling Congress the previous two years — who shaped a budget so out of balance.

    And as a presidential candidate and president-elect, he backed the twilight Bush-era stimulus plan that made the deficit deeper, all before he took over and promoted spending plans that have made it much deeper still.

    Obama met citizens at an Arnold, Mo., high school Wednesday in advance of his prime-time news conference. Both forums were a platform to review his progress at the 100-day mark and look ahead.

    At various times, he brought an air of certainty to ambitions that are far from cast in stone.

    His assertion that his proposed budget "will cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term" is an eyeball-roller among many economists, given the uncharted terrain of trillion-dollar deficits and economic calamity that the government is negotiating.

    He promised vast savings from increased spending on preventive health care in the face of doubts that such an effort, however laudable it might be for public welfare, can pay for itself, let alone yield huge savings.

    A look at some of his claims Wednesday:

    OBAMA: "Number one, we inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit.... That wasn't me. Number two, there is almost uniform consensus among economists that in the middle of the biggest crisis, financial crisis, since the Great Depression, we had to take extraordinary steps. So you've got a lot of Republican economists who agree that we had to do a stimulus package and we had to do something about the banks. Those are one-time charges, and they're big, and they'll make our deficits go up over the next two years." — in Missouri.

    THE FACTS:

    Congress controls the purse strings, not the president, and it was under Democratic control for Obama's last two years as Illinois senator. Obama supported the emergency bailout package in President George W. Bush's final months — a package Democratic leaders wanted to make bigger.

    To be sure, Obama opposed the Iraq war, a drain on federal coffers for six years before he became president. But with one major exception, he voted in support of Iraq war spending.

    The economy has worsened under Obama, though from forces surely in play before he became president, and he can credibly claim to have inherited a grim situation.

    Still, his response to the crisis goes well beyond "one-time charges."

    He's persuaded Congress to expand children's health insurance, education spending, health information technology and more. He's moving ahead on a variety of big-ticket items on health care, the environment, energy and transportation that, if achieved, will be more enduring than bank bailouts and aid for homeowners.

    The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated his policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years, even accounting for his spending reduction goals. Now, the deficit is nearly quadrupling to $1.75 trillion.

    ___

    OBAMA: "I think one basic principle that we know is that the more we do on the (disease) prevention side, the more we can obtain serious savings down the road. ... If we're making those investments, we will save huge amounts of money in the long term." — in Missouri.

    THE FACTS: It sounds believable that preventing illness should be cheaper than treating it, and indeed that's the case with steps like preventing smoking and improving diets and exercise. But during the 2008 campaign, when Obama and other presidential candidates were touting a focus on preventive care, the New England Journal of Medicine cautioned that "sweeping statements about the cost-saving potential of prevention, however, are overreaching." It said that "although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not."

    And a study released in December by the Congressional Budget Office found that increasing preventive care "could improve people's health but would probably generate either modest reductions in the overall costs of health care or increases in such spending within a 10-year budgetary time frame."

    ___

    OBAMA: "You could cut (Social Security) benefits. You could raise the tax on everybody so everybody's payroll tax goes up a little bit. Or you can do what I think is probably the best solution, which is you can raise the cap on the payroll tax." — in Missouri.

    THE FACTS: Obama's proposal would reduce the Social Security trust fund's deficit by less than half, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

    That means he would still have to cut benefits, raise the payroll tax rate, raise the retirement age or some combination to deal with the program's long-term imbalance.

    Workers currently pay 6.2 percent and their employers pay an equal rate — for a total of 12.4 percent — on annual wages of up to $106,800, after which no more payroll tax is collected.

    Obama wants workers making more than $250,000 to pay payroll tax on their income over that amount. That would still protect workers making under $250,000 from an additional burden. But it would raise much less money than removing the cap completely.

    ___

    OBAMA: "My hope is that working in a bipartisan fashion we are going to be able to get a health care reform bill on my desk before the end of the year that we'll start seeing in the kinds of investments that will make everybody healthier."

