ADVERTISEMENT

Marco Rubio's "Luxury Speed Boat".

Headhunter

MegaPoke is insane
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
20,315
13,197
113
Stillwater, OK
Wow! The NYT really nailed him.

CHFDOjPWcAArwOW.jpg


What a joke the NYT has become. He's had four traffic tickets in 17 years and bought a fishing boat. SHAMEFUL!
 
Last edited:
Liberals write the best jokes. The GOP is nothing but old white rich people they say. I guess the Clintons are Republicans.
 
wonder how much ink they gave to the French looking Kerry docking his boat in RI vs MA? Probably not much....Hopefully the rag that is the NYT will die a swift, expensive and celebrated death soon.
 
Comparing boats for Rubio and Kerry is stupid. Kerry married into money and Rubio has had to work hard his whole life. Who knows if Rubio is bad with money or not. At the end of the day, Rubio won't be able to push us in debt on his own; that's already been done by congress for a very long time.
 
Comparing boats for Rubio and Kerry is stupid. Kerry married into money and Rubio has had to work hard his whole life. Who knows if Rubio is bad with money or not. At the end of the day, Rubio won't be able to push us in debt on his own; that's already been done by congress for a very long time.

I would agree except for the complete disregard of facts by the NYT, clearly designed as a smear to plant misinformation in the brains of the liberal low information voters. Rubio scares the libs because he actually represents everything they falsely claim to represent. They want him out early because he is more similar to regular people than any of the overtly wealthy slimebags the Dems have on deck.

Truth be damned. Have to create the narrative with lies because the truth doesn't bode well for them. Rubio isn't the white rich old guy the Dems claim is the only demographic of Republicans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JonnyVito
Valid point. However, both sides create a Straw Man. Unfortunately, the media is all about getting your attention & clicks and very little to do with truth or discussion. I just don't believe our political issues are so freaking black & white, but politicians and media paint it that way black or white, win or lose. It's much more complicated than that, but complicated takes work and cooperation.
 
I think that article will do more for Cruz than $10,000,000 of advertising in a republican primary. Sounds to me like he has perfect republican values ---- he blows off the basics like his family's retirement fund and house payments to piss away $80k on a boat. Meanwhile, he'll lecture the adoring republican crowds with great sincerity about fiscal responsibility. Should take him far in a republican primary. That $80,000 boat is the perfect microcosm for republican hypocrisy, ineptitude and irresponsible spending. Is he beating Jeb yet?

Is that all the boat you get for $80k? I'm no skipper, but it doesn't even look like he got much for his $80k. He's probably claimed by now he used it to smuggle freedom grenades to revolutionaries fighting ISIS and doubled his polling lead. Head's probably on craigslist pricing used yachts already.
 
The New York Times has probably -- inadvertently -- just raised the specter of Clinton Greed-Wealth-Opulence-Crime-Scandal-Etc. that already makes folks uneasy about putting them back in the White House.

This chit is rich, and one almost hopes they keep it up.
 
The New York Times has probably -- inadvertently -- just raised the specter of Clinton Greed-Wealth-Opulence-Crime-Scandal-Etc. that already makes folks uneasy about putting them back in the White House.

This chit is rich, and one almost hopes they keep it up.

You're correct in theory; in reality, the liberal whores will do anything to get Billary elected. The disconnect regarding left/right reporting should be laughable, but it's sickening. Sadly, most of the "Great Unwashed" (credit Blackie Sherrod) are too f'king stoo'pid and will drink the koolaid in their punchbowl and eat the leftover turd at the bottom.
 
I hear you. However, Hillary is no Obama, a community organizer who got elected basically because he is a man of color.

Hillary is just a blown out old doormat who has had the hell used out of her first by Bill and then by Obama.
It's going to be tough to elect eye bags, cankles and pasty white thighs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Medic007
I think that article will do more for Cruz than $10,000,000 of advertising in a republican primary. Sounds to me like he has perfect republican values ---- he blows off the basics like his family's retirement fund and house payments to piss away $80k on a boat. Meanwhile, he'll lecture the adoring republican crowds with great sincerity about fiscal responsibility. Should take him far in a republican primary. That $80,000 boat is the perfect microcosm for republican hypocrisy, ineptitude and irresponsible spending. Is he beating Jeb yet?

Is that all the boat you get for $80k? I'm no skipper, but it doesn't even look like he got much for his $80k. He's probably claimed by now he used it to smuggle freedom grenades to revolutionaries fighting ISIS and doubled his polling lead. Head's probably on craigslist pricing used yachts already.

One of the most idiotic posts I've ever read, even by liberal standards. If a mere $80,000 is the perfect microcosm for republican hypocrisy, ineptitude and irresponsible spending, what do you call the WASTED $825 billion dollar Obama stimulus package funded by those taxpayers the Democrats claim to represent? What do you call the Billary estate/charity/slush fund?

Don't bother answering the rhetorical question, I already know the answer. It was obviously for "good" causes like Solyndra.

The $80,000 boat was purchased with Rubio's own hard-earned self-made money. You liberals take offense to the spending of the hard-earned individual wealth of those not voting Democrat. Did any of you liberals take interest in what Hillary did with her book advance? If Pelosi bought a 5 million dollar yacht, none of you would bat an eye. Most likely you'd praise her for making money in this Republican controlled economy. I'm sure you think Billary worked hard for their money. Speeches for millions tied to favors are hard-earned money. Especially when you have to read from the cards like other common folk.

Liberals have no "problem" with the spending of Billary or the unions that line the pocketbooks of the liberal machine as long as it is self serving. I get it. You guys like to spend other people's money without any accountability. That's why you are OK with Kerry having a $7 million dollar boat. It was his wife's money. That's why you are OK with Billary using their charity as a slush fund. That money belongs to private donors and foreign governments. That's why you are OK with adding trillions to the national debt. You don't see it as your money. Liberals are the ultimate credit card in default. Once you reach the limit of your capabilities, you'll expect everyone else to pick up your slack to maintain the lifestyle you've grown accustomed to and then will seek more of other peoples money to enhance your lifestyle.

If low information liberal voters didn't exist, neither would the Democratic party. It's just an unfortunate reality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: windriverrange
I read the article, it barely mentions the boat. I thought it showed Rubio in a good light. Started poor and in debt, struggled, learned a few things, and now is doing quite well.
 
what do you call the WASTED $825 billion dollar Obama stimulus package funded by those taxpayers the Democrats claim to represent?

Don't bother answering the rhetorical question, I already know the answer. It was obviously for "good" causes like Solyndra.
.

Economic recovery. Remember when the last republican left office? Remember the crisis? No -- you just bitch about the guy that inherited it-- he didn't dig the economy out of the republican-dug hole fast enough for you. Your party has failed at everything they've touched for two decades now. Health care? Done nothing. National defense? Let us get attacked, then invaded the wrong country. Economy? They cratered it. Republicans had the house, senate, supreme court andpresideny for years and what'd we get? War and recession. these are not opinions, they are facts. Nothing pisses you guys off like peace and a booming economy, huh? I'd be mad too!

By all means, please give us some more conservative answers. Meanwhile, I really like the solyndra reference. I haven't heard of that since about the time the birther crisis blew up in conservative movement's face.
 
I like your revisionist history. What caused the financial crisis? Sub-prime mortgages. Who forced Fannie, Freddie and other mortgage lenders to make these loans. DEMOCRATS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Medic007
There is no middle ground for you liberals. You're either with them or against them. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence, you guys just cant admit failure of anything liberal. You can have your fantasy land, head in the sand, unwavering love for your Dear Leader. I'll stick to the objective.

I've provided a link to the reality of the stimulus package. You probably won't read it because it contains some ugly realities that conflict with Dear Leader's promises and claims.

By the way, in case you haven't noticed, the American people voted in a Republican majority in both houses to combat the failures of Dear Leader and his party. He had smooth words in 2012 and Republicans unfortunately put up a dud to run against him. Things didn't start getting better until the Republicans took control of the House and blocked the ability of the left to continue ramming their terrible policies down the throats of the American people. The people responded by voting Republicans into majority of both houses. The Dear Leader can't hoodwink the people for the final years of his term.

America regrets reelecting Dear Leader. All of the polls say so. All the love in the world you hardcore liberals have for Dear Leader doesn't change reality. He's a shitty president who has not accomplished much more than polarizing the people in a negative way and reducing America's influence and standing on the world stage.
 
I like your revisionist history. What caused the financial crisis? Sub-prime mortgages. Who forced Fannie, Freddie and other mortgage lenders to make these loans. DEMOCRATS.

Oops. Those pesky facts. The Clinton administration says hello!
 
Sigh.

Now you're officially just throwing shit.

I hope you are being intentionally obtuse and aren't really that devoid of information. Are you really not familiar with the following?

Economically Targeted Investment
Community Reinvestment Act revision
Repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act
HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo

All the information about how the Clinton Administration initiated the sub-prime lending frenzy is readily available on the internet. Bush was responsible for continuing the disaster.

I am curious why you don't know about Clinton's involvement with the housing crisis. Maybe you're just a really young person and your knowledge of history doesn't start until after the Bush Administration started. Really I am curious though.
 
Because there was an enormous financial crisis.

From your link:

The GSE business model has outperformed any other real estate business throughout its existence. According to the Annual Report to Congress, filed by the Federal Housing Finance Agency, over a span of 37 years, from 1971 through 2007, Fannie's average annual loss rate on its mortgage book was about four basis points. Losses were disproportionately worse during the crisis years, 2008 through 2011, when Fannie's average annual loss rate was 52 basis points. Freddie Mac's results are comparable.

By way of contrast, during the 1991–2007 period, commercial banks' average annual loss rate on single family mortgageswas about 15 basis points. During the 2008-2011 period, annual losses were 184 basis points.

Or take a look at the FHFA study that compares, on an apples-to-apples basis, GSEs loan originations with those for private label securitizations. The study segments loans four ways, by ARMs-versus-fixed-rate, as well as by vintage, by FICO score and by loan-to-value ratio. In almost every one of 1800 different comparisons covering years 2001 through 2008, GSE loan performance was exponentially better. On average, GSE fixed-rate loans performed four times better, and GSE ARMsperformed five times better.
 
You're cherry picking. There was plenty of other articles and information in the wikipedia link that put the management and portfolio of Fannie and Freddie in a very poor light and linked them has part of the cause of the financial crisis.
 
Due to pressure to ease lending restrictions by the Clinton Administration, all lenders loosened the purse strings. Fannie and Freddie had no choice but to take on a larger portion of high risk loans. Nobody says they were the direct and only cause. They only followed the orders they were given.

Read up on Cuomo's time as HUD Secretary, pilt.
 
You're cherry picking. There was plenty of other articles and information in the wikipedia link that put the management and portfolio of Fannie and Freddie in a very poor light and linked them has part of the cause of the financial crisis.
Feel free to quote it.

I would just like to know how entities who issued better performing loans than the rest of the industry could be the ones that CAUSED the financial crisis.
 
Due to pressure to ease lending restrictions by the Clinton Administration, all lenders loosened the purse strings. Fannie and Freddie had no choice but to take on a larger portion of high risk loans. Nobody says they were the direct and only cause. They only followed the orders they were given.

Read up on Cuomo's time as HUD Secretary, pilt.
Your basic premise is wrong. Fannie an Freddie didnt' take on a larger portion of high risk loans. There loan portfolio performed better than the rest of the mortgage industry. Their holding of subprime paper decreased as the housing bubble inflated.

The Clinton Admin CRA stuff has also been thoroughly debunked.
https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publ...id-the-cra-cause-the-mortgage-market-meltdown
http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinv.html
http://www.traigerlaw.com/publications/traiger_hinckley_llp_cra_foreclosure_study_1-7-08.pdf

Not to totally let Clinton of the hook, He is responsible for the Financial Services Modernization Act and the Commodities Futures Modernization Act.
http://online.barrons.com/articles/SB122246742997580395
 
Last edited:
If Freddie and Fannie were is such good shape why did they go into conservatorship.

"In 2006, Fannie and Freddie insured 24% of all subprime loans so they needed to keep these loans viable"
" there was concern that the GSEs' liquidity was insufficient to handle growing delinquency rates, such that although viable in September 2008, the scale of loss in the future would be sufficient that insolvency would occur and that knowledge of this future failure would induce immediate or near-immediate failure due to buyers refusing to buy debt."

Yep they were in great shape no chance they affected the financial crisis. The Federal Reserve only had to buy over a 100 billion dollars of Freddie and Fannies debt.
 
Uh pilt, political commentary doesn't debunk anything. There is no such thing as a "CRA loan" as one of those suggested. The CRA is not a loan program. It sets numerical targets for lending by location, race, and ethnicity. CRA often required lending to uncreditworthy persons to get a satisfactory CRA rating, and it did indeed cause Freddie and Fannie to take on huge amounts of higher risk loans. Lenders bent the rules a little or a lot to meet the CRA goals. Of course they were happy because of the prospect of higher return.

What you have posted and quoted is partisan speak and commentary. There are plenty of factual and unbiased sources out there to read. Those sources outline the failures of policy from both sides of the aisle that created the mess. It wasn't one guy or one party. It was Clinton's Administration, Bush's Administration, and congressional members from both parties.

I don't know why acknowledging the reality that Democrats had plenty of hand in the crap is something you liberals can't do. Despite your strongest wishes, Bush wasn't the sole contributor to the financial crisis and Obama hasn't single handedly pulled anything from the ashes.
 
Last edited:
"In 2006, Fannie and Freddie insured 24% of all subprime loans so they needed to keep these loans viable"
" there was concern that the GSEs' liquidity was insufficient to handle growing delinquency rates, such that although viable in September 2008, the scale of loss in the future would be sufficient that insolvency would occur and that knowledge of this future failure would induce immediate or near-immediate failure due to buyers refusing to buy debt."

So 76% of all sub prime loans were uninsured by Freddie/Fannie, and the ones that they did insure performed better than the ones they didn't. This doesn't support your hypothesis that Freddie/Fannie were forced into the subprime market and caused the financial crisis.

Yep they were in great shape no chance they affected the financial crisis. The Federal Reserve only had to buy over a 100 billion dollars of Freddie and Fannies debt.

Keep your eye on the ball. What are we talking about here? Are we talking about whether Fannie and Freddie were in good shape during the financial crisis? No. We are talking about whether they are responsible for causing it, and more specifically if some how policies that Democrats forced one Fannie/Freddie caused it. All the evidence points to no.
 
Uh pilt, political commentary doesn't debunk anything. There is no such thing as a "CRA loan" as one of those suggested. The CRA is not a loan program. It sets numerical targets for lending by location, race, and ethnicity. CRA often required lending to uncreditworthy persons to get a satisfactory CRA rating, and it did indeed cause Freddie and Fannie to take on huge amounts of higher risk loans. Lenders bent the rules a little or a lot to meet the CRA goals. Of course they were happy because of the prospect of higher return.

The political commentary from the bastions of the left such as the Minneapolis Fed, Businessweek, and the Traiger Hinckley law firm? The term "CRA loan" simply means a loan extended to meet CRA requirements. Your contention that lenders were happy due to the prospect of higher return completely undermines your contention that the government made them do it.

How do you respond to the facts:

1. The last change in the rules and enforcement of the CRA were in 1995, yet the loans that cause the financial crisis were originated in 2005-2007, if anything the enforcement of the CRA was weaker during the housing bubble.
2. Of the subprime loans from 2005 and 2006 only 6% were originated by banks subject to CRA regulations to lower income borrowers in CRA assessment areas.
3. Loans in CRA assessment areas have perform slightly better than those outside those areas.

I don't know why acknowledging the reality that Democrats had plenty of hand in the crap is something you liberals can't do. Despite your strongest wishes, Bush wasn't the sole contributor to the financial crises and Obama hasn't single handed pulled anything from the ashes.

I explicitly blame Clinton in my post above. Bush didn't enact any policy that directly led to the financial crisis, but he didn't stop it and his economic policies contributed, just not as directly as Clintons (as mentioned above). I hate it when you phrase things this way because it makes me look like I support Obama, but the ARRA pretty clearly had a huge impact on the economy, just not huge enough.
 
We're on the same page. The changes to the CRA did encourage a loosening of the lending requirements. It was done with good intention and has been successful when compared to the stated goal. During the height of the mortgage boom in the 90's, Fannie was the dominant force. Once mortgage backed securities entered the market, the private lenders and Wall Street were quick to capitalize on the prospects of profit and private money made the ability to offer competing products to Fannie easier and the products very attractive.

Fannie got into the subprime market because it had to to stay relevant and achieve mandated goals. It still maintained more stringent underwriting guidelines than the private label funds did, but Fannie requirements in the 2000s were much looser than previously because the market demanded it and the goals of the Bush Administration supported it. Although Fannie and Freddie portfolios didn't contain as large of a volume of subprime as private label did, the subprimes did contribute to more than half of their losses.

I apologize I had not read your comment about blaming Clinton. I view things similarly to you but the policies of Clinton were done in a time of economic boom and there was a lot of Wall Street pressure to loosen regulation, so it was par for the course. I put at least equal blame on Bush for the continuation and enhancement of those policies. There were plenty of warning signs from economists in the early 2000s that were ignored because the profits were roaring. I see things as a whole as a failure of short sighted Wall Street controlled government regardless what party was in charge.
 
Why we just start ignoring liberals until it counts. This board doesn't count but if we quit talking to them, they would go away. I really don't care what they call me when they go away....just away!!!! We can do in a diverse way like this scene. Bye syskatine, bye cup!!!!





Maybe at least they can loves us for our diversity because conservatives aren't just rich white people. Also, Im not boat guy but my house is a hellava lot bigger and have more ass room around me than Marco Rubio!!! Libs can hate me too when I tell the that God got it for me. I really gonna kill the hater when I start rollin around the OKC metro in an OSU themed Long body Caddy on 22 inch rims. Its coming. I want that more than a luxury boat. I told my barbershop that conservative values help me get my house an it tears them up. They say, "man, you act like us, sound like us, and love most of the things we love, but you a Republican, WTF!!!" I just give the gold grill, which also kills em. I love pissin off libs.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT