|
Leperflesh posted:I don't think the word "conspiracy" is accurate or helpful. People working together and using secrecy to further their agenda..? Thats a conspiracy. quote:But there's no loving conspiracy, it's just people with a lot of money recognizing a potentially lucrative investment opportunity. Leperflesh posted:So yeah. Every corporation that sells products is in a conspiracy to extract money from the working classes!
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 08:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:59 |
|
|
Buckwheat Sings posted:Though I really don't like the current news of HOME PRICES AMAZING IT CAN ONLY GO UP!!! coming back again. This is perpetuated by sleazy real estate agents. I had one such "friend" on Facebook who kept posting stuff like "It's a great time to buy a house! I just a got a new list of amazing property - contact me if you're in the market!" At one point I could no longer take it and I commented on his post. Me: Why is it a great time to buy a house? Him: Prices went down when the bubble popped, so if you buy now you'll make out like a bandit! Me: This is Southern California right? Because prices here haven't changed at all, and in fact went UP in some places. Rent-to-price ratio is so high that people are better off renting. Him: Not true. I have the numbers right here. Me: Really? Can you post them for everyone to see? A few minutes later he sends me a private message: "Yo dude, you're hurting my business. Can you please stop?" I proceeded to unfriend the rear end in a top hat. Last time I heard, he was doing pretty well for himself selling overpriced houses to people fresh out of college. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 09:18
|
|
|
Should have said "no, I can't stop," and let him unfriend you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 09:21
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:This is perpetuated by sleazy real estate agents. I had one such "friend" on Facebook who kept posting stuff like "It's a great time to buy a house! I just a got a new list of amazing property - contact me if you're in the market!" The California numbers are really insane, something such as stable normal recovery is a few points of appreciation per year but all the population center counties are seeing double digit appreciation vs. 2012. The green highlighed numbers show the min and max median price for the time window:  So Oakland peak at 512k during the bubble Comedy comparison option: 
etalian fucked around with this message at 14:10 on Jul 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 14:01
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Insofar as they have strategy meetings to suppress evidence, hide liabilities, inflate percieved rewards, manipulate markets, create a sense of desperation to squeeze workers - your statement was non-ironically correct. OK, I apologize. I thought we were talking about the California real estate market. It turns out, we were discussing some kind of "capitalism is theft" just-world political stance or something. That's not what I came to this thread for, so I'll happily drop it. enraged_camel posted:There will always be competition for the kinds of poo poo sold at WalMart, Target, etc. It's called the Internet. If Target raises their prices, people will simply start ordering stuff from Amazon. You can buy groceries on Amazon, but not for any kind of reasonable price. Likewise 40-pound bags of dog food. There are things that Amazon does better and a large amount of overlap but there are things that local brick-and-mortar still have a large advantage over Amazon for. But I do take your meaning, and had only used this particular marketplace as an example, so feel free to pick your own example. Miss-Bomarc posted:I said "California", not "the US". You have identified a trend (corporate home purchasing is up) and then extrapolated that trend to an absurd prediction (corporate ownership of homes in California will eventually reach 65%, or 85% of "worthwhile" properties). I have argued that there are strong economic factors in the short term driving this activity but that the activity itself is self-limiting due to how it affects the marketplace (essentially, this is a form of arbitrage, and arbitrage is self-limiting). You have yet to provide any kind of actual data or reference, however. I provided numbers for the US as a whole, because thirty seconds of googling did not immediately produce numbers for California, but I put it to you that you have made the dire assertion and therefore carry the burden of substantiating it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 19:20
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:OK, I apologize. I thought we were talking about the California real estate market. It turns out, we were discussing some kind of "capitalism is theft" just-world political stance or something. That's not what I came to this thread for, so I'll happily drop it. I was pointing out that "conspiracy" is the normal operating practice of the market and that you did not seem to understand that. The ironic things is that you will delinieate the ways that this is true, but then you feel inclined to call it something like "good business" and get upset when it is called "conspiracy". You might end up feeling that both are true, but you do not get to drop the also-true label you dislike.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 19:47
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I have argued that there are strong economic factors in the short term driving this activity but that the activity itself is self-limiting due to how it affects the marketplace (essentially, this is a form of arbitrage, and arbitrage is self-limiting). quote:You have yet to provide any kind of actual data or reference, however. Do you agree or disagree with this statement: "massive inequality in property ownership with majority holdings by a small number of owners is a bad thing".
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 02:36
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:You may feel that "capitalism is theft", but the discussion you started was about "conspiracy". To be fair, Miss-Bomarc pulled some numbers out of his or her rear end, and in particular said quote:They'll be able to control price by controlling supply (people aren't willing to pay your exorbitant rents? Just take half your units off the market! I took issue with both the numbers, and with the idea that there was anything remotely approaching the monopoly that would be necessary to exercise this level of control. And in response to that same post by Miss-Bomarc, you replied: FRINGE posted:If you seize the food, the water, and the shelter, you get an entire country of voluntary slaves. I am sure no one thought of this and its all just an accident. I suggested that Leperflesh posted:I think it's possible to express concern about a trend without obliquely implying it's a sinister national conspiracy to enslave the country. So while I was the first to use the word "conspiracy", I was specifically speaking to the premise - which I still think is totally unsupported - that the various large investors pouring money into real estate are conspiring with each other to the degree necessary to manipulate the market the way Miss-Bomarc predicted. So when VideoTapir said: VideoTapir posted:It is a sinister national conspiracy to enslave the country. I think it's reasonable for me to assume that he's not taking a broad position that capitalism itself, generally, or more specifically the fundamental legal structure that creates corporations (that is, joint ownership of a limited-liability entity, combined with the corporate personhood that allows such an entity to legally sign contracts) is the "conspiracy". Rather, I understood him to be refuting my assertion that the major companies, the largest of whom (Blackstone) is reported to have a total fund of $13.3B, are or are likely to conspire with each other to illegally manipulate a market. I did not intend to start a discussion about whether capitalism, broadly, or the existence of corporations specifically, involves conspiracy. I think such a discussion is probably well outside the scope of this thread, and I have little interest in a pedantic argument about the denotative and connotative meaning of the word and how it does or does not apply to the behavior of corporate officers. I am interested in the question of whether there is any possibility of a handful of companies coming to dominate the rental market, nationally or in California. I think the numbers involved show that it is very unlikely; $13.3B is a lot of money, but its' a drop in the bucket compared to the total size of the rental market in the country (and that money is not all being spent in California, it's clearly, according to articles already cited, a more diversified series of investments). --- FRINGE posted:The ironic things is that you will delinieate the ways that this is true, but then you feel inclined to call it something like "good business" and get upset when it is called "conspiracy". You might end up feeling that both are true, but you do not get to drop the also-true label you dislike. I hope I've explained above that I am objecting to an unsupported assertion that five or six real estate investment companies are engaging in illegal anticompetetive collaboration as a conspiracy to manipulate the California real estate market, such as by taking huge numbers of properties off the market in order to drive up rentals (and moreover that such a tactic would work). I did not, however, assign any sort of moral value to the more general behavior of corporations, or of real estate investment companies; I suggested that if investors are acting to put more rental units on the market, this should ease the tight rental market, and that would be a good outcome for renters even if it is also a bad situation for noncash buyers who find it difficult to compete with all-cash offers. Moreover that as rents drop and house prices rise, this behavior ought to be self-limiting, because at some point prices are too high and rents are too low for a buyer to see a reasonable profit margin in buying a unit to rent out. Miss-Bomarc posted:Next you'll tell us about how CDOs were a good thing and the market didn't actually crash in 2008, right? Of course not. quote:So you're seriously butthurt that I picked a number out of the air? I'm not seriously butthurt about anything, but yes, I took issue with your figures. The figures I have found indicate that A) a majority of single-family homes are owned by their occupants, even in California; and B) there isn't anything remotely approaching enough money going in to the market by these investors to shift that number to those you pulled out of the air. So I again invite you to back up your assertion that this was definitely going to happen or even likely to happen. All you have to do is show that Blackstone, or anyone else, has the capability of controlling 65% of the residential California real estate in the next X years. This would require them to purchase a substantial majority of the existing non-owner-occupied units in California, and in addition at least 20% or more of the owner-occupied units in California. The reason I took issue with your post is because I don't think this sort of wild-eyed doomsaying prediction is productive or useful. I think it's misinformation. And I think that there are very real existing problems with how home ownership works in this state and in this country, big problems that need a lot of work to solve, so it's actually counterproductive to invent imaginary new ones. quote:Do you agree or disagree with this statement: "massive inequality in property ownership with majority holdings by a small number of owners is a bad thing". I do not agree with that statement (because you used the word "is", which would require that it be a fact of the present, and I don't agree that it is). But that is splitting hairs, so: I agree with this modified version: "Massive inequality in property ownership is a bad thing" (irrespective of who owns it, companies or individuals or even the State) And also this statement: "majority ownership of real estate by a small number of entities would be a bad thing" (because if that actually happened of course it'd be bad) And to more thoroughly explain my position, this statement: "A lot of people who ought to be able to buy a house cannot, for a variety of reasons many of which are due to gross mismanagement by the government of their duty to effectively regulate the real estate market, including (especially) the mortgage market; anti-competetive laws ought to be enforced to prevent any single corporate entity from exercising a monopoly in any domain, including and especially services which ordinary people cannot do without, such as food, utilities, and housing; but at present there is no significant threat that a single corporation will gain such a monopoly in the rental real estate market, except possibly in a very small number of extremely limited markets, owing to extreme conditions existing there which are unlikely to persist." So basically: there's a lot of real things we can complain about without going chicken-little about extremely unrealistic scenarios of dystopian virtual slavery by imaginary cartoonishly-evil corporate overlords. There are real-life cartoonishly-evil corporate overlords doing actual real terrible things that destroy millions of people's lives in any number of other domains for us to futilely decry on internet message boards. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 05:12 on Jul 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 05:04
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:This is perpetuated by sleazy real estate agents. I had one such "friend" on Facebook who kept posting stuff like "It's a great time to buy a house! I just a got a new list of amazing property - contact me if you're in the market!" It's a little disingenuous to say that it isn't a good time to buy, as long as you're in the right place in life to afford home ownership. I bought a home in late 2011 after having to hold out for so long as the market ballooned up. I also refinanced when interest rates were at their lowest points ever. For many people who were priced out of the bubble or who had to restart their careers and are now on stable ground, prices and rates may be still be in the range that home ownership looks attractive. For reference, I live in SoCal and I bought a home that was bank foreclosed at $884k for $400k so to say that prices haven't changed at all certainly isn't true.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 05:26
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:For many people who were priced out of the bubble or who had to restart their careers and are now on stable ground, prices and rates may be still be in the range that home ownership looks attractive. If you didn't buy in the bubble because you were priced out, that doesn't mean that it would have been a good buy if you'd had more money at the time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 06:10
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I hope I've explained above that I am objecting to an unsupported assertion that five or six real estate investment companies are engaging in illegal anticompetetive collaboration as a conspiracy to manipulate the California real estate market I'm saying it's going to happen by accident. This isn't some Bilderberg Group thing, this is just the natural result of the modern market; a combination of risk-shy banks and homeowners who couldn't afford to sell at a loss. quote:I suggested that if investors are acting to put more rental units on the market, this should ease the tight rental market And again, this isn't evil conspiracy. This is how it's supposed to work when you've got a hosed-up market. This is like saying that a heavy rock will dent your skull worse than a small one; there's not some kind of Lepton Commission that makes the big rock hurt more. quote:The reason I took issue with your post is because I don't think this sort of wild-eyed doomsaying prediction is productive or useful. I think it's misinformation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 07:07
|
|
|
Miss-Bomarc posted:I'm saying it's going to happen by accident. I don't agree, obviously, but I don't see how I can present my case more strongly than I have. quote:But why would they do that? If they're making good money at existing rental prices then why would they act to reduce those prices by a significant degree? There isn't a 1:1 relationship between placing more units on the market and reducing the price of those units. Example: if you have 100 units in a market and they are making you a 10% net profit margin, and you calculate that purchasing 100 additional units and putting them on the market will reduce your overall margin on all 200 units to 8%, that would clearly be incredibly worth it. quote:why wouldn't large rental-property firms *prefer* a sharply limited supply? For the same reason many providers of commodities don't. I mean, in some cases they do: see the 1970s oil crisis, see also DeBeers. But in most cases they only prefer this situation if they have a monopoly! Since I don't agree that a monopoly is likely, I hope you can see why I also don't think companies will deliberately withhold hundreds of units from the market just to push prices up some fractional amount. Their overall losses would dwarf the marginal gains from increasing rents by some small number. quote:I'm sure that you mean well but I'm also sure that you have *no* idea how much like 2007 you sound right now. I feel I have a good grasp on the myriad conditions that led to the 2008 pricing crash. I can detail them if you think that would be helpful. I don't think my argument about the unliklihood of a rental market monopoly forming are related to any of them. I am not arguing that another crash is impossible or even unlikely.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 08:20
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:
They don't need to have a literal monopoly...they just need to have a large supply (ideally a continual one...which a rental property company basically has; but if you know the prices can't be sustained that doesn't matter) obtained at far less than market prices. That's something you can do if you're Standard Oil, OPEC, or DeBeers; but it does not require you to be.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 10:02
|
|
|
I think the underlying truth that both sides will agree to is that there are systemic incentives that make corporate ownership of residential properties more likely and that is not a good thing for renters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 11:01
|
|
|
Blackstone and KKR, etc. have a very specific business model. They acquire distressed assets, across industry and real estate, and then 'improve' and hold on to the assets until it becomes favorable to re-sell them in the market place. Watch the video on this page for their propaganda about their current strategy in residential real estate: http://www.blackstone.com/our-businesses/aam/real-estate Notice that they see the lack of 'institutional management' across diverse properties on a national scale as a business opportunity. These companies are interesting to me. They are incredibly effective at executing their model. In 2007-2008 both had IPOs. Blackstone's timing was better with respect to the collapse. Their core competency is monetizing assets. Their IPOs represent monetization of themselves as an asset, across all industries. Personally I believe that these IPOs from the two largest, 'smartest' private equity firms, just prior to '08 signaled the height of the industrial era as such. Crazy, I know.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 17:33
|
|
|
There was an article a few weeks (months?) ago in the Wall Street Journal that basically discussed that the growth rate of the Private Equity business was declining so the big PE firms (Blackstone, KKR, TPG, Carlyle, Goldman, Apollo, etc) were rushing into the Real Estate area because they felt that the housing prices had bottomed out and they could essentially run REITs and make nice profit margins in RE while PE was stagnating.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 17:48
|
|
|
I think the point is if they've made that much progress in 5 years what do you think it will look like in another 20? Also look in terms of (homes available for SALE esp foreclosed props/hedge fund purchases) not (all homes in the universe/hedge fund purchases).
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 17:55
|
|
|
ThirdPartyView posted:There was an article a few weeks (months?) ago in the Wall Street Journal that basically discussed that the growth rate of the Private Equity business was declining so the big PE firms (Blackstone, KKR, TPG, Carlyle, Goldman, Apollo, etc) were rushing into the Real Estate area because they felt that the housing prices had bottomed out and they could essentially run REITs and make nice profit margins in RE while PE was stagnating. This might be the article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443768804578034821658901916.html WSJ posted:Blackstone Group LP BX -0.81% has become the biggest U.S. investor in single-family rental homes by spending more than $1 billion since the start of 2012 to acquire more than 6,500 foreclosed houses in eight metropolitan areas, according to people briefed by Blackstone.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 17:57
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:If you didn't buy in the bubble because you were priced out, that doesn't mean that it would have been a good buy if you'd had more money at the time. You're correct, but I never said anything about buying pre-crash. I'm specifically stating that for many people in many areas (especially SoCal), prices have fallen nearly 50% from their peak and rates are at the lowest points in history. If you want the good along with the bad of homeownership, it's a pretty good time to jump in. Either way, publicly making GBS threads on someone's business is kinda a dick move.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 18:23
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:You're correct, but I never said anything about buying pre-crash. I'm specifically stating that for many people in many areas (especially SoCal), prices have fallen nearly 50% from their peak and rates are at the lowest points in history. If you want the good along with the bad of homeownership, it's a pretty good time to jump in. So some places AREN'T part of the new bubble and none of that applies. However, if that someone was telling people in the bubble zones that now is a good time to buy, he is committing a dick move, and it is not a dick move to spare people the near-inevitable loss of following along with it. It's more of a dick move to let someone be scammed. VideoTapir fucked around with this message at 18:52 on Jul 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 18:49
|
|
|
Illuminado posted:It feels weird to read this and be in neither SF or SoCal. Except that picture of Capitol Park doesn't capture the glory that is South Sac, the old industrial district just north of downtown, Del Paso Heights, or North Highlands nm posted:Yes, Sacramento has no smog at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 10:30
|
|
edit: 
|
Which part of the state best matches the Dredd opening scene? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbcoOqGKFi8
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
etalian posted:Which part of the state best matches the Dredd opening scene? Yeah, but that's why LA is the best.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 23:19
|
|
|
Eat recycled food. It's good for the environment and okay for you! Seriously though LA has all these cool places within 30 minutes of downtown. It's just that downtown really sucks(though it's getting better!). Maybe I'm just used to it. I used to hate LA when I first moved here 6 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 00:03
|
|
|
Buckwheat Sings posted:Eat recycled food. It's good for the environment and okay for you! Well a pile of cities are taking a serious look at improving their downtown areas and also working on issues such increasing mass transit coverage. It's still really hard to get things going such as better mass transit for things such as convincing people to fund new projects since similar to Detroit LA became a pretty car focused city.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 02:52
|
|
|
etalian posted:Well a pile of cities are taking a serious look at improving their downtown areas and also working on issues such increasing mass transit coverage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 05:10
|
|
|
etalian posted:It's still really hard to get things going such as better mass transit for things such as convincing people to fund new projects since similar to Detroit LA became a pretty car focused city. Shouldn't this right here be encouragement enough to change?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 05:19
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Shouldn't this right here be encouragement enough to change? Well LA is building railed transit faster than any other city in the US so they already know.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 05:23
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:Well LA is building railed transit faster than any other city in the US so they already know. Yeah LA has a long way too go (as a native), rail lines are being built but the metro area is suffocating in traffic. A big part of it is money, but there has been a real void of leadership as well. I guess because of the house nothing can be done, but yeah it is a real problem. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 06:26 on Jul 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 06:23
|
|
|
Here's a good graph showing investors and cash buyers in the housing market right now. Home sales continue to rise while mortgage applications remain flat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 19:58
|
|
|
Looks like a slow, progressive increase in mortgage applications, but yeah, it is pretty flat. What's happening to all the people that sell their homes? Renting? If I was going to sell my house, that would almost seem to be wisdom- increasing interest rates are going to tamp down mortgage applications even more, and if cash buyers are scooping up a bunch of homes, it might superheat the market, which could lead to another bust. I think it was the Onion that said the US economy is now entirely bubble-based. In other news, Bob Filner's very bad no good month continues- an EIGHTH woman has come forward citing sexual harassment/misconduct, and his request that the city pay his legal fees was denied- instead, the city is suing him. And there's two recall petitions out for him: fortunately, in true San Diego fashion, they're quibbling about who should drop out- http://www.10news.com/news/filner-recall-leader-gives-competitor-24-hours-to-withdraw-07292013
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 20:37
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:Here's a good graph showing investors and cash buyers in the housing market right now. Home sales continue to rise while mortgage applications remain flat. I don't know if data is there, but anecdatally, many purchases in the bay area have been cash. I dunno if we can separate the institutional investors vs the mom and pop rentals from the google millionaires buying a primary residence in cash.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 22:30
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:I don't know if data is there, but anecdatally, many purchases in the bay area have been cash. I dunno if we can separate the institutional investors vs the mom and pop rentals from the google millionaires buying a primary residence in cash. I'd suspect most of those are investors, as even the new rich often will finance to spread the cost out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 23:52
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:Here's a good graph showing investors and cash buyers in the housing market right now. Home sales continue to rise while mortgage applications remain flat. This is not a good graph! This is a terrible graph. Look at what it's actually showing. The blue stuff has one scale, on the left; and the red stuff has a totally different scale, on the right. The person making the graph can select the range of that scale arbitrarily to force the data to appear related in whatever proportion he sees fit. You'll notice that neither scale begins at 0, which means the graph-maker has done precisely that! Even worse, the red stuff is based on an "index" while the blue stuff is an absolute number. The index may or may not be linearly scaled to the underlying data it represents. Effectively, this chart is a lie; possibly a deliberate one, or possibly merely the result of gross incompetence when it comes to informatics, but the outcome is the same. It purports to show that two different metrics are related (or aren't related) but it cannot actually show either of those things. All it really is, is two random charts superimposed on top of each other. You cannot draw a reasonable conclusion from such a thing. e. man statistics misuse chaps my hide. Look, there's more: one chart is for "existing home sales" while the other is for mortgages. But, mortgages can be used to buy new homes, too! So maybe the situation is even worse! On the other hand, you can open a reverse-mortgage on a property you own outright, which some older people/retirees in particular do to withdraw equity to support themselves in their final years. Are those included? Does the existing-home sales include cases where bank-owned properties get sold to an intermediary after foreclosure, which then go on to be sold again within a month or two? bad misleading chartse2. Why is one a line chart and the other a bar chart?? e3. "Annual rate"? But the bars appear to be monthly or something close to that? What, is it a annualized-rate calculated based on that month's sales, or a trailing count of the previous 12-month total, or what? Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Aug 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 00:02
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:I'd suspect most of those are investors, as even the new rich often will finance to spread the cost out. That's my guess too, but I'm just pointing out that sales not attached to a mortgage doesn't mean institutional investor. More data required.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 00:24
|
|
|
I went to the Reagan library this past Sunday. It was magical.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 15:10
|
|
|
SirPablo posted:I went to the Reagan library this past Sunday. It was magical. Don't just leave it at that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 15:14
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:Don't just leave it at that. I learned that Reagan single handedly saved the american economy by lowering taxes and getting inflation under control. Bork was not confirmed due to partisanship. Ron new nothing about selling weapons to fund terrorists. Socialism is Bad. It CAN be done. He was a proud union man. Peace through strength. It was informative at least, strolling through the old air force one was cool too. And the location was quite nice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 15:50
|
|
|
SirPablo posted:I learned that Reagan single handedly saved the american economy by lowering taxes and getting inflation under control. Bork was not confirmed due to partisanship. Ron new nothing about selling weapons to fund terrorists. Socialism is Bad. It CAN be done. He was a proud union man. Peace through strength. The Bush library is really hilarious too for the choose your adventure game that forces you to destroy Iraq.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 21:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:59 |
|
|
SirPablo posted:I learned that Reagan single handedly saved the american economy by lowering taxes and getting inflation under control. Bork was not confirmed due to partisanship. Ron new nothing about selling weapons to fund terrorists. Socialism is Bad. It CAN be done. He was a proud union man. Peace through strength. Did you urinate on his grave?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 21:45
|
|