The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 8, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United States Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: $700Billion, Bail Out draft proposal as it stands today.....
RockyMTNClimber    9/22/2008 5:49:10 PM



ht***tp://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/business/21draftcnd.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL FOR TREASURY AUTHORITY

TO PURCHASE MORTGAGE-RELATED ASSETS

Section 1. Short Title.

This Act may be cited as ____________________.

Sec. 2. Purchases of Mortgage-Related Assets.

(a) Authority to Purchase.--The Secretary is authorized to purchase, and to make and fund commitments to purchase, on such terms and conditions as determined by the Secretary, mortgage-related assets from any financial institution having its headquarters in the United States.

(b) Necessary Actions.--The Secretary is authorized to take such actions as the Secretary deems necessary to carry out the authorities in this Act, including, without limitation:

(1) appointing such employees as may be required to carry out the authorities in this Act and defining their duties;

(2) entering into contracts, including contracts for services authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, without regard to any other provision of law regarding public contracts;

(3) designating financial institutions as financial agents of the Government, and they shall perform all such reasonable duties related to this Act as financial agents of the Government as may be required of them;

(4) establishing vehicles that are authorized, subject to supervision by the Secretary, to purchase mortgage-related assets and issue obligations; and

(5) issuing such regulations and other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to define terms or carry out the authorities of this Act.

Sec. 3. Considerations.

In exercising the authorities granted in this Act, the Secretary shall take into consideration means for--

(1) providing stability or preventing disruption to the financial markets or banking system; and

(2) protecting the taxpayer.

Sec. 4. Reports to Congress.

Within three months of the first exercise of the authority granted in section 2(a), and semiannually thereafter, the Secretary shall report to the Committees on the Budget, Financial Services, and Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committees on the Budget, Finance, and Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate with respect to the authorities exercised under this Act and the considerations required by section 3.

Sec. 5. Rights; Management; Sale of Mortgage-Related Assets.

(a) Exercise of Rights.--The Secretary may, at any time, exercise any rights received in connection with mortgage-related assets purchased under this Act.

(b) Management of Mortgage-Related Assets.--The Secretary shall have authority to manage mortgage-related assets purchased under this Act, including revenues and portfolio risks therefrom.

(c) Sale of Mortgage-Related Assets.--The Secretary may, at any time, upon terms and conditions and at prices determined by the Secretary, sell, or enter into securities loans, repurchase transactions or other financial transactions in regard to, any mortgage-related asset purchased under this Act.

(d) Application of Sunset to Mortgage-Related Assets.--The authority of the Secretary to hold any mortgage-related asset purchased under this Act before the termination date in section 9, or to purchase or fund the purchase of a mortgage-related asset under a commitment entered into before the termination date in section 9, is not subject to the provisions of section 9.

Sec. 6. Maximum Amount of Authorized Purchases.

The Secretary?s authority to purchase mortgage-related assets under this Act shall be limited to $700,000,000,000 outstanding at any one time

Sec. 7. Funding.

For the purpose of the authorities granted in this Act, and for the costs of administering those authorities, the Secretary may use the proceeds of the sale of any securities issued under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, and the purposes for which securities may be issued under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, are extended to include actions authorized by this Act, including the payment of administrative expenses. Any funds expended for actions authorized by this Act, including the payment of administrative expenses, shall be deemed appropriated at the time of such expenditure.

Sec. 8. Review.

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

Sec. 9. Termination of Authority.

The authorities under this Act, with the exception of authorities granted in sections 2(b)(5), 5 and 7, shall terminate two years from the date of enactment of this Act.

Sec. 10. Increase in Statutory Limit on the Public Debt.

Subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking out the dollar limitation contained in such subsection and inserting in lieu thereof $11,315,000,000,000.

Sec. 11. Credit Reform.

The costs of purchases of mortgage-related assets made under section 2(a) of this Act shall be determined as provided under the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, as applicable.

Sec. 12. Definitions.

