Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 28, 2010 -> 10:51 AM) What kind of term are we talking here for these investments? Do you want to start buying up funds and just letting them grow over a span of 20 years, or are you talking more short term, like 5 years? Long term, 30-35 years or more (barring something unforeseen), with added contribution on a monthly or quarterly basis. I'm thinking about 10k in the next year to start and maybe 1500 a quarter thereafter.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 28, 2010 -> 10:37 AM) I've used quite a few of those mentioned above, but have ended up sticking with E*Trade for quite a while now. They were usually ahead of the game in terms of online technology, iPhone app, Android app, etc...where the others lagged behind (some still do). But what it comes down too is 1) the minimum required amounts in each account and 2) how much do they charge per trade. Go with whoever is the cheapest if they're a known company. And what do you mean by invest aggressive? How old are you? I ask because aggressive investing is something a person under 30 years old should look into. After 30, balance and diversification are key. Keep in mind the same error 99.999999% of the people who begin investing make is that they tend to buy mutual funds and index funds high, panic at the first sign of trouble (think 2008) and sell low. The market is pretty high right now, so most of these aggressive funds will be at the top end of their 5 year values, which would mean you're buying high. The idea is to find the funds nobody wants and figure out why. Example: Nobody wanted blue chips in the late 90's because the Internet boom was all the rage. Other than the fact that the Internet boom was all the rage, there was no real reason to not want the blue chips, they were profitable, paying dividends, etc...but were at bargain basement prices. It's a different story if nobody wants to invest in you because the company is in debt, losing money, has bad products, etc. I'm 28, so I figured I have a few years to be more risky to start. Any good suggestions on more aggressive funds? I plan to invest a few thousand every couple of months. Maybe aggressive isn't the right word - i'm looking for growth, even if a little risky at this point.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 28, 2010 -> 08:38 AM) One problem with the internet is the fact that any moron can post a blog littered with grammatical and spelling errors, make up a bunch of "facts" Nd then have it reposted after a Google search finds it. Cleveland was dumb to let him out of his contract, and Boozer took more money elsewhere. As for the Utah comments, I see no truth there. My eyes tell me Carlos is quite an awesome player and an even better teammate. On his first day Boozer said something like "this is Derrick's team, I'm just here to help." That eased my concerns about him fitting in. This is one of the most tightly knit group of guys I've seen in the NBA. No prima donnas, no headcases, just a bunch of guys playing basketball with a goal. They all congratulate each other after a good play. They're all driven to win. It's actually quite refreshing to watch.

Can be merged with the Financial thread I'm sure, and maybe it should be in a different forum altogether, but I'll throw it here for now (mods feel free to move as you please) I wanted to get people's opinions on the various online trading sites out there. Does anyone have any horror stories? Any good recommendations? I'm looking at the big guns, Schwab, Fidelity, TD Ameritrade, etc. Fidelity is nice because it's the cheapest of the big firms for equity trades (7.95), but they charge 75 bucks (versus 40 or under) as fees for mutual funds (at least those not in their special group of funds). I'm guessing that without hours and hours of research, I'm going to get hit with these hidden fees no matter what company I choose, but hopefully someone out there has already figured that out. Basically my plan is to invest aggressive, though not crazy aggressive. I'm planning on doing the vast majority in mutual funds/bonds, but I also want to dabble (i.e., gamble) on some stocks for fun. Thoughts/opinions appreciated!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 27, 2010 -> 03:53 PM) Aside from keeping you employed, what exactly is the F-22 useful for? It's an expensive air superiority fighter that has zero role right now in maintaining air superiority because even the best the rest of the world has can't challenge the last generation of U.S. fighters. On top of that, it's so expensive that at a shootdown rate of 15:1 enemy:us, the fighter still remains impractical; you need about 30:1 or 40:1 for the costs to even come out close to equal. Balta, given our clear intelligence failures the last 10-15 years, how do you know this is true? How can we know for sure we not only have the best, but a generation lead, in cutting edge technology? Also, IMO the same reasoning behind your view on civil scientific research spending (every dollar spent on science is a benefit) should be applied to spending on defense technology and research.

Ugh, I hate Lebron so much now. Easily becoming the A-Rod of basketball: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/truehoop/mia...tory?id=5960277

QUOTE (fathom @ Dec 23, 2010 -> 12:07 PM) I can't believe I see people asking to see more of Leonard. He is completey overwhelmed on the court. Tisdale gets such a bad rap, as he was the best overall player for the Illini last night. I thought the overrated duo of Richardson and Paul played terrible last night. Paul's too busy trying to impress NBA scouts. Totally agree. Illinois started to gain a little momentum with like 5 minutes to go (after McCamey's drive), they got a big stop and rebound, and then he jacked up a contested 3. Such a stupid shot that he took. and he does that pretty frequently.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 23, 2010 -> 11:03 AM) So it really wasnt even because of the tats. They sold awards THEY had won while playing football. Dumbasses, but none the less it seems a bit harsh. OSU plans to appeal. Comments from the players sound like they didnt know selling their stuff was against the rules since they owned the items. A few players actually mentioned they helped their family pay bills with the cash. Not sure it thats true, but I can see where they are coming from. the school is planning to appeal its own decision?

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 23, 2010 -> 11:21 AM) Tisdale should take a back seat to Leonard. They need a physical presence to go along with Davis in the post. I think you'd lose a lot more on offense then you'd gain on defense. And even on defense I think Leonard is a freshman who gets lost/confused.

QUOTE (fathom @ Dec 23, 2010 -> 10:11 AM) And after the first time doing it yesterday, Missouri was all over it and kept deflecting his shots under the hoop. Well I agree that it's ineffective with 3 people hovering over you, but that's been his bread and butter move through the year, and he's gotten a LOT of points out of it. If Tisdale/Davis would do the same thing they'd actually have some points in the paint.

QUOTE (fathom @ Dec 23, 2010 -> 08:48 AM) Last night was the perfect example in my opinion on why I don't think Jereme Richmond will be even a mediocre NBA player. He is too much of a tweener, as the only move he has in the paint is that stupid pump fake. He probably could have had 8-10 more points last night if he just went up with the ball, but when you're 6'6" and skinny trying to play in the paint, it's not going to be very effective. Re the pump fake, I completely disagree with you. He's the ONLY person on that team who will do that and open up an easy shot for himself.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 23, 2010 -> 08:30 AM) Seeing that you're an expert in this field I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Are you? I guess provide me a link that shows when a dolphin used a tool, built shelter, created a mathematical system, took over it's environment etc. etc. They're intelligent animals. They are advanced animals. They share basic similarities. But you're comparing the "intelligence" of a new born with Albert Einstein. You're out of your f***ing mind calling them "on par" with humans.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 23, 2010 -> 08:18 AM) Why would that be a joke? Intelligent yes, on par with? GMAFB.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 11:09 PM) I'm still curious when top 75, 4 star recruits became nobodies. And Weber recruited those two soft big guys that "lead" the team btw. I'll admit I was wrong. I thought "McGamey" was a 3. He and Tisdale were 4's, Davis was not ranked. But you still have recruiting deficiencies that plague the roster. You have no juniors on this team. You depend on 2 sophomores and a freshman.

if the team fails to make the post season, then yeah, i'd agree. but i dunno what people should really expect here. he doesn't have the talent to compete for a national title. My "goal" for this season was sweet 16, which i think is doable depending on matchups, but even then next year there's going to be a drop off with a freshman pg or some makeshift guard combination. Illinois fans are just delusional. We had a good run in the late 90's and up through 2005. You can't expect it to continue forever. That's the nature of the beast. Sucks, but true. The NCAA tournament is absolutely a minimum, I agree. But i'm not going to be demanding final fours ever other year or he's out.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 10:32 PM) How many good recruiting classes must we see come into Illinois and play for underachieving and mediocre teams before Bruce Weber, the man who has driven Illinois basketball into irrelevance, is rightly fired? IMO he'll have, and should get, up through this next recruiting class (when DJ/Paul become seniors). The team is led be 2 incredibly soft big guys and a nobody PG he's made into a legit 1st round pick. I think he's done well with what he's got. What he's got wasn't enough, but he's slowly building the talent pool.

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 07:56 PM) I'm not going to go back and read through tha last couple of pages, but if you want an animal that has been observed hundreds of times engaged in same-sex relationships in nature you don't have to look any further than the bottlenose dolphin. Straight, gay, solo, half-dozen at a go, gang-rape, and rough sex followed by drowning the partner have all been observed. A highly varied and rather unsettling sexual repertoire from a species whose intelligence is on par with our own. This is a joke right?

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 10:12 PM) +1 Illinois had a chance, they folded in the last few min. Just need to find someone else to create after McCamey. Agreed, though in this game it was lack of defense that killed them. Some tough runners went down, but they have to contest better than that. Hopefully this is another learning game for them. That's about all I got right now. They looked so good in a loss to Texas and in their wins against Gonzaga and North Carolina (two overrated, but still athletic and talented teams). I'm just lost on what to think of this team. I guess good but not great, and hope they can make a run at some point.

and yeah, he's definitely saying "mcgamey"

That is not intentional. He just touched his back.

Ugh, and Illinois is going to lose. Maybe they are overrated. Just can't get a complete game together. What a stupid foul by Tisdale.

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 09:52 PM) It really is. It feels like Duke, Ohio State, Kansas and then everyone else. Based on what? What good wins do these teams have? OSU's best win is at Florida (and no one else), who looks terrible losing to Jacksonville. Duke has wins over Kansas St and Michigan State, two teams who were clearly overrated to begin the season. And Kansas' best win is Memphis, who needed OT to beat Arkansas State and Austin Peay. There are no dominant teams in college basketball this year, especially now that Duke lost Irving.

The NE slobber-fest on ESPN and CBS really makes them see too low on that list.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 02:18 PM) It sounds like you've not read anything related to the study of homosexuality in other animals and that you're sort of just making it up as you go based on your preconceived ideas of what is natural. Well clearly, SS, I don't know NEARLY as much as you. I'll now bow to your great and expansive knowledge on this topic. I've read enough to know that it's rare, which is the only point I've been trying to make. I also think I know enough about the behavior of dogs to know that when they hump each other it has nothing to do with the fact that one is attracted to the other, and it's all about dominance and power. Nor have I ever seen two male dogs actually perform intercourse fully. They hump the air as much as they hump the same sex. Unless you've done the research on that. If so, I'll take your word that it happens.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 01:36 PM) Gay meaning homosexual meaning male dogs humping male dogs and not just for a dominance thing. I don't know where you got this bizarre relationship angle. How on earth do you know what another dog is thinking? How do you know it's not based on dominance? My point of dogs being pack animals is that by their nature they don't have a sexuality like humans do. Edit: I guess i'm assuming that in labeling something as homosexual there has to be some sort of attraction, not just the physical deed of two members of the same sex humping each other. I don't think dogs hump each other based on that. They do it to show dominance.