AuburnNTexas

Verified Member
  • Content count

    3,987
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

537 Sterling

About AuburnNTexas

  • Rank
    College President
  • Birthday 11/18/1951

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Church, Kids, Grandkids, Rugby and all Auburn Sports.
  • Location
    Allen, Tx
  • Gender
    Male
  1. I watched this what there were a few things that made me sad. One that college students didn't recognize things like Obama's apology tour. It is sad that you can be this far along in your life and not know which President did this. Two that they had an opinion on if it was good or bad not based on what was done but by who they thought had done it Three and finally the student with the communist arm and hammer shirt whose father probably was a capitalist to be able to pay for his education and who still believed in the collective work force after every country that has tried it has had to go back to some form of capitalism.
  2. The topic is about Supreme court justices and a possible term limit for them. Rather than deal with that you go on the attack with the line a narcissistic psychopath. We have already figured out you don't like Trump but that is irrelevant to this discussion. I totally understand people being upset about the way Merrick Garland was treated but then trying to sabotage Gorusch because of that was rather childish it kind of makes you wonder who the narcissistic psychopath's are. As I said earlier I like the idea of some limit. I agree with one poster that to short a time gives a a President who serves 8 years to much power so the real question if you like term limits is how many years would it take to limit one president from controlling the whole court. I originally said 14 years but after reading some other peoples comments I think 18 years. That would be one appointment every 2 years. If we did that Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsberg and Beyer would be gone. That would seem like a president would only select 4 out of 9. But what happens if one or two die then you could have 5 or 6 by one President. So again no perfect solution. It is a moot point. It would require an amendment to the Constitution to change that and there is no way that will happen as this country is to divided to pull that off.
  3. A lot of Trumps executive orders are to countermand Obama's executive orders. I think all of our recent Presidents have abused executive orders by trying to legislate with the stroke of a pen. Over the last 50 years the courts and the executive branch have both appropriated the power to write law that should be in the realm of the Legislative branch. By allowing this we are hurting the checks and balances that were put in the Constitution for a reason.
  4. Actually what the polls are showing is the Public is still split and that neither side can get a true majority. We need better people in both parties but the way the primaries are setup the country will remain divided as neither side picks many people from the middle.
  5. It comes down to 25 and 85. Because of attrition 85 is not usually an issue but 25 is. Garner wants 4-5 DL and I believe we want 2-3 CB, 2 Safety and 2 LB that is 10 to 12 on D alone. When you look at 3-5 O-Line, 1-2 TE, 1QB, 2RB, 2-3 WR, 1FB and you are looking at 10-14 on O. Each coach pushing for his players it is tough. These numbers are fluid and could change. Looking at who will graduate each year and depth these numbers could change. I personally believe need 3 Safeties and 3 Linebackers. It is a balancing act any way the coaches do it could be right or wrong based on who leaves or who gets hurt.
  6. While it is currently illegal you are taking a risk on hurting your future. Does it impair people in the future as one poster has said. There have been studies that show it can. By the way alcohol can destroy your life also if abused. alcohol used responsibly is fine and so is pot. The problem is some people are more susceptible to becoming hooked on pot or alcohol and it can ruin your life. I smoked some in college and a couple years after then quit and no bad side affects I had a friend that became hooked to the point he eventually had a mental breakdown it took him a couple of years and a lot of analyses to get straight both with pot, alcohol and in his mind. Even if legalized that does not mean that some employers won't still have drug tests at work. If you fail for pot or alcohol you lose your job. If they legalize pot it would not bother me that much but I would prefer that they decriminalize it. I would like the government and private companies to study it for medicinal use and determine once and for all if it can really help for some things.
  7. If we do legalize pot we need a way to arrest people for driving while intoxicated just like we do for alcohol. It is a little harder to detect and do field tests on. No breathalyzer. Even if detected how much would show you are intoxicated and how long does it stay in your system and impairs you.
  8. Great win and thank you for keeping us informed.
  9. That is the best news I have read on this site. I will continue praying for you.
  10. He has been a true Auburn man. I totally understand his decision with the returning players and the incoming players he realized he would be getting even less playing time. I want to thank him for his contributions to Auburn and give him a War Eagle for the way he represented Auburn while he was here.
  11. It is not misleading. We are talking about not having an abortion and then keeping the child or having the new born adopted. My point is there is no shortage of parents able and willing to take a new born. If somebody wants an abortion because they don't want a child at that time it seems illogical that they wouldn't put the child up for abortion. It does take time to approve a family for adoption but that can be arranged before the baby is born. There definitely is an issue with adoptions of older children but that is unrelated to having a new born adopted. I am open to a new topic on the issues with getting older children adopted. I believe you will find people on both sides of the abortion issues will have similar views on this issue. I think we spend to much time discussing abortion and not trying to solve this issue. This issue is very complicated in its own right.
  12. If he has a big year that would mean more PT. Why would he leave?
  13. You are quite right about the Catholic Church there have been instances where a pregnant woman had cancer and had the option of Chemo and or Radiation therapy to save the woman's life or waiting till term as having Chemo or Radiation or both would probably kill the Fetus. The Catholic Church's teaching in this situation is that it is the mothers decision. Some mothers choose to wait so that the child can be born and in most cases die because of this a few have done this and lived. Other mothers have chosen the treatment in most cases the fetus dies but in a few cases the fetus survives. When it is really a choice between the mothers life and the child's life the mother has the choice and either choice is correct.
  14. By January of this year when we had already seen other chemical weapons attacks she repeated the statement that they got all the chemical weapons. Before that I could buy that she was stating what she believed and not lying just she was wrong. The Intelligence community has been known to be wrong. But after seeing the Syrians use chemical weapons and repeating the mantra I have to believe she was lying or unbelievably stupid and uninformed.
  15. Couldn't agree with you more. In some cases it is because they player could only do one thing in other cases it is because they only did one thing. Brown is a pure shooter but when he tries to drive and create he often has his pocket picked so in his case he is a pure shooter. In Purifoy's case it is more about what he does not what he is capable of. In HS he was more of a slash and drive player and he actually showed when he was completely healthy that he could slash and drive however he settles for the three point shot to often he did that before the ankle sprain and even more so after. The reason Dunans was so good at times is he was a more balanced scorer. He hit some 3's he drove and scored, he drove and passed, and even drove and pulled up. He was less predictable. When he played within himself he was a very good player and a true asset to this team. He also was high energy even though at times he was high energy without purpose. He is going to be very hard to replace. Wiley catch in the paint and dunk or layup. He needs to add to his offensive game and his conditioning. Basically last year we had Herron with multi-faceted offensive game, Dunans not as consistent as Herron with multi-faceted offensive game, Purifoy who could have multi-faceted game but settled for the 3 and the balance one dimensional offense game some like Brown Shooter some like Wiley down low only. A player like Brown who plays pretty good one on one D and can shoot the 3 can be a real asset as long as he keeps moving to open spaces and the ball is worked to give him open looks. Problem was we didn't pass enough and our PG's looked to score instead of setting up other players. When I say we didn't pass enough it also means we didn't do the right type of passing. We need to hit people in the key from there a player can shoot if Open, Drive if being closed on to quickly or pass to either side of the floor as you are in the middle wher you don't have to pass to somebody on other side of the floor. Cole thanks for your observations you are always on point.