For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:

(1) Mortgage-Related Assets.--The term ?mortgage-related assets? means residential or commercial mortgages and any securities, obligations, or other instruments that are based on or related to such mortgages, that in each case was originated or issued on or before September 17, 2008.

(2) Secretary.--The term ?Secretary? means the Secretary of the Treasury.

(3) United States.--The term ?United States? means the States, territories, and possessions of the United States and the District of Columbia.

 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6   NEXT
eldnah       9/25/2008 10:24:49 AM

 

The President proposes - Congress disposes.<Softwar 

 

Fair enough. Congress controls the purse strings and W needs to work within that structure to achieve change. Still, W found his leadership skills aplenty to invade Iraq in 2003. While Iraq certainly had it coming (violating UN Security Council resolutions as well as the provisions of their Gulf War I surrender), they weren't going anywhere and we didn't find enough WMD's to justify what we did. In face of this he still was able to use his leadership to finish the conflict on his terms and win a second term in office to boot. Bully for him. When he believes in something he seems to be able to find a way to make something happen. His problems with FannieMae/FreddieMac simply were not important enough to spend his time on. Ultimately, this was a greater clear and present danger than Iraq and Saddam Hussein ever was.

I agree with much of what you said but in reality Bush was powerless to push through changes with the FMs because he never controlled Congress. The people and in particular the MSM, who knew better but chose to ignore Democratic obstructionism, often blamed the Republican Congress but there never was one because having a 55 to 45 majority in Senate never gave control. You need 60 votes to stop a filibuster and invoke cloture. The reason he could not pick off a few Democratic votes was that reform struck the very core of the Democratic parties base, the minorities who benefited from the regulatory largess. That is why many Democrats are demanding "Protection"  of  defaulting homeowners as part of any deal because minorities make up almost half of the defaults. Any losses the public i.e. taxpayers suffers will just be another form of income redistribution which is a tenet of the Dems beliefs which they will not voice. Hopefully enough Democrats will see the recklessness of their behavior but I doubt it because getting re-elected is more important to almost every politician than the good of the country. 


 

I stand by my analysis.

 

Check Six

 

Rocky



 
Quote    Reply

Wicked Chinchilla       9/25/2008 10:38:47 AM
The Democrats, with their very philosophy, are generally the ones pushing home ownership, assistance, help, etc.  What anyones views on that are theier views and is immaterial to the current situation at hand.  The sub-prime loans and such that had relaxed standards and were pushed through definitely had primarily Democratic assistance.  Those now bad-loans however were merely the trigger to the crisis.  Putting all the blame on the mortgage industry is analagous to equating the detonator as the part of the bomb most responsible for killing you.  Its simply part of the system. 
 
What made this crisis much bigger than trouble for mortgage companies with defaulters is what happened to these loans on the creditor side.  Sub-Prime loans were packaged together with good loans and sold as investments with a credit rating equal to a T-Bill.  Now, obviously that is a credit rating they did not deserve.  That is what has tanked the economy.  Example: A $100,000 home loan was leveraged for $1,000,000 after being packaged and sold on the market.  When that 100,000 goes in default whoever is holding the promise for 1,000,000 wants to get what they can for their investment and cashes out.  BOOM, welcome to the write down and the credit crisis. 
 
Putting all the blame on dead-beat home owners dumbs down the extent, severity, and reality of what actually occured.  This is why one cant simply push the glame towards the Democrats for pushing home loans for those less than able to generally get one (that and Bush's "ownership society.")  Deregulation allowed the problem to spread and everyone was a part of that.  That is also why I think these bailouts are complete and utter BS.  True, the loans never should have been made, but the next level of failure was when they banks holding the money deliberately hid bad-loans in packages.  It is the investment banks that were responsible for taking this hand-grenade and turning it into the MOAB, but they are the ones we are going to hand $700 Billion to. 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Softwar    Wicked Chinchilla reply   9/25/2008 10:41:00 AM
Here is some data for you to digest - I will work on a more complete listing for you.....  BTW I included references.

In Just Four Years, Obama Has Received More Money From Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Than Any Other Member Of Congress In The Past Two Decades (Since 1989) Except Senate Banking Committee Chairman Sen. Chris Dodd. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, "Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers," Center For Responsive Politics' "Capital Eye" Blog, www.opensecrets.org, 9/11/08)

In Just Four Years, Obama Has Received More Money From Lehman Brothers Than Any Other Member Of Congress In The Past Two Decades (Since 1989) Except Sen. Hillary Clinton. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, "Brothers Grim: Is Lehman Next?" Center For Responsive Politics' "Capital Eye" Blog, www.opensecrets.org, 9/12/08)

Top Executives At Lehman Brothers Are Obama Bundlers:

Ted Janulis, Head Of Mortgage Capital At Lehman Brothers Until His Retirement In September 2008, Is A Bundler For Obama's Presidential Campaign Committed To Raising $50,000 To $100,000. (Obama For America Website, www.barackobama.com, Accessed 5/19/08)

John Rhea, A Managing Director And Co-Head Of Global Consumer And Retail Investment Banking For Lehman Brothers, Is A Bundler For Obama's Presidential Campaign Committed To Raising $50,000 To $100,000. (Obama For America Website, www.barackobama.com, Accessed 5/15/08)

"[N]adja Fidelia, Who Is Also A Managing Director At Lehman Brothers, Has Raised At Least $50,000 For Mr. Obama..." (Timothy Williams, "Obama Takes His Campaign to Harlem," New York Times, 11/30/07)

Fomer Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson Remains A Bundler For Obama's Presidential Campaign And Has Committed To Raising $100,000 To $200,000. (Obama For America Website, www.barackobama.com, Accessed 5/19/08)

Former Commerce Secretary William Daley Serves As An Obama Advisor For Economic Policy. "At his stop in New Mexico, Obama sought to keep the focus almost exclusively on the economy, appearing with a panel of experts that included William Daley, brother of Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and a former U.S. commerce secretary." (John McCormick and Jill Zuckman, "Rivals Spend Day As Frequent Fliers," Chicago Tribune, 2/2/08)

Former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson Recruited Former Sec. Daley As A Lobbyist For Fannie Mae. "Fannie's government relations operations dramatically expanded in the mid-1990s, when then-CEO Johnson recruited Washington A-listers Robert Zoellick, who served in the Reagan and Bush administrations; Lawrence M. Small, former secretary of the Smithsonian Institution; and William M. Daley, commerce secretary in the Clinton administration." (Lisa Lerer, "Fannie, Freddie Spent $200M To Buy Influence," The Politico, 7/16/08)

From 2002 Through 2005, Daley Was A Registered Lobbyist For Fannie Mae. (U.S. Senate Office Of Public Records Website, soprweb.senate.gov, Accessed 7/27/08)

Before Heading Fannie Mae, Johnson Was A Registered Foreign Agent For Lehman Brothers:

In The 1980s, Johnson Worked For Shearson Lehman Brothers. "In the early 1980s Johnson had already started his own Washington consulting company, Public Strategies, with his Carter administration colleague Richard Holbrooke. And now he followed Holbrooke to Wall Street as an investment banker at Shearson Lehman Brothers." (Lloyd Grove, "The Big Chair," The Washington Post, 3/27/98)

 

 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Eldnah reply   9/25/2008 10:48:44 AM
I agree with much of what you said but in reality Bush was powerless to push through changes with the FMs because he never controlled Congress. The people and in particular the MSM, who knew better but chose to ignore Democratic obstructionism, often blamed the Republican Congress but there never was one because having a 55 to 45 majority in Senate never gave control. You need 60 votes to stop a filibuster and invoke cloture. The reason he could not pick off a few Democratic votes was that reform struck the very core of the Democratic parties base, the minorities who benefited from the regulatory largess. That is why many Democrats are demanding "Protection"  of  defaulting homeowners as part of any deal because minorities make up almost half of the defaults. Any losses the public i.e. taxpayers suffers will just be another form of income redistribution which is a tenet of the Dems beliefs which they will not voice. Hopefully enough Democrats will see the recklessness of their behavior but I doubt it because getting re-elected is more important to almost every politician than the good of the country.<Eldnah

