Auburnfan91

Verified Member
  • Content count

    2,487
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Auburnfan91 last won the day on October 19 2009

Auburnfan91 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

79 Sterling

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Interests
    college football, professional wrestling, music, and movies.
  • Location
    Deatsville, Alabama
  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

514 profile views
  1. I think that would be a good idea but at the same time I'm not happy that this tax is resulting is a loss of jobs. There's always unintended consequences even if we try to go about it with good intentions.
  2. read more at: http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2017/02/22/union-warns-layoffs-imminent-due-to-philadelphias-drink-tax/ Unions are feeling the effects also. Even a lot of union drivers pay are based on the amount of product they move. If they're moving less product then they're making less. The national media, which gave a lot of attention and fawned about the tax being passed, are now muted and aren't covering the soda tax effects since the results coming in so far have been negative.
  3. Read more at: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/Soda-companies-supermarkets-report-50-percent-losses-from-soda-tax.html
  4. But some fans that are sunshine pumping want it both ways. They want to give Bruce credit for having a winning season, yet blame the Barbee stuff on why in year 3 we're still in the bottom half of the league. Bruce has built this team how he wants and recruited guys he wanted. This is his team now. If we don't make the NIT, then I'd rather not go to any tournament. Going to a watered down tournament just isn't going to create any excitement. Making the CBI tournament wouldn't be a recruiting tool and I would hope that we don't hang a banner in Auburn Arena for making the CBI or if we actually won the tournament. The CBI has been taking teams with overall losing records. At least the NIT has some prestige and has a lot of history of having quality teams playing in that tournament. In order to make the NIT we're going to have to at least win one of the two against Arkansas and Georgia and then beat Missouri. If we lose to both Arkansas and Georgia, I don't see how we're going to get into the NIT unless we win 2-3 game s and go on a run in the SEC Tournament. I know you've reeled off several positives about this season but if we don't make the NIT then I'd hesitate to consider this season that much of a success. The positive of having an overall winning record is tempered for me because our SEC record is still bad. We're currently tied for 9th place in the SEC standings and will probably finish lower. Our only good SEC wins are over Alabama...... 4 of our 6 SEC wins are over teams below us in the SEC standings, Missouri, LSU(twice) and Mississippi State.
  5. There's no excuse to blow a 23 point lead in the 2nd half of a game. I'd at least somewhat be understanding had it been against Kentucky but it was against Ole Miss, a middle of the road team at best. I don't care if our roster is loaded with Freshman, it's inexcusable to blow a 23 point lead to an average team. That's alarming and speaks to coaching. This wasn't 1994 when LSU blew a 31 point lead to Kentucky, this was a middle of the road Ole Miss team that did this to us. Ole Miss may not even make the NIT either. That makes the loss even worse. Our guys haven't bought into playing defense this year and I don't see that changing much next year. We can give Person 1 more year to try to correct the defense but I have no confidence that it will get fixed. Because it's obvious that our strategy of shooting 3's and playing fast paced are not helping us and it only compounds our defense even more. Unless we make changes to our style of play on offense, then there's only marginal progress that will be made. Our guys look like they have no energy to play defense but instead use most of it on offense. Not only that but there have been numerous occasions where we just failed to get back on defense leading to opponents in transition going right the basket to score easy points, because we either sulked after missing a shot or were admiring a shot we made. There's no excuse to not get back to play defense in transition but it's become a habit and continues to happen every game. It's not just effort, it's a lack of fundamentals altogether. You use a football analogy, look at our defense in football. It took us 2 head coaches, and 5 defensive coordinators for us to finally have a good defense. In that time span we had Seniors who would make bad plays and commit dumb penalties like late hits out of bounds, offsides, facemasks, etc...... We were finally able to field a good defense this past season and were more disciplined. Tony Barbee was brought up earlier, even as bad as his teams were with the lack of height and talent, they still played defense. It doesn't take all-american type talent to play defense. I remember when we beat Alabama 49-37 under Barbee. So don't tell me that it takes 3 years to coach players to play defense. Even in Barbee's worst year 2012-13 with a 9-23 record, opponents scored 80+ points 8 times. Barbee's teams played defense but lacked talent and were offensively challenged. The Barbee era: 2010-11: opponents 80+ points - 4 times 2011-12: opponents 80+ points - 4 times 2012-13: opponents 80+ points - 8 times 2013-14: opponents 80+ points - 8 times The Pearl era: 2014-15; opponents 80+ points - 9 times 2015-16: opponents 80+ points - 13 times 2016-17, which still has at least 5 games left, opponents have scored 80+ points 13 times Now I'm not arguing that Barbee was a good coach, just that even as bad as we were, the team still