TitanTiger

I don't know what it's going to take to get them to see it. It was also illegal hands to the face.

?

Everything we get feels like pulling teeth while they just have virtually every bounce go their way.

Keep it up and find out. Had you followed the conversation you’d have understood that without me having to tell you. or maybe you’re just itching for a fight?

Well I wasn’t blaming refs.

Refs missed a couple of blatant holds on the edge on two of MDs biggest plays. Given the tackling issues and DBs getting burned, the Terps really don’t need their help too.

Evergreen Auburn curse: Backup opponent QBs become instant Hall of Famers. Also, defense looks completely lost.

First, equity and equality are not the same thing. Second, no one said that these words or concept in an of themselves are bad. Please, if you're going to engage on this, take the time to listen to what she's talking about. You're arguing against a point no one here is making.

I 100% blame Trump for formenting the s*** that went down on Jan. 6th. He's been constantly sending up dog whistles to these idiots from 2015 on and knew what he was doing. That said, he hasn't been convicted of any of this, charged by Congress with any of it and thus I think the move by Colorado isn't legal and will and should get shot down by SCOTUS.

This is a 22-minute video by Bari Weiss, formerly of The New York Times, now a founding member and contributor of The Free Press titled "Why DEI Must End For Good." You can watch the whole thing but the link above starts as she discusses the transformation of university campuses across the country with a new ideology that has supplanted the one that had reigned for several decades. If you're over 40-45 years old you'd probably recognize it as classical liberalism. And one of its hallmarks was freedom of speech and expression, crystallized in the idea that the solution to bad speech was MORE speech. In other words, when someone presents ideas in the marketplace that you disagree with, that you find offensive and potentially harmful, that you believe to be illogical, inconsistent, or at least not well thought out, the proper action wasn't to suppress their ability to speak it or hound them out of the public square, it was to counter their bad speech with better arguments. Present all the facts in full context, argue logically, offer persuasive rhetoric and counterexamples. Defeat their ideas in the public arena, don't just shout them down or attack the messenger. But I don't think anyone who's paid attention over roughly the last 20 years would characterize the culture or our universities and colleges as bastions of liberalism any longer. I believe there's a reason that some on the left have shifted to calling themselves "progressive" rather than "liberal," and it's not just because Republicans in the 80s were so successful at tainting the word "liberal." It's because they don't actually see liberal values as something to strive for any longer. "Progress" as they define it is the new aim and liberal values are often seen as hinderances rather than a means to achieving those goals. In the segment I link to, Ms. Weiss (a bi-sexual, liberal Jew lest anyone think I'm posting some screed from some far-right ideologue) labels this new ideology broadly under the name of DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion). And if you want a TL;DR version of what how she contrasts this with the liberalism it has supplanted, here's a brief breakdown: DEI values and replaces... The concept of good and evil with "the powerless" (good) and "the powerful" (necessarily bad) Color blindness with race obsession Ideas with identity Debate with denunciation Persuasion with public shaming The rule of law with the fury of the mob Under this ideology, authority is given not on the basis of talents, gifts, hard work, accomplishments, and contributions to society, but in inverse proportion to the disadvantages their group as suffered, as defined by radial ideologues. Fairness is defined by equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. I encourage you to watch the whole thing or at least from the point that I linked to the end (about half of it) I could quibble over a couple of her terms (like color blindness for instance), but overall I think she's giving one of the best distillations of the problems we're facing on this front. And to be clear, both right and left are getting sucked into waging the cultural war on these terms. This isn't only a problem for the political left, though that is where this particular brand is getting the most respect, and from where the ideological takeover of universities, corporate HR departments, primary education and such is coming. So I'm not really interested in arguments that try to paper only one side as the problem. The problem is bigger than either party or side of the political spectrum. And the reactions to it are often problematic in other ways rather than being real solutions. I'd love to hear some thoughts from across the board here. And to be clear, I put this in the regular politics forum for it to be a civilized discussion so don't turn this into some pissing match or a platform to make drive-by potshots.

Some of this depends on what else is open in these terminals on Sundays. Is CFA like the only option? Or is there only one other place to get food? If there are multiple options it doesn't seem like that big a deal to have one that closes on Sundays. But regardless, if this was something you didn't think of, I don't have a problem with making it a rule for new business. I don't think it's fair to insert this rule now after already granting the slots to CFA without such terms. Given the way the person putting for this bill is talking though, it really seems more about an axe to grind over their political and social views than any real concern for restaurant options on Sundays. Something tells me if this were a chain owned by Palestinian Muslims that happened to close on Sundays, we wouldn't be hearing boo on any bills like this.

Ah, I see someone else basically answered this for us. It's a back door attempt to discriminate. The new law would require that any eatery on the highway be open seven days a week, which is impossible for Chick-fil-A as it is famously closed on Sundays in recognition of the Sabbath. “To serve New Yorkers and travelers, things should be open seven days a week, including Chick-fil-A, and if they can’t they shouldn’t be in our rest stops. There should be options for people to eat and drink and not just one spot,” Assembly member Tony Simone told the Post. “It simply makes no sense for any provider of food services in these busy travel plazas to be closed on Sundays.” Simone advocate on LGBT issues, made it clear he’s no fan of the wildly popular fast food stop. “Chick-fil-A has had a terrible record on LGBT rights. I’m not going to not say that clearly,” he said when asked if that was a motivation behind the bill.

Other possibilities that I wouldn't put past politicians in that region 1. They don't like CFA's stance on certain social and political issues and don't like that the state contracted with a company like that for these locations, but they know they can't really push to get rid of them on that basis. So they concoct this new bill about being open on Sundays knowing CFA almost 100% won't compromise on the matter and will leave on their own. 2. The politician in question is getting their palm greased by the owner of another food chain that would like to get into these locations CFA has in the terminals, so they propose this bill that would get CFA to leave and then they'll promote this benefactor's chain and continue to enjoy kickbacks. 3. All of the above.

Yeah, it helps everyone's feelings a lot when you already know the class is going to be great even if we don't flip the last few on the fence vs hoping it's not a complete disaster with a coach who doesn't give a rat's ass about trying.

I hear you. I disagree with it at least at this point in the rebuild, but it's well thought out.

I don't think the issue for most people is that they don't want or think we don't need a star at QB. It's that they think Thorne can improve a good bit with a year under his belt in the system and a major upgrade at WR - AND - that Auburn is not a team that is a QB away from competition for championships. We have more needs than that, even though I'll grant that's important. We have multiple positions of need both from an impact player perspective and from a depth perspective and while our NIL is healthy, it is not unlimited. Dropping a huge bag to get a top tier transfer QB means there are some other dudes we can't get. Maybe we don't keep all those WRs we have committed. Maybe we lose a LB recruit or two. Maybe we can't pick up a corner we could use or DL depth. I'm not sitting in on the meetings and can't tell you that for a fact. But I think logically it's the most likely reason for our decisions in this area.

You keep trying to characterize this as interactions with me as if that’s the problem. It’s your interactions *in general* - your incessant need to constantly chime in with negativity or snide shots at fans here for being fans, your “realism” as you like to think of it. I don’t know if you’re oblivious or willfully antagonistic. But I’ve told you multiple times about it and it never seems to sink in. Just stop. No one here has asked for your unique penchant for board reality checks.

You aren’t being attacked. You keep acting the way you act, people keep telling you and the mods they’re sick of it, yet you play the victim.

Should you ever wonder why so many people tell us to get rid of you, this is just a mild example of why. This s*** where you feel like it’s your job to bring Auburn fans back down to earth and be the board realist is exhausting to people.

True. It does limit your options some. I think one of the On3 guys mentioned we may have held off on the Vandy WR because he wouldn't be here until summer at the earliest. We really want whoever we get to be here for spring practice.

Via the guys from The Next Round (who called the game). If you didn't watch it, it was the dumbest calling of a game ever. They constantly had a third of the screen covered with these goobs interviewing irrelevant people from Huntsville, Conference USA and just randos who wandered in off the street, and when they weren't doing that, they were discussing anything but the actual game being played. Auburn Twitter is ruthless.

A few minor nitpicks and comments: Haley is a traditional conservative, not a moderate. Trump isn't a conservative at all. Haley is more of an adult than Trump, lest we confuse basic maturity and not throwing tantrums for "moderation." I do agree the primary system gives too much power to the crazies in each party. From your lips to God's ears.

If the GOP nominates Trump again, they deserve to disintegrate into irrelevance as a party and a movement forever.

This feels like "damned if you do, damned if you don't." This fanbase has (rightly) railed on the Potato Famine for not even recruiting guys like Ryan Williams, Quinshon Judkins, Perry Thompson, Cam Coleman and others, then when the new staff comes in and fights tooth and nail for the biggest prospects out there no matter who they're committed to (flipping several), we're going to criticize the effort? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

$8M/year over the course of a 10 year deal is $80M. It might not fund a $400M stadium renovation, but that isn't peanuts. I do agree though, that if the figures are relatively close, you go with Nike. And I know you were dogging adidas earlier, but the same is true of them whether you like their consumer gear or not. They are one of the "Big Two" in college basketball recruiting and make good competition gear for athletic teams.