Auburnfan91

I've got to disagree with you on 2008. The 2008 team only quit in one game and that was the last game against Alabama in the 2nd half. Some people may have blocked it out of their memory but the 2008 Alabama game was only 10-0 at halftime. The blocked FG right before halftime and our offense coming out to start the 2nd half with 2 straight turnovers basically killed the defense's will to compete and so the defense quit and Alabama blew us out 36-0. Conversely, the 2012 Alabama game wasn't even competitive for a half. It was 42-0 at halftime.

California just backed out of trying to pass through a single payer healthcare system this year because of the cost of the plan. The cost for the proposed plan is more than double of California's state budget. As much as some may clamor for single payer, I haven't seen a plan for single payer that would address the main issue, which is cost. Unfortunately, I don't think there's a perfect plan out there that exists or is realistic in being able to do everything people want it to do. There's going to be winners and losers in any plan. The biggest issue for any healthcare plan is not just the number of people covered, it's the healthcare costs. I think it's misleading to tout the number who have coverage. Just because you have coverage, doesn't mean it's good coverage or it's affordable coverage.The previous system before the ACA(ObamaCare) hurt those with pre-existing conditions and those who required extensive medical care for an illness. Those who already had insurance and didn't have a serious illness, the costs for their insurance plans were for the most part ok and were better. The previous system worked better for those who already had insurance. Once the ACA was passed, those who had pre-existing conditions and needed major medical care for their illness were able to get coverage. It worked better for them. The ACA has helped some who needed it most. But there were more people who already had coverage who either lost their coverage or switched to plans that weren't as good as the one they had, and now their plans cost more and they have higher premiums for basically less benefits and less coverage. I personally want a healthcare plan which main focus isn't on the number of people who get coverage but is focused on providing as good of coverage as possible while still being affordable and at a reasonable cost to everyone. While the ACA has some good parts, the negatives hurt more than the good helps. That being said I'd like to keep some of the parts of the ACA, like the pre-existing conditions coverage, require insurance companies to offer coverage to everyone and allowing a child to be covered on their parents insurance until age 26. The thing I would do away with is the individual mandate. It's a regressive tax that shouldn't be imposed on those who don't have insurance. The things I'd like to see in a new healthcare law are being able to shop for insurance across state lines, keeping the things I mentioned from the ACA, and getting more doctors into the healthcare industry. But one of the things I was really interesting in when it was proposed; but it predictably failed a few months ago, was being able to get cheaper drugs from Canada. I think being able to get cheaper drugs from Canada would be a very beneficial thing for those who are gouged by U.S. pharmaceutical companies that need life saving medications. Even though the bill that was proposed failed, it had some bi-partisan support. I hope that whatever system we have going forward that getting cheaper drugs from Canada is something that will happen.

This is the original version of Seether's "Broken", which is better imo than the re-made version with Amy Lee of Evanescence that became a big hit.

I have to defend Creed somewhat. Their first album, My Own Prison, has held up well imo. It's their other albums that have not aged well. There's only a couple of songs off their other albums I ever listen to from time to time. But My Own Prison is easily Creed's best material.

You never even tried. While you were busy focusing on conservatives of the 90's, you ignored the media of the 90's who were outraged about the guy being caned. Bill Clinton even intervened in the situation. My first response to you was how you summed up a lot of the lefts view on Warmbier's and conversely the media had also been restrained and not outraged about it. Then you followed up with how I was looking to be aggrieved and you continued ranting about conservatives in the 90's response to what happened to the guy in Singapore.

What do you consider your actions to be when you do the same thing? Before I ever posted an actual response, you started up about how conservatives responded in the 1990's to what happened to a guy in Singapore. The media have restrained their outrage about Warmbier's death in their coverage. They don't show that restraint in other cases and have no problem provoking outrage for those other cases. Why is that? I believe because it doesn't fit their narrative of things to be outraged about. It's not just because there's not enough information and there hasn't been an autopsy. They don't feel the need to provoke outrage because his actions resulted in a predictable outcome in a country with strict laws. They've been very insensitive in normalizing the man's death. You haven't even tried to have a debate. You just call me irrational and attack me because you don't think this is a discussion worthy of a debate.

Why is it ridiculous to get Tex to criticize North Korea's actions? I mean Tex goes after conservatives for not criticizing Russia enough. Will you say Tex is being ridiculous when he goes after conservatives for that from now on? I'm not accusing Tex of being pro-North Korea or an apologist for North Korea. I'm just flabbergasted that it seems obvious that North Korea at the very least played a role in Warmbier's death yet Tex has said that only an autopsy will "perhaps justify outrage".

But you liked a post where TexasTiger said he was disgusted with me and said I didn't have basic decency. How else am I supposed to interpret you liking the post? GiveEmElle likes this I've backed up that Tex is partisan and doesn't hold both side accountable on here. Just because you don't like what I'm saying doesn't mean I'm a liar. TexasTiger hasn't offered any proof to refute the examples I've posted. He just resorts to personal insults because he doesn't like me calling him out. I don't think TexasTiger is a bad person, I don't think you're a bad person. I can separate an argument I don't like without thinking the person making the argument is not only wrong but is also crazy and an irrational liar. I'm not going to call someone crazy, and insult their intelligence just because I disagree with their views and think they're wrong for how they treat one side vs. the other.

I have and one such post that you failed to do anything about and even quoted and agreed with the content of was then removed because I brought it to Titan's attention.

You really think that proves you're not a hypocrite though? You don't call your side out on here, only those on the right. You're a MOD, you're supposed to uphold the rules and behavior on both sides but you just target one side. I'm not a MOD, but you want to hold me to a standard that you yourself don't adhere to even though you are a MOD.

But there's no problem for you when Tex calls people out for not being outraged. Only when I do it, suddenly that makes me a bad person. It's not about claiming victory for me. I'm just pointing out how Tex likes to castigate folks on the right for not being outraged about certain things, no matter what the subject is, yet he resorts to personal attacks when confronted with his own hypocrisy. He can dish it but can't take it. How dare I call him out for not being outraged by North Korea just letting the guy be in a coma for year and basically letting him die and not giving him medical care. And my point isn't to have a perfect apples to apples analogy to compare with, it's the principle of Tex calling people on the right out for not being outraged on any given issue he chooses is the point I'm making.

You certainly aren't putting any blame on North Korea, despite their track record on human rights. @GiveEmElle TexasTiger has attacked the right for not being outraged about things: https://www.aufamily.com/forums/topic/148791-current-active-shooter-in-colorado-springs/#comment-2379347 Oh, what do you know, that was in 2015, before 2016. And TexasTiger was doing the very thing he castigates me for doing. He wants to hold the right to standard he doesn't hold himself or his side to.

Keep digging.........

You blamed Otto Warmbeir for his predicament, even after the guy's dead. I'm not looking for equal outrage, but there hasn't been even a fraction of outrage about Warmbier's death compared to other U.S. prisoners in other countries. There's been U.S. prisoners who died where we didn't know what happened to them, but that didn't mean we couldn't be outraged about it or the media weren't outraged about it. You argue that there's no reason to be outraged about Warmbier's because we don't know what happened to him. Conversely, I've never argued that people shouldn't be outraged about someone being killed by a cop. I may disagree on the evidence supporting their outrage, but I've never said that they shouldn't be outraged over it. My point has been that some on the left argue that we shouldn't be outraged about Warmbier's death. That's an insensitive and hypocritical position for those on the left to take. You don't hold your side accountable when they exhibit the same kinds of behavior you rant about when it's the other side doing it. You justify it and point the finger back at conservatives. You are just as guilty of the behavior you rail against. Don't act like you're above it, which is another trait you exhibit. You've indulged some of the most partisan left wing posts on here. There's been times where left leaning posters crossed the line and broke the rules on here, yet you either didn't admonish them, or even worse, you quoted what they said and agreed with the content of it. Don't bemoan civility and decency when you don't practice it on here and haven't, long before 2016. But that's your cop out. It's the other sides fault for how you respond. You're a MOD, you have the power to hold your side accountable on here and you don't do that. What I've been pointing out is the double standards of how your side acts, yet you expect others to be held to a different standard. You have plenty to say about posters on the right on here and call them "disgusting".

If he doesn't have a problem when he and others post things to show how the alt-right or other wingnuts on the right think, then he shouldn't be going after people that post things that show how the wingnuts on the left think. That was my point. He doesn't consider himself to be looking for something to be aggrieved about when he or someone else posts things about the alt-right or other wingnuts on the right. He's doesn't lump himself or those that post about the alt-right into that category. Only when someone posts things about the wingnut left does he consider that looking for something to be aggrieved about.