played defense. I don't buy the argument it takes a couple of years for players to be coached to play defense. It's Pearl's decision if he wants to recruit offensively skilled players who don't play much defense. Pearl has built this team how he wants to. He knows the height of every player he recruits. If he recruits guys that are undersized but can score, then he knows the downside it has when it comes to playing defense. The fans will continue to come and support a bad product but at some point the regression has to stop. I know we have a young team but this year was a prime year to catch other programs who are also re-building and make a run at a post season tournament. Right now, our chances of making the NIT are slim and looks like our only chance of making it are to win out, which is unlikely given the team's recent struggles and regression. Our success on the court is going to affect recruiting if we don't get this turned around next year, folks will look at the talent we have and see the underachievement. I had no expectation of making the NCAA Tournament, I thought even talking about it was ridiculous but I did feel the NIT was within reach and possible if we got on a hot streak but that just hasn't happened. I want Pearl to succeed but remember, Barbee only got 4 years. I know Barbee had other issues as well but is having more talent under Pearl but still not making the post-season a sign that things will get better? How long will it take? It's NIT or bust next year for me. I've stated multiple times that it shouldn't take 5 years just to make the NIT. Hopefully Pearl can deliver next year. On a side note, Northwestern, who's never been to the NCAA Tournament before, look like they might make the tournament this year. Their head coach Chris Collins, a former Duke player and graduate, is only in his 4th year there.
  6. Trump saying the "FAKE NEWS media is the enemy of the American people" is bad. Obama comparing Republicans to terrorists was ok. Hilary did the same thing:
  7. Then why don't they do it then? What are they waiting on?
  8. Where was the media in August 2015 when Obama said this: The media were cheering Obama on of course and singing the praises of the nuclear deal with Iran. It's cool to compare Republicans to terrorists if you're Obama.
  9. There can't be an investigation without some evidence first. Hilary wasn't under investigation by the FBI until they had obtained the classified information from some of her private e-mails first. You are the one confused on how this works. You don't get to just willy-nilly investigate folks because you think they're hiding something and want to find out more. There has to be proof/evidence to go ahead with an investigation. Our intelligence community obviously doesn't have enough proof/evidence to have an investigation of Trump or else they would have said they do. I haven't denied anything. You're reaching for a strawman because you don't like my position on this. I'm beginning to think you just ignore what I've already been said multiple times now. How else can you question whether I deny things I've already addressed? Obviously I think Flynn was lying/misleading or else I wouldn't support an investigation of him. And I've already said that Trump has a skewed view of Putin and Russia. What part of that makes you think I deny that Trump's been too easy on Russia?
  10. Hilary was investigated because of classified information that had been obtained in her private e-mails by the State Department, which were then turned over to the FBI. There was evidence to go on that prompted the investigation. That's why there hasn't been an investigation of Trump. I'm not blind to that rationale. There's been nothing other than Trump's skewed view of Putin and Russia to go on that he's colluding with them. Even if you don't like Trump, there has to be a suspension of disbelief to think Trump could have been able to get this far without something coming out about him colluding with Russia. Trump certainly hasn't exhibited the quality of being able to cover things up. The man tweets 24/7 and has an intelligence community who doesn't trust him and won't support him. Even Russian officials thought Hilary would win the election. If they find evidence of collusion with Russia, then have at it. There should be an investigation then. But as it stands, there's been no proof that Trump is colluding with Russia. Until there's some proof of collusion, there's not going to be an investigation.
  11. Then why did you bring up Hilary in your post earlier when you talked about Trump's taxes and Trump's relationship with Russia being ignored? What was your point? Flynn's more than likely going to get an investigation. I've said multiple time now that I'm ok with an investigation of Flynn to find out the whole truth about what's going on. I don't know why you directed that at me because I've haven't been ignoring things. Hilary's misconduct was ignored and went unpunished. She didn't lose her security clearance, neither did Clapper, yet Flynn's gets suspended and people like Chuck Schumer want Flynn's security clearance revoked. How's that for partisanship? I just want proof and consistency in dealing with leaks and lying/misleading because a majority of those in positions of power only seem interested in holding one side accountable while letting the side other go unpunished.
  12. It's not a strawman to show the absolute partisanship going on about this because people like you don't like Trump. Your argument is that something should be done about Trump's connections with Russia based on Hilary being investigated. When others broke the law or lied nothing was done, no punishment. You and every other liberal have whined about the popular vote, so your complaints about that suggest you think Hilary should be President despite all the misleading and nefarious things she'd done that were revealed through her private e-mail investigation. You've already said you want Trump impeached or at least a bill of impeachment, so you have no principle based argument to make if you think Hilary should have been President despite all the shady things in her background also. You don't need anymore proof from an investigation homer, because you're convinced Trump is already guilty and shouldn't be President. Those are your words. That's not a strawman. You're correct that the main sanctions are economic sanctions; however, the recent added sanctions, no matter how trivial, were put into place after the 2016 election in December and only after the intelligence community all pointed to Russian hackers being responsible for the hacking of the DNC and trying to influence the election. It's still a form of punishment for hacking/leaking no matter how you characterize the added sanctions or judge the severity of them. This is why "depends" doesn't work for me when it comes to punishing leaks. It's very subjective to say something is justifiable and that something else isn't. The intelligence community didn't care about James Clapper lying and were apoplectic about the leaks coming out about the NSA. There hasn't been any proof of Trump colluding with Russia but the intelligence community is ambivalent to the leaks because they refuse to support this President
  13. I've already said I'm ok with an investigation of Flynn. I'm not denying that Flynn lied/mislead. Let an investigation find the whole truth. What I've been pointing out are the differences in reactions when it's someone else that's lied/mislead or leaked classified information. If you're going to use a template that leaks should be met with punishment like what happened the last 8 years under the Obama administration, like with Edward Snowden. then don't flip flop now because you don't like Trump and his views. If you're going to use a template that lying/misleading certain people are grounds for dismissal, like James Clapper who didn't lose his job, like Hilary Clinton who was still able to run for president and that didn't her lose her security clearance for being "extremely careless" then how can you call for Trump and Flynn to face punishment? Has Trump lifted Russia's sanctions yet? I thought the sanctions were a response and a form of punishment for the Russian hackers who hacked John Podesta's e-mails and trying to influence the election? You'd think if Trump is so fond of Putin and Russia then he would have already lifted Obama's sanctions. Leaks have been consistently met with punishments or threats of punishment. The leaks on Trump and Flynn are not being met with punishment but instead are being defended by the very people who called for punishment on the leaks by the Russian hackers and Edward Snowden. Those wanting accountability now weren't doing this the last 8 years. They have no principle to stand on. They're just being partisan. Even Republicans who are going after Flynn or going after Trump over Flynn, most of them didn't call for Clapper to step down in 2013. John McCain is now piling on Flynn and using him to attack Trump and blames Trump for the dysfunctional national security apparatus. McCain never called Obama's national security apparatus dysfunctional after Clapper lied to Congress, and he never called for Clapper to step down amid the NSA scandal in 2013. McCain only lamented the lack of trust in government from the public that were on Snowden's side because of the NSA leak. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/09/senators-should-have-known-about-snooping-says-mccain/ Let that sink in. Lying to Congress got a pass from McCain in 2013 because McCain said it was Congress's fault if they didn't fully understand the scope of the NSA. So in McCain's skewed view, lying is ok if the people outraged about something were supportive of it before. McCain was only about covering himself by not going after Clapper in 2013, because McCain supports the NSA. But now McCain is singing a different tune about leaks and about lying since Trump is the president. It's ok to be hypocritical now about leaks because................. Trump.
  14. Thanks for your honest answer. I strongly disagree with it. Your answer is why I'm in favor of at least minimum punishments(like losing your job) for those who leak classified information. It's obvious to anyone willing to step away from their partisanship that the enforcement of the law continues to not be applied consistently. The dossier that was leaked about Trump last month contained inaccurate info. When even leaks that turn out to have a lot of inaccuracies go unpunished then I'm not going to have tolerance for "depends". If it "depends" then you're not standing on principle.
  15. Ok. I just find it partisan to dance around how this is being handled versus how other leaks have been handled. This is being handled by those who, up until now, have been against leaks and went after whistleblowers. Now they suddenly decide that the compromising information is the only important part of this particular issue while the leak itself is being treated as an afterthought. Recent leaks have not been treated in that manner but were instead treated as the leaks being as important as the actual leaked information was. It was just weeks ago that an inaccurate dossier was being reported all over the news that turned out to have some serious flaws and wasn't very factual. Yet somehow the classified information contained in the dossier was still leaked out despite the inaccuracies. The intelligence community showed ambivalence to the dossier leaks because they aren't interested in supporting or even working with this president.