    THE FACTS: Obama has indeed expressed hope for a health care plan that has support from Democrats and Republicans. But his Democratic allies in Congress have just made that harder. The budget plan written by the Democrats gives them the option of denying Republicans the normal right to block health care with a Senate filibuster. The filibuster tactic requires 60 votes to overcome, making it the GOP's main weapon to ensure a bipartisan outcome. The rules set by the budget mean that majority Democrats could potentially pass health care legislation without any Republican votes, sacrificing bipartisanship to achieve their goals.
    sheepa latta peepah dabba looka foh a moopy

    Gunter glieben glauchen globen

  2. #2
    Atomic Punk Little Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    12.25.99
    Age
    45
    Location
    Pasadena, CA, USA
    Posts
    8,947
    Favorite VH Album

    Fair Warning
    Favorite VH Song

    Hear About It Later
    Last Online

    12.17.17 @ 11:18 PM
    Likes
    1,018
    Liked 1,390 Times in 763 Posts

    Default

    Play on words. He didn't author the previous budget, Bush did. So he's technically right.

    If there was a run on the banks last September, Seen you'd be out of a job right now. Most of us would be. FACT. There was no other option. It was a terrible course of action, but doing nothing would've been even worse.
    Little Dreamer

  3. #3
    Banned!
    Join Date
    05.09.02
    Location
    vancouver, bc
    Posts
    1,375
    Last Online

    02.18.11 @ 08:09 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    you are correct, except there ACTUALLY was a run on the banks.

    the .u.s was something like 6 hours before all cash was pulled out by those that knew.

    they stopped the run with some emergency measures on a specific day back then.

    i'd haveto dig up reports to support this assertion but you are entirely correct. it was simultaneously the most horrible option of last resort and the only one that prevented the worlds entire financial system collapsing as its all based on a pseudo ponsi scheme where the entire planet bets on consumption each year growing.

    we aren't out of the woods yet. the trillion dollar stimulus bill isn't meant to spurr the economy forward, as it can't do that (it isn't nearly large enough to do such a thing). it is ONLY meant to stabilize trust in the system to prevent the removal of capital from the system on a longer term scale where the shared long term outlook is bleak and the population start hoarding whatever little wealth they have left.

  4. #4
    Atomic Punk edwardv's Avatar
    Join Date
    12.13.01
    Age
    59
    Location
    hanover pennsylvania
    Posts
    10,040
    Favorite VH Album

    diver down
    Favorite VH Song

    drop dead legs
    Last Online

    12.17.17 @ 03:05 PM
    Likes
    4,489
    Liked 2,390 Times in 1,492 Posts


    Premium Member

    Default

    There was a run on the banks and the truth will not be known for many years if ever.The US Government forced bank mergers and TARP was a spur of the moment plan poorly thought through, but the only thing it did was avoid a total shutdown of the financial system and the anarchy which would have followed. The problem is the long term answer to the problem was created by the people who caused the problem and they want to return to the same ponsi scheme.Many of those people are in the Federal Reserve system , Congress , present and past Presidents and corporate leaders. If Obama was a true reformer he would expose all this BS to the American people. The coverup is always harder than the crime.
    EVH 1979: Well, actually it's not much of a vacation, because we run everything ourselves. We design our own album cover, we have to be in the office every day to sign checks - the whole corporation revolves around us. Nothing can be done without our approval. We even have photo approval.

  5. #5
    Atomic Punk bsbll4's Avatar
    Join Date
    02.18.03
    Age
    34
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    8,660
    Favorite VH Album

    Van Halen/ADKOT
    Favorite VH Song

    Hot For Teacher
    Last Online

    12.15.17 @ 12:23 PM
    Likes
    575
    Liked 2,239 Times in 1,130 Posts


    Premium Member

    Default

    The problem isn't just the size of the budget, which is just atrocious. What really irks me is the idea of "stimulus" through government spending like Make Work projects from the Great Depression. Everyone who has studied the Great Depression knows that didn't bring us out of it. Sure, it may have helped individuals and unemployment numbers, but the number of people out of work was at 25%. Today's 8.5% seems like a pittance to that.

    The real problem with government spending money to spur the economy is that is just plain doesn't work. Never has, never will. It's pretty simple on why it doesn't work either. Anyone who has studied economics knows about the "Invisible Hand" concept of supply and demand and efficiency. When the government creates a false demand for construction jobs by "building infrastructure," as soon as those projects are completed, the demand is no longer there. Why? Because the overall free market is what spurs growth, not what the government thinks is the best way to grow.

    Historically, leaders have tried to control their own economies by playing with supply and demand (great example is Communist Russia). The problem is that the supply and demand aren't really there. You can't react to the market fast enough as you will always be behind the curve. Thinking you can control the economy from one central spot is a fallacy of the highest order.

    If you really want to spur the economy--not pander to your Union voting block--you give that money to the citizens where the money will be put into the economy in the most efficient manner possible. If there is no demand for a high speed rail because Amtrak can't even turn a profit, then don't make one. And don't compare our infrastructure to China who basically uses slave labor from the outlying areas being paid $1/day to lay track.

    These defecits are insanity. What good is attempting to grow the economy if you kill the value of the dollar? It just seems you are putting off one crisis for another one to fall on someone else's watch, which is what Washington does best I suppose. If he really wants to be a great President, actually make some tough choices. Don't say during the campaign "there will be ambitions that will have to be put off because there simply isn't the money." Huh? Could've fooled me. I wonder what the budget would look like had he not had to make "tough decisions" regarding spending. What would it be? $5 trillion?

    Make the tough choices and tell schools their funding is getting cut, healthcare will have to wait, ACORN will have to suck it, and we'll just have to wait for that high speed rail system. Then when you get the budget in line, you can start working on your ambitions.

    Even though I think our tax system is completely deranged, I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with them raising these taxes to balance the budget, the problem is they raise the taxes and say "we'll balance the budget in 20 years"---all because they have pet programs to fund for their voting blocks because they made promises to anything that could fog a mirror while campaigning. Fuck that. By the time they balance it it won't matter because the dollar will be worth dick because our national debt will be in the tens of trillions of dollars--2 or 3 times or GDP.

    I need a beer
    CNN may think my opinion matters, but you shouldn't.

  6. #6
    Good Enough
    Join Date
    05.23.00
    Location
    ..this desperate part of town.
    Posts
    2,308
    Last Online

    12.16.17 @ 08:42 AM
    Likes
    562
    Liked 281 Times in 135 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edwardv View Post
    There was a run on the banks and the truth will not be known for many years if ever.The US Government forced bank mergers and TARP was a spur of the moment plan poorly thought through, but the only thing it did was avoid a total shutdown of the financial system and the anarchy which would have followed. The problem is the long term answer to the problem was created by the people who caused the problem and they want to return to the same ponsi scheme.Many of those people are in the Federal Reserve system , Congress , present and past Presidents and corporate leaders. If Obama was a true reformer he would expose all this BS to the American people. The coverup is always harder than the crime.
    Evidence, please? Not being a smart-ass - I'd really like to see more about the truth and cover-up you mention.
    Sings like a bird. Rocks like a pig.

  7. #7
    Forum Frontman It's Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    03.26.06
    Age
    43
    Location
    Vaughan, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    34,158
    Favorite VH Album

    like them all, no favourite
    Last Online

    12.17.17 @ 08:10 PM
    Likes
    1,322
    Liked 6,711 Times in 3,729 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bsbll4 View Post
    The real problem with government spending money to spur the economy is that is just plain doesn't work. Never has, never will. It's pretty simple on why it doesn't work either. Anyone who has studied economics knows about the "Invisible Hand" concept of supply and demand and efficiency.
    As an Economics major I can state, without doubt, that this is completely untrue. Government spending can, at times, spur on an economy. Does it always work? Nope. But to say it never works is laughable. No economist would ever think, never mind say, such a thing.

  8. #8
    Atomic Punk
    Join Date
    06.15.06
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    13,741
    Favorite VH Album

    VHIII/WACF/OU51BALUCK
    Last Online

    07.24.11 @ 04:36 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default

    Government spending can stimulate an economy but the things they are spending on is just laughable. The government is using "economic stimulus" as a blanket cover up for the funding of self-serving, politically motivated causes and expenditures...like ACORN.

    Nothing, absolutely nothing wrong with getting people out there repairing roads and bridges. It's the sort of thing that has been ignored for years and there are a lot of idle hands out there that can be put to work on these important projects.


    There's also nothing wrong with wanting to fund people's desire to get an education so they get new jobs in different fields because the jobs they were working don't exist anymore, or simply don't pay enough.

    I am of the opinion though that true stimulus would come from giving people a refund on all their money that's being given to the corporations. Give people their money back and they will stimulate the economy in a million different ways.
    Stay out of it, dude.


    I am Van Halen.

  9. #9
    Forum Frontman It's Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    03.26.06
    Age
    43
    Location
    Vaughan, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    34,158
    Favorite VH Album

    like them all, no favourite
    Last Online

    12.17.17 @ 08:10 PM
    Likes
    1,322
    Liked 6,711 Times in 3,729 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by broken9500 View Post
    Government spending can stimulate an economy but the things they are spending on is just laughable. The government is using "economic stimulus" as a blanket cover up for the funding of self-serving, politically motivated causes and expenditures...like ACORN.

    Nothing, absolutely nothing wrong with getting people out there repairing roads and bridges. It's the sort of thing that has been ignored for years and there are a lot of idle hands out there that can be put to work on these important projects.


    There's also nothing wrong with wanting to fund people's desire to get an education so they get new jobs in different fields because the jobs they were working don't exist anymore, or simply don't pay enough.

    I am of the opinion though that true stimulus would come from giving people a refund on all their money that's being given to the corporations. Give people their money back and they will stimulate the economy in a million different ways.
    you know what's scary broken is that the government hasn't given any of "your money" to the corporations. That money was already spent a long time ago, along with your kids money and probably your grandkids' money for that matter. They're now borrowing against your great-grandkids money.

    The government (like you mentioned) would do very well fast tracking projects to get the economy going. If a city was planning on building a new subway line in 2012, well maybe 2009 would be a better starting point. I don't like governments coming up with a list of "new projects". Most of these end up being just ways to waste money. Most cities now have a wealth of relative cheap labour that can be tapped into in, they would be well served to do this.

  10. #10
    Atomic Punk
    Join Date
    06.15.06
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    13,741
    Favorite VH Album

    VHIII/WACF/OU51BALUCK
    Last Online

    07.24.11 @ 04:36 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by it's me View Post
    you know what's scary broken is that the government hasn't given any of "your money" to the corporations. That money was already spent a long time ago, along with your kids money and probably your grandkids' money for that matter. They're now borrowing against your great-grandkids money.

    The government (like you mentioned) would do very well fast tracking projects to get the economy going. If a city was planning on building a new subway line in 2012, well maybe 2009 would be a better starting point. I don't like governments coming up with a list of "new projects". Most of these end up being just ways to waste money. Most cities now have a wealth of relative cheap labour that can be tapped into in, they would be well served to do this.
    you're absolutely correct. They spent our money 50 years ago.

    I think stuff like subway lines, updating bridges, expanding roads and freeways, building power plants etc should all be part of the "stimulus" deal. These are things that should have been going to begin with and should be the primary focus of government anyways. Unfortunately, government would rather worry more about pandering to their little groups, their campaign contributors and other special interest groups in order to preserve their own positions within the government.

    I really would have to have seen an early retirement package offered to people over 60 or an immediate ceasing of all payroll taxes. For a fraction of what the stimulus packages have cost, they could have given a lot of hard working people and small businesses and immediate influx of cash with which they could have paid off home loans, bought cars, expanded their businesses, bought advertising, built websites, paid off credit cards etc etc. That is how you create economic expansion.
    Stay out of it, dude.


    I am Van Halen.

  11. #11
    Eruption gabby gabbster's Avatar
    Join Date
    08.06.01
    Posts
    1,206
    Last Online

    12.01.17 @ 09:52 AM
    Likes
    9
    Liked 33 Times in 27 Posts

    Default

    It would be nice to have someone here offer a better option than what Obama has proposed. Instead, it's: "don't spend a dime and just let everything turn to shit. thanks."

    Government spending on things like infrastructure, education, health care, extending UI, and aid to troubled States certainly does give you a larger return than tax cuts or doing NOTHING.

    http://www.house.gov/smbiz/hearings/...ulus/Zandi.pdf

    Any prudent economist will tell you that this sort of spending will give the desirable macroeconomic stimulus that is needed. However, there is no magical one solution and right now we need the trade-off of both tax cuts and spending - which is called a medium-term fiscal framework. Over time, however, we will almost certainly have to raise taxes to close the deficits. So the top 1% earners can finally spare a dime since they've already had the opportunity to trickle it down to us for 30 yrs. now.

  12. #12
    Atomic Punk bsbll4's Avatar
    Join Date
    02.18.03
    Age
    34
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    8,660
    Favorite VH Album

    Van Halen/ADKOT
    Favorite VH Song

    Hot For Teacher
    Last Online

    12.15.17 @ 12:23 PM
    Likes
    575
    Liked 2,239 Times in 1,130 Posts


    Premium Member

    Default or not

    Economists against the Stimulus
    Posted by David Boaz

    Cato has just published a full-page ad in the New York Times with the names of some 200 economists, including some Nobel laureates and other highly respected scholars, who “do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance” — contrary to widespread claims that “Economists from across the political spectrum agree” on a massive fiscal stimulus package. Of course, many economists don’t like to sign joint statements, so this is only a fraction of stimulus opponents in the profession. Greg Mankiw pointed to a few noted skeptics last week:

    In a TV interview last month, Vice President Joe Biden said the following:

    Every economist, as I’ve said, from conservative to liberal, acknowledges that direct government spending on a direct program now is the best way to infuse economic growth and create jobs.

    That statement is clearly false. As I have documented on this blog in recent weeks, skeptics about a spending stimulus include quite a few well-known economists, such as (in alphabetical order) Alberto Alesina, Robert Barro, Gary Becker, John Cochrane, Eugene Fama, Robert Lucas, Greg Mankiw, Kevin Murphy, Thomas Sargent, Harald Uhlig, and Luigi Zingales–and I am sure there many others as well. Regardless of whether one agrees with them on the merits of the case, it is hard to dispute that this list is pretty impressive, as judged by the standard objective criteria by which economists evaluate one another. If any university managed to hire all of them, it would immediately have a top ranked economics department.

    And of course Mankiw’s list isn’t comprehensive. There’s also former Treasury economist Bruce Bartlett, former Yale professor Philip Levy, former Ohio State and Federal Reserve economist Alan Viard, Russell Roberts of George Mason, and many more. Under the current circumstances, plenty of economists are endorsing large fiscal stimulus programs. But it’s just not correct to claim that there’s any consensus or that “every economist . . . from conservative to liberal” supports the kind of massive spending program that the Obama-Biden administration has proposed.

    UPDATE: Martin Feldstein, whose support last October for a fiscal stimulus is the reed upon which journalists justify their claims about “economists across the political spectrum,” now calls this stimulus bill “an $800 billion mistake.”
    CNN may think my opinion matters, but you shouldn't.

  13. #13
    Forum Frontman It's Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    03.26.06
    Age
    43
    Location
    Vaughan, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    34,158
    Favorite VH Album

    like them all, no favourite
    Last Online

    12.17.17 @ 08:10 PM
    Likes
    1,322
    Liked 6,711 Times in 3,729 Posts

    Default

    I'm not saying every economist agrees with THIS stimulus package. What i'm saying it that you're wrong to say that government intervention never helps a domestic economy.

  14. #14
    Eruption gabby gabbster's Avatar
    Join Date
    08.06.01
    Posts
    1,206
    Last Online

    12.01.17 @ 09:52 AM
    Likes
    9
    Liked 33 Times in 27 Posts

    Default

    Not to mention the Cato Institute advocates free market economies and zero government intervention at all costs. Of course they are going to find 200 dumbasses to go along with an economic philosophy that has proven to fail time and time again.

  15. #15
    Atomic Punk bsbll4's Avatar
    Join Date
    02.18.03
    Age
    34
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    8,660
    Favorite VH Album

    Van Halen/ADKOT
    Favorite VH Song

    Hot For Teacher
    Last Online

    12.15.17 @ 12:23 PM
    Likes
    575
    Liked 2,239 Times in 1,130 Posts


    Premium Member

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gabby gabbster View Post
    It would be nice to have someone here offer a better option than what Obama has proposed. Instead, it's: "don't spend a dime and just let everything turn to shit. thanks."

    Government spending on things like infrastructure, education, health care, extending UI, and aid to troubled States certainly does give you a larger return than tax cuts or doing NOTHING.

    http://www.house.gov/smbiz/hearings/...ulus/Zandi.pdf

    Any prudent economist will tell you that this sort of spending will give the desirable macroeconomic stimulus that is needed. However, there is no magical one solution and right now we need the trade-off of both tax cuts and spending - which is called a medium-term fiscal framework. Over time, however, we will almost certainly have to raise taxes to close the deficits. So the top 1% earners can finally spare a dime since they've already had the opportunity to trickle it down to us for 30 yrs. now.
    His spending on healthcare and the program he wants to implement will just raise the cost of health insurance. There are numerous studies out there examining this topic--don't just listen to what he tells everyone.

    Education already gets enough money. Driven by a high school lately? Have you seen their facilities? In Missouri for instance (which is where I live, so I'm familiar with the numbers), the state pays over $12,000 per student for public school students. Private schools average $7,000 per student. In general, private schools in Missouri produce better educated students based on admission rates, test scores, and national recognition. Now I don't have the specific numbers for each state, but I would imagine this is more the rule than the exception. The point is that the government is already inefficient in their education spending and throwing more at it isn't going to solve the problem.

    I'm sick of hearing that it is time for the top 1% to "pay their fair share." You know the top 10% pay almost 50% of the taxes in the United States right? How is that fair? Why? Because they can "afford it?" It's the old class envy game and you are getting sucked right in. Those people earned their money just like you earn yours, why should they have to pay a higher percentage of their income than you or me? Because they were more successful? Did they somehow cheat their way to the top? It's complete bullshit.

    Those evil one-percenters are the ones that invest in the private sector to *gasp* make more money. Those investments create jobs and everyone makes out....except for those unwilling to take advantage of the opportunities available to them. When you tax those people and their additional income, they pull back their money and make conservative choices, like just holding on to their wealth instead of spending it. And don't bother donating it, because Obama wants to eliminate much of the benefit from that, too.

    There are other options out there, including one from the Republican party, but because the media doesn't talk about it, it doesn't exist to the general public. The only option being given to the American people right now is Obama who wants to play "Venture Capitalist in Chief."

    It's a recipe for disaster.
    CNN may think my opinion matters, but you shouldn't.

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. Fact: Ed has new recording!
    By Perfect4th in forum Main VH Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10.28.02, 10:35 AM
  2. 1 fact from this tour
    By GM in forum "Song For Song" Tour 2002
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08.02.02, 12:02 PM
  3. 1 fact from this tour
    By GM in forum "Song For Song" Tour 2002
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08.01.02, 11:08 AM
  4. Startling Fact
    By Icecream-man in forum VH Fans Meeting Place (Non-Music)
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 05.21.01, 12:39 PM
  5. VH did in fact appear on MTV, what's next??
    By Tuna in forum Main VH Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09.08.00, 05:30 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •