Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

joetrow

Members
  • Content Count

    1,182
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

About joetrow

  • Rank
    Footballguy
  • Birthday 06/27/1986

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Wisconsin
  1. Seems rather short-sighted imo - the only person to give less of a #### than any ISIS member is Putin. Its more likely that Obama ordered the airplane shot down than ISIS actually downed a Russian airplane. Why do you say that? Mostly because i don't think ISIS would shoot down a Russian airline (or blowup a Russian airline). But the in me thinks if the US really wanted to deal with ISIS, the most effective way would be to utilize the Russian military, which may be less constrained in what it can do in the region than the US military...what better way to get the Russian military involved than to suggest ISIS downed a civilian Russian airline? I was just reading a story that, through great journalism, was quite convincing that this was Israel's doing. As we all know Israel has been a great ally to ISIS, providing weapons and training and intell, and so when Russia started putting down Israel's pet dogs, they decided to strike at Russian civilians... Freaking crazy, hopefully the UN will invade them. Y9u have a link to this great journalism? Are you trying to insuate my integaritity is on level with Chris Kyle's? No I accidentetly closed the tab without bookmarking.
  2. Seems rather short-sighted imo - the only person to give less of a #### than any ISIS member is Putin. Its more likely that Obama ordered the airplane shot down than ISIS actually downed a Russian airplane. Why do you say that? Mostly because i don't think ISIS would shoot down a Russian airline (or blowup a Russian airline). But the in me thinks if the US really wanted to deal with ISIS, the most effective way would be to utilize the Russian military, which may be less constrained in what it can do in the region than the US military...what better way to get the Russian military involved than to suggest ISIS downed a civilian Russian airline? I was just reading a story that, through great journalism, was quite convincing that this was Israel's doing. As we all know Israel has been a great ally to ISIS, providing weapons and training and intell, and so when Russia started putting down Israel's pet dogs, they decided to strike at Russian civilians... Freaking crazy, hopefully the UN will invade them.
  3. I read about his sexist comments today. I couldn't beleive it. I really thought he was a more worldly person than that. I guess politician = politician.
  4. Thanks for the responses guys. As funny as it sounds, as an individual seeking statelessness, I think I'll vote for a socialist, even funnier I think is that it is during an election where Ron Paul's son is running... Foreign policy is just to important an issue to overlook. Mainly I think because it effects people who don't have a voice in our system. Godspeed.
  5. Is Bernie the most 'anti-war' 'pro-peace' 'non-interventionist' candidate running for 2016?
  6. I think in the near term you are more likely to see bond rates rise if the fed doesn't raise FF rates. I guess it really depends on an individuals view of where we are; are we in a fed induced credit bubble which raising rates will eventually pop and therefore cause a flight to safety, forcing bond rates even lower; or is everything honkey dorey and this rate raise is just one of many in our return to normalcy?
  7. I feel a little greedy not buying already but I'm gonna wait till this Friday to pick up 100 oz. PMs have been getting beat down on Fridays, and this is the Friday before an expected rate hike next week. I think its possible they don't raise rates next week, which would ruin this great buying opportunity. But even if they do, even if silver dips into the single digits, I am personally happy to pay the prices we have today. I think spot was ~$15.45 when you made this post. Went up $.26 cents so far today. Small difference for the amount I'd be spending but still a difference. Any more news on rate hikes? I'm at about $45 more expensive than the best price I've seen. Cheap entertainment I suppose, I'll buy just after close today. I think the only people who will have real insight into the fed rate decision before the announcement is the fed members and their tbtf buddies. But in general I think the economy is rather crap compared to the picture painted and the golden egg that is driving consumer spending is the 401k statements from a propped up stock market making people feel rich. Add to that the increased cost of the government servicing its debts with more normalized interest rates, and that the dollar is very expensive relative to the other toilet papers and even commodities, from my I guess cynical perspective I find it hard to believe that the fed will raise rates here. 25 basis points wont wreck the world I don't think so maybe they do it just to show 'progress', but I don't think Yellen wants to raise rates here. The beauty of having a centrally planned economy.....
  8. I feel a little greedy not buying already but I'm gonna wait till this Friday to pick up 100 oz. PMs have been getting beat down on Fridays, and this is the Friday before an expected rate hike next week. I think its possible they don't raise rates next week, which would ruin this great buying opportunity. But even if they do, even if silver dips into the single digits, I am personally happy to pay the prices we have today.
  9. Not sure how they sell this as granting greater economic liberties to their base, but I guess they did vote for Walker after all....
  10. Went to the local coin shop today and best they could do was $3.00 over spot on a 100oz silver bar ... Sounds like even with that markup they are selling all their .999 inventory below what they paid.
  11. We (sorry Jack Whitey) defeated what was to become ISIS before we left Iraq. The idea started the day the Iraqi insurgency took hold, this movement isn't going to be defeated in a matter of weeks or months. Had we never invaded Iraq it obviously wouldn't have formed and multiplied the way it has, but there are a lot of other factors playing roles in the genesis and strength of ISIS. The brutal regimes of the Middle East being the primary igniter. These people have been stewing for decades in places like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, and Iraq under some of the most oppressive regimes on earth. I'm not sure I agree with the bolded. It is my understanding we weaponized and probably trained ISIS in Libya and then Syria to fight dictators in those countries. I would 'bet the farm' that some who fought opposite of the US in the Iraq war now fight for ISIS, and some now fight against ISIS. The two groups have distinctly different principles and ideologies and goals, I just do not see how one would have become the other.The new ISIS that Baghdadi retooled and is leading is doing so well in part because he recruited Saddam's old military leadership from the Ba'ath Party and Iraqi fighters.And I think that is consistent with what I am saying, ISIS has recruited some we were at war with before, but the party is different. No, no it isn't. He isn't saying that we trained and armed ISIS by any means, but I take it as agreeing with what I initially commented on your post about, that the defensive forces in Iraq did not have a reformation and become ISIS, that they are two different groups. Like I said in my first post, your understanding is incorrect. Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/ar/security/2013/11/syria-islamic-state-iraq-sham-growth.html##ixzz3S4Ns9h00 I found this part interesting... maybe historically you are correct, but I ask you as someone who may know and really it gets more to the heart of my point, were the people we fought in Iraq fighting for ISIS or ISI? Were they fighting for sovereignty or were they fighting for expansionism? Would the people we fought be more likely to 'label' themselves as members of ISI or Al-Qaeda? I have to concede the point though and say you are absolutely correct. That is not to say of course that the US isn't/wasn't arming and training ISIS members in Libya and Syria.
  12. We (sorry Jack Whitey) defeated what was to become ISIS before we left Iraq. The idea started the day the Iraqi insurgency took hold, this movement isn't going to be defeated in a matter of weeks or months. Had we never invaded Iraq it obviously wouldn't have formed and multiplied the way it has, but there are a lot of other factors playing roles in the genesis and strength of ISIS. The brutal regimes of the Middle East being the primary igniter. These people have been stewing for decades in places like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, and Iraq under some of the most oppressive regimes on earth. I'm not sure I agree with the bolded. It is my understanding we weaponized and probably trained ISIS in Libya and then Syria to fight dictators in those countries. I would 'bet the farm' that some who fought opposite of the US in the Iraq war now fight for ISIS, and some now fight against ISIS. The two groups have distinctly different principles and ideologies and goals, I just do not see how one would have become the other.The new ISIS that Baghdadi retooled and is leading is doing so well in part because he recruited Saddam's old military leadership from the Ba'ath Party and Iraqi fighters.And I think that is consistent with what I am saying, ISIS has recruited some we were at war with before, but the party is different. No, no it isn't. He isn't saying that we trained and armed ISIS by any means, but I take it as agreeing with what I initially commented on your post about, that the defensive forces in Iraq did not have a reformation and become ISIS, that they are two different groups.
  13. We (sorry Jack Whitey) defeated what was to become ISIS before we left Iraq. The idea started the day the Iraqi insurgency took hold, this movement isn't going to be defeated in a matter of weeks or months. Had we never invaded Iraq it obviously wouldn't have formed and multiplied the way it has, but there are a lot of other factors playing roles in the genesis and strength of ISIS. The brutal regimes of the Middle East being the primary igniter. These people have been stewing for decades in places like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, and Iraq under some of the most oppressive regimes on earth. I'm not sure I agree with the bolded. It is my understanding we weaponized and probably trained ISIS in Libya and then Syria to fight dictators in those countries. I would 'bet the farm' that some who fought opposite of the US in the Iraq war now fight for ISIS, and some now fight against ISIS. The two groups have distinctly different principles and ideologies and goals, I just do not see how one would have become the other. Then you have the wrong understanding. The great thing about being mere pleblings is that perhaps some time in the future we will get to find out what really happened today. I have seen video where an ISIS member admits to receiving arms from the US, and I remember reading news reports that ISIS was a beneficiary of training and aid in Syria to fight Assad. I do not form any understandings without basis, and my understanding is consistent with the pattern of arm them then fight them that our FP consists of, i.e. it is not outlandish to think this is the case. They essentially overran the Iraqi army and took all of their weaponry, that goes a long way into understanding why they are so well equipped. They also have a large revenue stream from their oil interests, and buying weapons especially in bulk, is pretty easy especially if you have supply lines (which ISIS does). Not sure where you read these news reports of ISIS receiving U.S. training, but Infowars forums with blog links probably isn't the best source of information. Also taking the word of an ISIS fighter in a youtube video is not only a problem in the Middle East it seems. Well, I'll tell you at least you are more confident that you are right and I am wrong than I will pretend to be, but confidence in matters of government secrecy does not really mean much. Just so I understand your position, do you believe the US did not arm or train any rebels in Syria? Or just that ISIS wasn't on that list?
  14. We (sorry Jack Whitey) defeated what was to become ISIS before we left Iraq. The idea started the day the Iraqi insurgency took hold, this movement isn't going to be defeated in a matter of weeks or months. Had we never invaded Iraq it obviously wouldn't have formed and multiplied the way it has, but there are a lot of other factors playing roles in the genesis and strength of ISIS. The brutal regimes of the Middle East being the primary igniter. These people have been stewing for decades in places like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, and Iraq under some of the most oppressive regimes on earth. I'm not sure I agree with the bolded. It is my understanding we weaponized and probably trained ISIS in Libya and then Syria to fight dictators in those countries. I would 'bet the farm' that some who fought opposite of the US in the Iraq war now fight for ISIS, and some now fight against ISIS. The two groups have distinctly different principles and ideologies and goals, I just do not see how one would have become the other.The new ISIS that Baghdadi retooled and is leading is doing so well in part because he recruited Saddam's old military leadership from the Ba'ath Party and Iraqi fighters.And I think that is consistent with what I am saying, ISIS has recruited some we were at war with before, but the party is different.