The Housing Bubble

Was the young couple a part of the co-exist sjw culture?

If so, hard lesson learned.

+1

“make them wear rainbow flag tshirts to receive their SSD checks”

Thanks, phony! That’s why I like you. Even though we have our occasional disagreements, you still champion some of my better ideas. There’s a big heart beneath all your devilry.

I’m happy for you guys and girls Oddie.

Black on black is swept under the rug.

It’s worse than that. It’s simply ignored. The entire system, especially our penal systems, reinforces that black lives don’t matter.

I agree with you too. It is the core of every issue. The progress on race that has been made was due to declining crime rates. I do not like Obama but no black president could have been elected but for the declining crime rate, if the crime rate increases racial tensions will rise.

No, the greatest progress on race was back in ’60s. The big decline in crime was in the ’90s.

The surging crime rate of the 60s and 70s led to white flight from the cities and ended support for the great society, white liberals were voted out of office. If the Democrats are not very careful on how prisoners are released to avoid a surge in crime it will happen again.

You can’t fix the crime problem first, you need incomes and wealth to wash it away. When people don’t have two nickels to rub together, they resort to crime to live. If it’s between starvation or armed robbery, you get armed robbery. The anger displayed during such viciousness is the side effect of feeling left behind, with a sub-par education and upbringing.

You can’t fix the crime problem first, you need incomes and wealth to wash it away.

Really? Crime plunged during W’s presidency are you saying that he had a great economy for blacks?

Crime waves are usually demographic. Too many young men in their teens and twenties. In the good old days we solved it with a war.

Crime waves have usually been inverse to the percentage of our population that we are willing to incarcerate.

The surging crime rate of the 60s and 70s led to white flight from the cities and ended support for the great society

That’s not true. The biggest Great Society program was Medicare which is probably the most popular institution in American life.

“When people don’t have two nickels to rub together, they resort to crime to live.”

This is not always the case. For instance, I had a black college roommate. We took a road trip one summer to his home community in Georgia, and I stayed a couple of nights at the home where he grew up. It was the first time in my life where I was the only white guy in an all black community, a very fascinating experience! They were very poor, but if crime was a problem, it was not in evidence. It seemed everyone knew each other and strong, mutually supportive social ties were evident.

This was a stark contrast to the black ghetto areas in nothern cities which I knew from my upbringing: crime was rampant, social isolation was the norm, and everyone of any race who could afford to leave, did so.

Nancy Reagan’s War on Drugs incarcerated minorities to disproportionately lengthy sentences and three strikes laws.

Of course it’s not always the case, and there’s always going to be crime, not matter what is done. However, it has been borne out that crime is substantially higher when people are poor. Everybody benefits when most people have means. Alas, the greedy won’t allow it. “Let them eat cake” comes to mind…

But back to ADan and my point, it’s hard to fix poor when criminals have run all legitimate businesses out of town.

“The anger displayed during such viciousness is the side effect of feeling left behind, with a sub-par education and upbringing.”

Crime is also very bad for educational opportunity. The high school in the Midwest from which I graduated several decades ago, and where more recently Michael Brown spent his sophomore year of high school, has gone so far downhill that it lost its accreditation. Crime drove away the honest businesses and citizens who provided the tax base that supported the school district.

You know that something similar occurred hundreds of years ago, if you could read from the bible you were given a shorter sentence.

From Wikipedia:

At first, in order to plead the benefit of clergy, one had to appear before the court tonsured and otherwise wearing ecclesiastical dress. Over time, this proof of clergy-hood was replaced by a literacy test: defendants demonstrated their clerical status by reading from the Bible. This opened the door to literate lay defendants also claiming the benefit of clergy. In 1351, under Edward III, this loophole was formalised in statute, and the benefit of clergy was officially extended to all who could read.[1] For example, the English dramatist Ben Jonson avoided hanging by pleading benefit of clergy in 1598 when charged with manslaughter.

Unofficially, the loophole was even larger, because the Biblical passage traditionally used for the literacy test was inevitably and appropriately Psalm 51 (Psalm 50 according to the Vulgate and Septuagint numbering), Miserere mei, Deus, secundum misericordiam tuam (”O God, have mercy upon me, according to thine heartfelt mercifulness”). Thus, an illiterate person who had memorized the appropriate Psalm could also claim the benefit of clergy, and Psalm 51 became known as the “neck verse” because knowing it could save one’s neck by transferring one’s case from a secular court, where hanging was a likely sentence, to an ecclesiastical court, where both the methods of trial and the sentences given were more lenient.[1] If the defendant who claimed benefit of clergy was thought to be particularly deserving of death, courts occasionally would ask him to read a different passage from the Bible; if, like most defendants, he was illiterate and simply had memorized Psalm 51, he would be unable to establish the defence and would be put to death.

The base of what? The Liberal party?

I’m not in a plane, I am standing here right now

http://www.picpaste.com/IMG_20150719_073926.jpg

Region VIII

No 14′ers in Ohio, huh?

The entire stay of Colorado is Oil City isn’t it?

“…I am standing here right now”

I just bumped into your squeeze downtown… offered to buy her a margarita, but she insisted on a back rub; said her back was killing her.

http://picpaste.com/goon_babe.jpg

While beautiful, the high mountain elevations are not for me

Your body adapts over time by producing more red blood cells.

That’s interesting. I wonder about the red blood cell counts of Sherpas vs other Nepalese from hills or plains.

I spend most of my time above 7000 feet and do not have any problems even though I grew up around sea level.

That’s why older folks leave higher elevation geographies. Higher elevations are destructive physiologically on older people.

Some people have evolved to do well at high elevations; some can adapt; and some never will. Personally, I do fine at higher elevations, but I can’t stand to be underwater at all (and that’s not a pun). Before you move to any high-elevation place, make sure to visit for a coupe weeks and see if you can go for a walk without getting sick.

‘Land is essentially worthless.’

No way. They are not making any more of this:

http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/13405-County-Road-261-Nathrop-CO-81236/2102357707_zpid/

Dried out scrub land. Less than worthless.

“they will have to shit it down.”

LOLZ! Freudian slip alert.

No, the GOP would shut down welfare and SS before they’d ever shut down a database like that. Too tempting. But it’s just JMO.

Another useless and expensive IT/Social media project designed to enrich few in America and many Indian tech workers.

No, the GOP would shut down welfare and SS before they’d ever shut down a database like that. Too tempting. But it’s just JMO.

Agree 100%. GOP is useless dormat party.

‘GOP is useless dormat party’

Yeah, they probably will just have a coronation for the establishment candidate, unlike the other party.

I guess I’m old fashioned in that I expect checks and balances. Politics should be a competition of the universe of ideas.

‘Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump slammed Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a decorated Vietnam War veteran, on Saturday by saying McCain was not a war hero because he was captured by the North Vietnamese.’

“He’s not a war hero,” Trump said. Sarcastically, Trump quipped, “He’s a war hero because he was captured.” Then, he added, “I like people that weren’t captured.”

‘Trump added, “I was not a big fan of the Vietnam War. I wasn’t a protester, but the Vietnam War was a disaster for our country. What did we get out of the Vietnam War other than death? We got nothing.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/07/18/trump-slams-mccain-for-being-captured-in-vietnam/

It’s a valid question. What do “we get” from all these wars anymore? We spend a lot, we borrow a lot, we have people shooting up stuff, killing themselves. But what did we “get?”

I guess I’m old fashioned in that I expect checks and balances. Politics should be a competition of the universe of ideas.

Testify, Brother Ben!

“I like people that weren’t captured.”

Another ignorant statement out of an inveterate ignoramus…

It’s a valid question. What do “we get” from all these wars anymore?

Excellent point. In historical times wars paid dividends in the acquisition of square miles of real estate and resources. In today’s world, the correct geopolitical strategy is to avoid war because it consumes too much resources and capital. Russia’s quasi-invasion of Ukraine is a smart war because the payoff in real estate outweighs the relatively low cost. The US wars in the middle east are definitely losing propositions with no payoff whatsoever.

‘wars paid dividends in the acquisition of square miles of real estate and resources’

It worked out so great for the Greeks, Romans, Spanish, Portuguese, Germans, Japanese, Ottomans, British, French. Did I leave any out?

I guess you’ll be voting for Ben Carson then?

‘CARSON: I think it is a strong likelihood, the reason being, in order for them to develop their caliphate, they need land, and if we really want to break their backs, we take the land.’

Romans?

Their empire lasted for more than a 1000 years. The problem was they ran out of places to plunder. I am not advocating we go into places and steal their resources but it actually does work and that is why it has occurred so often.

‘it actually does work’

No, it doesn’t. It bankrupts the invaders. Every, single, time.

Really, how did Rome become so rich? Did the citizens become rich on Internet stocks?

‘they ran out of places to plunder’

You really are smarter than the Chinese government.

‘[Celts defeat the Romans.] “The Allia, c. 387 BC: A hastily assembled citizen army led by military tribunes is defeated by the Gallic Senones just 11 miles north of Rome. Not only is the army scattered with heavy losses, but the city is subsequently devastated by the victorious Celts, thus casting a shadow over Romano-Gallic relations for the next 400 years.” -KL47 “Because of the centuries long effect it had on the Roman psyche.”

‘[Samnites humiliate the Romans.] “The Caudine Forks, 321 B.C.: The consuls T. Veturius Calvinus and Sp. Postumius obligingly march their army into a trap laid by the Samnites and are forced to surrender and ‘pass under the yoke’. A relatively bloodless affair, but by far the most humiliating event in the entire history of the Republic. Definitely Rome’s Spinal Tap moment.”

“Cannae, 216 BC: Consuls C. Terentius Varro and L. Aemilius Paullus are defeated by Hannibal’s numerically inferior army…. Polybius claims 70,000 dead and 10,000 captured, though Livy, Appian and Plutarch report “only” 50,000 dead.”

‘In raw numbers, this has to be the worst military defeat Rome ever suffered. In addition, it forced Rome to completely rethink every aspect of it’s military…. Without Cannae, there would never have been the Legions of the Empire.”

“Arausio, 105 BC: The armies of consul Cn. Mallius Maximus and proconsul Q. Servilius Caepio are defeated by the Cimbri and Teutones on the Rhône. Some sources report even higher casualties than at Cannae: Livy cites the claim by the annalist Valerius Antias that 80,000 soldiers and 40,000 servants and camp followers were killed, though this is probably an exaggeration. The most important result is the rise to power of C. Marius and his reform of the legions into a professional army.”

“Battle of Carrhae (53 B.C.). With the death of Crassus, a final confrontation between Caesar and Pompey became inevitable. It wasn’t the crossing of the Rubicon that was the death knell of the Republic, but the death of Crassus at Carrhae.”

“Teutoburg Forest, AD 9: Three legions under P. Quinctilius Varus, governor of Germania, and their civilian hangers-on are ambushed and virtually wiped out by the supposedly friendly Cherusci led by Arminius. Total Roman losses are probably well under 20,000, but the disaster means that the frontier coalesces on the Rhine rather than the Elbe as planned.” -KL47 “This defeat marked the end of any hope of expansion across the Rhine. More than that, it marked a change in Imperial policy.”

[Goths shouldn't have, but did defeat an emperor.] Adrianople (Hadrianopolis) This is my pick, although Teutoberg would be my strong second choice. On August 9, A.D. 378, Valens was killed and his army lost to an army of Goths led by Fritigern, whom Valens had given permission only two years earlier to settle in Roman territory. Two-thirds of the Eastern army were killed. Ammianus Marcellinus called it “the beginning of evils for the Roman empire then and thereafter.”

“Alaric’s Sack of Rome (August 24th, 410 A.D.). What can you say? This, more than any other moment, marks the end of the Western Roman Empire.”

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/defeats/tp/Romandefeats.htm

This is just the top ten.

…and what ended up happening to Rome?

Oh, the Soviets. I knew I had forgotten some.

No, it doesn’t. It bankrupts the invaders. Every, single, time.

US vs. Mexico: US got Calif., Texas, the southwest
US threat of war vs. Britain: US got Oregon, Washington (54 40 or fight)
US war against native states: US settled the midwest
Russian Cossacks vs. Siberian Khan: Russia certainly gained significant resources when they took Siberia

Sometimes expansionary wars do pay off. But in times past it was easier to conquer vast lands with low population densities. Today it’s almost impossible to conquer densely populated areas because of underground resistance.

“I like people that weren’t captured.”

That was pretty gaffetastic, yes. A bungled statement of the real issue, which is was McCain a war “hero” or a collaborator?

There are many ways to hit McCain where he lives. That was weak and dumb.

‘[Celts defeat the Romans.] “The Allia, c. 387 BC: A hastily assembled citizen army led by military tribunes is defeated by the Gallic Senones just 11 miles north of Rome. Not only is the army scattered with heavy losses, but the city is subsequently devastated by the victorious Celts, thus casting a shadow over Romano-Gallic relations for the next 400 years.” -KL47 “Because of the centuries long effect it had on the Roman psyche.”

Excuse me Ben but that occurred when Rome was a democracy not an empire. Rome became rich looting other civilizations, the trouble occurred when it had to protect its borders against poor barbarians. Having gone to Catholic school I had to read Roman history in Latin, you are going to cause PTSD.

P.S. the Roman democracy lasted about 200 years the Roman empire about 1000 years, it is doubtful that our democracy will last 300 years. What does not work is being the unpaid policeman of the world which is what we are trying to do today and have been doing since WWII.

‘US vs. Mexico: US got Calif., Texas, the southwest’

Texas liberated itself from Mexico, (which had liberated itself, etc) and joined the US. Mexico didn’t have much in California except cowboys and a few priests. I think they just signed it over. It’s arguable that we have been paying a price for the poorest state in the union ever since.

Anyway, what does it matter anymore? When the US goes in now, we get our asses kicked by goat-herders and it’s a black hole for our money for decades.

Today it’s almost impossible to conquer densely populated areas because of underground resistance.

The Mongols had an easy answer for that, they just killed everyone.

“P.S. the Roman democracy lasted about 200 years the Roman empire about 1000 years”

P.S. Wrong! Both lasted about 500 years.

Actually, it depends, if you count the eastern empire it was far longer that 1000 years and the 500 years you are counting as democracy include large stretches of time when the Roman Senate was nothing more than a rubber stamp either generals or emperors.

I am only including the early Roman Republic as a true democracy:

http://www.britannica.com/place/Roman-Republic

http://relevantamerica.blogspot.com/2007/06/how-long-will-democracy-last.html

Of course you would have your own dates for the Roman Republic and Empire, just as you have your own data for global warming.

Are they both from the University of Alabama at Huntsville? Outlier U. ?

I have given you the links, anyone on this board can read them. If you think that times when Rome was ruled by generals should be considered a democracy since the Republic had not been formally abolished, that is fine but I do not. The Eastern Roman Empire lasted for a thousand years after Rome fell so clearly empires are more stable than democracies, not less. I think that only the early republic comes close to being what we would consider a democracy and that would be slightly over 200 years. But if you like form over substance, you can argue for 500 years.

“The Mongols had an easy answer for that, they just killed everyone.”

This is why we fail. We prance around, fling ordinance in the general direction of the enemy, declare victory and go home after killing a few thousand. There were weeks in WWII where more people died than in all the wars we’ve been in since.

War is about killing people. The more you kill, the better you are at it.

‘War is about killing people.’

It’s not and failing to understand how conflicts have evolved is a big part of the problem:

‘Fourth-generation warfare (4GW) is conflict characterized by a blurring of the lines between war and politics, combatants and civilians. The term was first used in 1989 by a team of American analysts, including William S. Lind,[citation needed] to describe warfare’s return to a decentralized form. In terms of generational modern warfare, the fourth generation signifies the nation states’ loss of their near-monopoly on combat forces, returning to modes of conflict common in pre-modern times.’

‘The simplest definition includes any war in which one of the major participants is not a state but rather a violent non-state actor.’

‘The use of fourth-generation warfare can be traced to the Cold War period, as superpowers and major powers attempted to retain their grip on colonies and captured territories. Unable to withstand direct combat against bombers, tanks, and machine guns, non-state entities used tactics of education/propaganda, movement-building, secrecy, terror, and/or confusion to overcome the technological gap.’

‘Fourth-generation warfare has often involved an insurgent group or other violent non-state actor trying to implement their own government or reestablish an old government over the current ruling power. However, a non-state entity tends to be more successful when it does not attempt, at least in the short term, to impose its own rule, but tries simply to disorganize and delegitimize the state in which the warfare takes place. The aim is to force the state adversary to expend manpower and money in an attempt to establish order, ideally in such a highhanded way that it merely increases disorder, until the state surrenders or withdraws.’

‘Fourth-generation warfare is often seen in conflicts involving failed states and civil wars, particularly in conflicts involving non-state actors, intractable ethnic or religious issues, or gross conventional military disparities.’

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth-generation_warfare

This wiki is incorrect. The originator of the concept (he was simply describing what had and was happening) is Boyd:

‘Osinga, Frans (2007). Science, Strategy and War: The Strategic Theory of John Boyd. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-37103-1. Aims to provide a better understanding of Boyd’s ideas concerning conflict and military strategy. Contains a full description and explanation of all of his presentations. Takes reader beyond rapid OODA loop idea and demonstrates direct influence on development of Network Centric Warfare and Fourth Generation Warfare. Argues Boyd is first postmodern strategist.’

‘Boyd was later assigned to the USAF Weapons School, where he became head of the Academic Section and wrote the tactics manual for the school.[4] He was dubbed “Forty Second Boyd” for his standing bet as an instructor pilot that beginning from a position of disadvantage, he could defeat any opposing pilot in air combat maneuvering in less than 40 seconds; Boyd was brought to the Pentagon by Major General Arthur C. Agan, Jr. to do mathematical analysis that would support the McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle program in order to pass the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s Systems Analysis process.[5] According to his biographer, Robert Coram, Boyd was also known at different points of his career as “The Mad Major” for the intensity of his passions, as “Genghis John” for his confrontational style of interpersonal discussion, and as the “Ghetto Colonel” for his spartan lifestyle.[6]‘

‘Boyd is credited for largely developing the strategy for the invasion of Iraq in the Gulf War of 1991. In 1981, Boyd had presented his briefing, Patterns of Conflict, to Dick Cheney, then a member of the United States House of Representatives.[11] By 1990, Boyd had moved to Florida because of declining health, but Cheney (then the Secretary of Defense in the George H. W. Bush administration) called him back to work on the plans for Operation Desert Storm.[12][13] Boyd had substantial influence on the ultimate “left hook” design of the plan.[14]‘

‘In a letter to the editor of Inside the Pentagon, former Commandant of the Marine Corps General Charles C. Krulak is quoted as saying “The Iraqi army collapsed morally and intellectually under the onslaught of American and Coalition forces. John Boyd was an architect of that victory as surely as if he’d commanded a fighter wing or a maneuver division in the desert.”[15]‘

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Boyd_%28military_strategist%29

This guy had a remarkable life.

And they’re already up to their eyeballs in debt.

How do you say “Stanley Johnson” in Manadarin?

How do you say “Stanley Johnson” in Manadarin?

Sum Ting Wong?

Kind of hard to do that when they earn a pittance

They have almost as many people earning what we would consider a middle class wage as we do. Now with a population four times our population that still means they have far more people earning a pittance but China has created a U.S. within its borders within the last ten years and with wages growing at 8% per year they will soon have far more middle class consumers.

They starved under communism in 50s and 60s, they are eating today with increasing amounts of meat. They have actually began to get much taller.

‘They have actually began to get much taller’

Are you doubting it?

http://www.fao.org/docrep/U5900t/u5900t0a.htm

http://www.scmp.com/news/article/1830464/better-nutrition-has-made-chinese-taller-and-fatter

“Science living large”

Yes, those darn scientists with their beachside mansions and Ferraris.

“Mann is typical of pro-warming scientists who have taken millions from government agencies.”

Global Warming: Follow the Money

by Henry Payne February 25, 2015 4:00 AM

Indeed, experts in the research community say that it is much more difficult for some of the top climate scientists — Soon, Roger Pielke Jr., the CATO Institute’s Patrick Michaels, MIT’s now-retired Richard Lindzen — to get funding for their work because they do not embrace the global-warming fearmongering favored by the government-funded climate establishment.

“Soon’s integrity in the scientific community shines out,” says Ebell. “He has foregone his own career advancement to advance scientific truth. If he had only mouthed establishment platitudes, he could’ve been named to head a big university [research center] like Michael Mann.”

Mann is the controversial director of Pennsylvania State’s Earth System Science Center. He was at the center of the 2009 Climategate scandal, in which e-mails were uncovered from climatologists discussing how to skew scientific evidence and blackball experts who don’t agree with them.

Mann is typical of pro-warming scientists who have taken millions from government agencies. The federal government — which will gain unprecedented regulatory power if climate legislation is passed — has funded scientific research to the tune of $32.5 billion since 1989, according the Science and Public Policy Institute. That is an amount that dwarfs research contributions from oil companies and utilities, which have historically funded both sides of the debate.

Mann, for example, has received some $6 million, mostly in government grants — according to a study by The American Spectator — including $500,000 in federal stimulus money while he was under investigation for his Climategate e-mails.

Despite claims that they are watchdogs of the establishment, media outlets such as the Times have ignored the government’s oversized role in directing research. And they have ignored millions in contributions from left-wing foundations — contributions that, like government grants, seek to tip the scales to one side of the debate.

Last summer, a minority staff report from the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works gave details on a “Billionaire’s Club” — a shadowy network of charitable foundations that distribute billions to advance climate alarmism. Shadowy nonprofits such as the Energy Foundation and Tides Foundation distributed billions to far-left green groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, which in turn send staff to the EPA who then direct federal grants back to the same green groups. It is incestuous. It is opaque. Major media ignored the report.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414359/global-warming-follow-money-henry-payne

Who is bribing the scientists of the world?

weak

Your inability to answer such a fundamental question is indeed weak.

Norway, Switzerland, Denmark, Canada, Germany, Sweden, Netherlands…

What is their average IQ?

“What is their average IQ?”

In the 98, 99, 100 range. Same as the US, and Germany.

Socialism has the best results where you have a population that does not use the safety net often due to the population having relatively high IQ and they are all of the same race, doesn’t work anywhere else. Everyone of those countries is now having major problems with immigration due to the immigrants not being of the same race and not having as high of an IQ.

Norway, Switzerland, Denmark, Canada, Germany, Sweden, Netherlands… What is their average IQ?

I’m not following your logic on IQ? An educated country with an IQ of 100 is far more productive than an uneducated country that also has an IQ of 100.

“I’m not following your logic on IQ?”

His logic fails on the IQ point, because the US has the same IQ as several successful socialist states. So he throws in the ‘have to all be the same race’ thing to blow some smoke.

Canada is quite diverse. There are black Canadians, Asians, etc. More importantly, none of the countries on the list have a socialist economy.

Canada is about 3% black.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada

That’s true. That same Wikipedia page shows that its 19% non-white. So they’re nowhere near being all of the same race.

Asians and whites have virtually the same IQ, it is a disparate IQ that is the problem.

You wrote above that the problem was different races, not you say it’s disparate IQ. What’s disparate IQ? There’s a problem if a country’s population is composed of different races whose average scores on IQ tests is not the same for each race? Where do you come up with this nonsense?

As a Californian I’m glad my state is Blue.

California’s blue voters should be barred by law from infesting Red states. They should be forced to live in the corrupt dystopias they created with their votes for collectivism and stealing from the productive to sustain an ever-growing base of votes-for-entitlements parasites.

LOL

The base is so cooky, even the good doctors have no choice but to lie.

out of adult diapers again?

You’re out of excuses.

Yeah, I noticed that. The commodity is increasing. Commodities are like that. They’re volatile. Alls I’m saying is that maybe ppl should consider buying sugar in the near future, or at least follow it.

is it really more demand or a weaker currency?

azdude:

I think that’s a false dichotomy. The price of beef went rapidly down not long ago. Commodities are volatile. The US dollar is not getting weaker in comparison to other currencies.

SUGAR, on the other hand, is a different story. Retail prices are up, but the commodity price is waaaaaaaaayyyyy down.

It’s not like we are running out of sugar!

Poor donk.

Donkey Rage, how sad.

I thought the Eddie Money Shakin’ youtube video fit pretty well

She was shakin’
(Oh-oh-oh-oh-oh)
Snappin’ her fingers
(Oh-oh-oh-oh)
She was movin’ round and round
(Oh-oh-oh-oh-oh)
That girl was shakin’
(Oh-oh-oh-oh)

Read more: Eddie Money - Shakin’ Lyrics | MetroLyrics