I have already responded to most of these points in my last post and in my conversation with Softwar, whom I have great respect for and rarely disagree with. The only item I think is worth reiterating is for everyone to parse the actual legislation (quoted in total above) and tell me where private property rights are protected. Where is the executive authority checked by the legislative branch or the courts? Review this and tell me where Barry Hussein's Marxist tendencies will be curtailed? The fact that the Bush Admin had some idea this was developing and didn't make the required changes is unexcusedable. Remember W has executive authority here he can use. The reasons he didn't are political. This President has the moxie to step up last night and threaten US if we don't give him $1.5-2 Trillion right now but he didn't have the moxie to do what was needed 7 years ago, or, 6 years ago, or 5 years ago......
 
I work with Bovines all day. I know what that smell is.....
 
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Eldnah reply   9/25/2008 10:58:26 AM
Deregulation allowed the problem to spread and everyone was a part of that.<Wicked Chinchilla
 
Government interference in the free market is exactly what caused these events. Don't blame deregulation since there was none. If FannieMae/FreddieMac had used their own original underwriting standards none of this would have happened. Federal legislation mandated that they abandon prudent business practices and guaranteed to make them whole with the full faith and credit of US taxpayers if it went south.
 
Don't buy the Dereg B.S. being sold by the left. They need that to cover their corrupt fannies.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    oops, that was for W.C. not Eldnah   9/25/2008 10:59:50 AM
 
Quote    Reply

Softwar    I Agree With the Rock   9/25/2008 11:06:12 AM

The fact that the Bush Admin had some idea this was developing and didn't make the required changes is unexcusedable. Remember W has executive authority here he can use. The reasons he didn't are political. This President has the moxie to step up last night and threaten US if we don't give him $1.5-2 Trillion right now but he didn't have the moxie to do what was needed 7 years ago, or, 6 years ago, or 5 years ago......

 


It took me some time to get his gist (I am a bit hard headed)... but the point here is that while it may not be "Bush's fault" that this happened - it certainly is his fault for not taking action in a timely manner. 
 
The fiscal policy of the Bush admin. has been a sore point for me on more than one occassion - one does not have to look any farther than the China thread to see my problem with his economics.  The same goes for the big spending bills submitted year after year.
Rocky's point is simple - The Buck Stops Here.  And simply saying the problem is "above my pay grade" is not a qualification for the Oval office.
 
Quote    Reply

eldnah       9/25/2008 11:10:39 AM

I agree with much of what you said but in reality Bush was powerless to push through changes with the FMs because he never controlled Congress. The people and in particular the MSM, who knew better but chose to ignore Democratic obstructionism, often blamed the Republican Congress but there never was one because having a 55 to 45 majority in Senate never gave control. You need 60 votes to stop a filibuster and invoke cloture. The reason he could not pick off a few Democratic votes was that reform struck the very core of the Democratic parties base, the minorities who benefited from the regulatory largess. That is why many Democrats are demanding "Protection"  of  defaulting homeowners as part of any deal because minorities make up almost half of the defaults. Any losses the public i.e. taxpayers suffers will just be another form of income redistribution which is a tenet of the Dems beliefs which they will not voice. Hopefully enough Democrats will see the recklessness of their behavior but I doubt it because getting re-elected is more important to almost every politician than the good of the country.<Eldnah



I have already responded to most of these points in my last post and in my conversation with Softwar, whom I have great respect for and rarely disagree with. The only item I think is worth reiterating is for everyone to parse the actual legislation (quoted in total above) and tell me where private property rights are protected. Where is the executive authority checked by the legislative branch or the courts? Review this and tell me where Barry Hussein's Marxist tendencies will be curtailed? The fact that the Bush Admin had some idea this was developing and didn't make the required changes is unexcusedable. Remember W has executive authority here he can use. The reasons he didn't are political. This President has the moxie to step up last night and threaten US if we don't give him $1.5-2 Trillion right now but he didn't have the moxie to do what was needed 7 years ago, or, 6 years ago, or 5 years ago......

 

I work with Bovines all day. I know what that smell is.....

 

 

Check Six

 

Rocky


Help me out. What specifically could Bush have done without the passage of specific legislation by Congress? I understood executive orders were fairly well constrained in economic matters vis-a-vis national security but I am not an attorney nor have read constitutional law on this point.

 
Quote    Reply

Wicked Chinchilla       9/25/2008 11:11:49 AM
I agree, the companies shouldnt have made the loans in the first place.  However, I myself do not trust companies.  The reason why Glass-Steagal act was written was to prevent another major crash that started the Great Depression.  In quick short summary it prevented banks from being involved in investments as well as personal (not sure if this is the official word, but it gets the point across) banking. 
 
The crash on Wall Stree in the 30's spread to Main Street because the banks were in both places.  This act prevented that from occuring again.  The repeal of it in 1999 made the present crisis possible.
 
In an ideal world I would trust companies to hold to their standards.  This is not an ideal world and I am extremely cynical especially when greed is involved.  The companies could have said no to congress pushing loans on them.  They did not.  That is why I think even if the senators and representatives backing more suspicious loans were not actively pushing them this situation would have happened eventually. 
 
My view on the problem differs from yours as you place the most important factor on the loans and I place it on the investments.  Each to his own opinion, but I strongly feel that, after looking at history, we simply set ourselves up for another great crisis when we got rid of that legislation.  It was simply housing that popped first. 
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber       9/25/2008 11:34:50 AM
Help me out. What specifically could Bush have done without the passage of specific legislation by Congress? I understood executive orders were fairly well constrained in economic matters vis-a-vis national security but I am not an attorney nor have read constitutional law on this point.<Eldnah

As I said above, I have already discussed these points more than once on my earlier posts and if I can't compel you to see my view so be it. The best way to state the case without opening it all up again is simply this: when he truly believed in a cause W was able to influence the US public, the US Congress, and usually, even the MSM that his view was the right thing to do for the right reasons. This simply was never a priority and ultimately we are paying the price for his accepting failure.
 
Or maybe you could tell Softwar why the buck shouldn't stop on the President's desk.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Glass Steagell   9/25/2008 11:56:59 AM
The repeal of it in 1999 made the present crisis possible.<W.C.
 
No Glass-Steagell's repeal had exactly nothing to do with today's crisis. Today's crisis is the result of legislative mandates by corrupt Congressmen getting low interest no qual loans and bags of cash from a Federal agency (yes I said a Federal Agency, FreddieMac and FannieMae are not private entities as has been clearly demonstrated) who authorized FreddieMac and FannieMae to issue loans under known adverse conditions. The ultimate failure of those practices was made certain by a financial market who also looked the other way and practiced unethical deals with a wink and a nod from their regulators who were bound and determine to let the good times roll and an Excecutive branch who was either a corrupt participant in the scheme (Clintons) or used it as a financial cover for international adventurism (Bush). Even Robert Ruben, Clinton's Treasury Secretary, has stated that repealing Glass Steagell is not the problem! Good old fashioned graft is the problem!
 
Keep it simple. Blame the Washington ruling Class and question any solution that increases Government's authority.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

Softwar    One way without Congress   9/25/2008 12:02:46 PM
One way Bush could have acted was to use his EXECUTIVE ORDERS powers.   The same kinb of powers used by Clinton which started some of this mess....  From today's IBD:
"the problem was that Congress was about to change hands, from the Democrats to the Republicans. Rather than submit legislation that the GOP-led Congress was almost sure to reject, Clinton ordered Robert Rubin's Treasury Department to rewrite the rules in 1995.

      The rewrite, as City Journal noted back in 2000, "made getting a satisfactory CRA rating harder." Banks were given strict new numerical quotas and measures for the level of "diversity" in their loan portfolios. Getting a good CRA rating was key for a bank that wanted to expand or merge with another.

      Loans started being made on the basis of race, and often little else.

      "Bank examiners would use federal home-loan data, broken down by neighborhood, income group and race, to rate banks on performance," wrote Howard Husock, a scholar at the Manhattan Institute.

      But those rules weren't enough.

      Clinton got the Department of Housing and Urban Development to double-team the issue. That would later prove disastrous.

      Clinton's HUD secretary, Andrew Cuomo, "made a series of decisions between 1997 and 2001 that gave birth to the country's current crisis," the liberal Village Voice noted. Among those decisions were changes that let Fannie and Freddie get into subprime loan markets in a big way.

      Other rule changes gave Fannie and Freddie extraordinary leverage, allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments, vs. 10% for banks.

      Since they could borrow at lower rates than banks due to implicit government guarantees for their debt, the government-sponsored enterprises boomed."

 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Bill Clinton agrees with Rocky....   9/25/2008 12:35:19 PM
Going very much against the media meme that the current financial crisis is all George W. Bush and the Republicans' fault, Bill Clinton on Thursday told ABC's Chris Cuomo that Democrats for years have been "resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" (video available here, relevant section at 2:45).
 
Quote    Reply

Wicked Chinchilla       9/25/2008 12:55:44 PM
You guys are not hearing my argument, well, not all of it.
 
I am NOT blaming the Republicans.  I am blaming everyone. 
 
If it was bad loans that were just the problem Fanny, Freddy, and what was Countrywide, would have been the only ones screwed.  Because these were packaged, sold, and leveraged all to hell via investment vehicles on Wall Street, ALL of us are now at risk.  Stage one was important in this crisis, but stage two is what kicked it into high gear. 
 
Yes, everything would have been prevented had bad loans not taken place.  They however did because of pressure, because of lack of regulation, and then the banks got carried away.  I realize that you CAN stop the problem at stage one.  What I feel is not being realized is that it COULD have stayed at stage one with that safeguard of Glass-Steagal.  A system with no safeguards will have problems and breakdowns.  This crisis IS one of those.  The blame belongs on everybody.  From the idiots who couldnt afford their houses to the Investment Banker peddling and leveraging garbage.  One cannot simply ignore half of the problem. 
 
 In my mind the actor most resonsible for this is the one with full knowledge of their actions, which are the investment banks.  That however, is going to be a matter of opinion forever as who is "most to blame" is a subjective thing.
 
 We can play what if games about "if the Dems didnt do this!" or, "if the banks didnt do that!" but what happened is EVERYONE screwed up.  Thus, we need to respond to each failure in the system or else they will happen again. 
 
However, from reading the things prior to this I see I disagree from the two of you on the fundamentals of the problem.  This is not one parties failure, this is a governmental and systematic failure as a whole. 
 
Quote    Reply

eldnah       9/25/2008 1:00:51 PM
I think the crux of the problem with Bush's responsibility has to do with Executive Orders. Whether by tradition or legal constraints previous executive orders are usually not overridden. To be simplistic, when a new President comes in office he doesn't say "All those last minute executive orders my predecessor from the other party wrote are BS. Cancel them immediately!" Nor does he simply write a specific order reversing many. The courts have refused to take up challenges to purely adminstrative EOs regarding the running of the executive departments. Even on more substantative (legislativish) issues the courts have been reluctant to intervene. I'm having dinner this weekend with two of my favorite lawyers ;) (daughters) and I'll try to get myself a better understanding of the constraints on executive orders overturning executive orders, if there are any. As far as using the bully pulpit to convince enough Democratic Senators to vote against their base without a disaster slapping them in the face, I just can't see it happening.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy