8 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

I respect your belief. But it’s a belief. Please don’t imply it’s true for all Christians.  It’s mainly southern evangelical  - which i understand is much of TTs constituency.

Respectfully, it’s a complex subject.

The issue is NOT complex.  People say that to evade/diminish the discussion of abortion.  Either you believe life begins at the moment of conception or you don't.  If you do believe life begins at conception, then ivf is out of consideration because ivf involves the abortion of embryos in order to have live births.  Abortion of embryos is a part of ivf.

Btw, billions of people who are not Christian believe abortion to be wrong.  Expand the scope of your understanding of this issue.

8 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Nobody mentioned anything about abortion until you brought it up.

I know full well what IVF is. Has no bearing on Tuberville's statement. You're putting words in Tuberville's mouth, I'm going by what he actually said. It really wouldn't have been hard for him to say what you're saying, but he didn't. He's a moron.

No, I don't think that you understand what ivf is.  IVF requires the abortion of some implanted embryos.  The physician makes the determination as to which embryos will be aborted, otherwise every woman who had ivf would be an octomom.

3 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Are you...really being serious here? I explained it in my first response. He said he wants more babies. IVF provides more babies. Reporter points that out, he freezes. Nothing about abortion, he just stands there slack-jawed.

You can inject your beliefs all you want in an attempt to defend him - dude's a buffoon.

You didn't read or don't understand the consequences of ivf.  Ivf involves the abortion of some embryos in order to have a live birth.

To be logical, you're better off saying that you are okay with aborting embryos in order to have a live birth.

1 minute ago, Leftfield said:

Then he should say that instead of making a stupid argument.

TT wasn't arguing.  He answered a simple question.  Having said that, what was "dumb" about his comment ?

 

32 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

Have you ever considered that IVF may be God's will?  This could be how so many prayers are answered.

Another view... Is it your belief that God himself aborts babies?  Explain a miscarriage.

I'm not willing to expand the discussion, only limiting it to the premise.  Purposely killing a baby to create a baby is not God's will.

32 minutes ago, RunInRed said:

You do realize how many Christian, Pro-Life families only have children today because of IVF, correct? So you’re right, it’s not so simple.  IVF literally makes life possible for who even knows how many millions of people.

How many babies were killed to have those who were born ?  Yes, it is simple if you claim to be pro life.  Those who say they are pro life and promote ivf either are ignorant of the details of the procedure or are not pro life.

A person cannot be pro life and promote the death of other babies to satisfy their desire for a child.

8 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

All of this, yet you fail to see that Tuberville's argument is still stupid because taking IVF away means fewer children will be born - the opposite of what he says he wants. Whether you agree with abortion or not has no bearing on that fact.

No, again, ivf promotes abortion, which TT, as a Christian, is against, whether it causes more births or not.  TT is pro life.  Why would he promote a policy that includes abortion ?

20 hours ago, AU9377 said:

Really?

Let's just say that Biden should be more diplomatic with his words, especially when he has imperfect knowledge.  Was Navalny murdered ?  Probably, but are we to allow a man with demented reasoning escalate the dilemma ?  JB's foreign policy is at best monosyllabic, "DON'T". 

JB et al (military and political advisors) unnecessarily keep trying to corner VP.  He might just strike back.  

Ukraine is not our issue.

1 hour ago, RunInRed said:

Holy dumbass

 

You've left the reader to assume that by "dumbass" you refer to the seeming contradiction that TT wants Alabamians to have more babies, but opposes the specific practice of ivf would give more babies.  Not knowing your understanding of ivf I'll try to clarify.

As a Christian, I, as most, know that life begins at the moment of conception which ivf does produce and the eggs are then not just some protoplasm which can be used in scientific experiments like ivf.  Ivf produces multiple fertilized eggs, which are babies at their earliest form and are therefore sacred before God and man.  The process of ivf is one of selection by the physician who decides which baby is to be implanted with the hope of producing a viable baby (-ies).  The remaining fertilized eggs are discarded like trash, abortion, sometimes not and are frozen ((another discussion unto itself).  Again, these eggs are sacred life.

Once fertilized eggs are implanted, then, after a period of time, the physician further decides which implanted eggs remain and which are to be aborted.

Ivf cheapens life and dishonors God, especially with the subtle practice of aborting fertilized eggs.  Life is precious at all stages, especially as an embryo which cannot defend itself.

The Biden-Harris campaign deceives the reader with an overly simplistic understanding of ivf by using a gotcha moment.  Ivf always causes abortions.  THAT bit of info the Biden-Harris campaign does not want the public to understand and would rather the public view ivf as a compassionate means to give babies to those who desperately want them.  For TT to explain this would have taken more time in another discussion, as he stated.

If you believe that sacred life begins at conception, then whom do you trust to guide, Biden-Harris or Tuberville ?  If you're okay with abortion, then you're okay with ivf and the Biden-Harris team promoting the practice.

Life begins at the moment of conception.

5 hours ago, AU9377 said:

THIS IS NOT NORMAL

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-breaks-silence-navalny-casts-no-blame-putin-2024-02-19/

Who killed Epstein ?

44 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

i have renamed you the elephant tripper. is this ok? no insult as i and a trip as well.................

lol, that would be the most innocuous of all my nicknames among my friends.  Go for it !

20 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Lot of fools on this forum.

 

Tag, you're IT.

aubiefifty, you do and shall have my fervent prayers.

On 2/18/2024 at 7:07 PM, aubiefifty said:

i will buy the one that shows him locked up...........

This is as close as you're ever going to see DJT being locked up

 

On 2/18/2024 at 7:08 PM, I_M4_AU said:

He would sell it, I guarantee.  You still on for tomorrow?

That would really piss them off, kind of like the mugs he's selling with his face pressed against prison bars.

On 12/11/2023 at 6:52 PM, E'Town4Bama said:

After reading a lot of this, are we a democracy or a republic? I guess that has been a question for the last 50 years...................................

"Mr. Franklin, what form of government do we have ?"  

"A Republic, if you can keep it."

On 12/7/2023 at 11:47 AM, homersapien said:

Will I've never cared for Liz Cheny's political views, I respect the hell out of her.  This country needs more true, constitution believing conservative like her, as the following piece illustrates.  (emphasis mine)

Liz Cheney reminds us of the stakes

No wonder MAGA Republicans hate Liz Cheney. No Republican is as articulate, persuasive and passionate as the former Wyoming congresswoman in describing the threat four-time-indicted former president Donald Trump and her own party as currently constituted pose to the future of American democracy and international security.

Her new book “Oath and Honor” has plenty of bombshells — the congressman who derided Trump as “orange Jesus”; Rep. Kevin McCarthy’s pathetic excuse that he had to visit Trump at Mar-a-Lago because the former president was depressed and not eating. But the jaw-dropping tidbits should not distract from her overarching message, one that Republicans and the media alike need to embrace.

In her characteristically blunt, unvarnished way, she told CBS’s John Dickerson in an interview aired Sunday: “He’s told us what he will do. It’s very easy to see the steps that he will take. … People who say ‘Well, if he’s elected, it’s not that dangerous because we have all of these checks and balances’ don’t fully understand the extent to which the Republicans in Congress today have been co-opted.” She stressed, “One of the things that we see happening today is a sort of a sleepwalking into dictatorship in the United States.”

Without citing No Labels directly, she cautioned that in facing an existential crisis, we cannot have “a situation where the election that might be thrown into the House of Representatives is overseen by a Republican majority.” (No Labels has let on that throwing the election to the House rather than achieving an outright victory for its candidate might be its desired scheme.)

Moreover, she made no bones about the unfitness of her own party to hold power in Congress. “If you look at what Donald Trump is trying to do, he can’t do it by himself. He has to have collaborators,” she said. “And the story of [House Speaker] Mike Johnson is a story of a collaborator and of someone who knew then — and knows now — that what he’s doing and saying is wrong, but he’s willing to do it in an effort to please Donald Trump. And that’s what makes it dangerous.”

Asked directly whether we would be better off with a Democratic House majority, she did not mince words. “I believe very strongly in those principles and ideals that have defined the Republican Party, but the Republican Party of today has made a choice and they haven’t chosen the Constitution,” she said. “And so I do think it presents a threat if the Republicans are in the majority in January 2025.”

In a subsequent interview with Rachel Maddow, Cheney added another caution. Trump “would take those people who are the most radical, the most dangerous, who had the proposals that were the most dangerous, and he will put them in positions of supreme power,” she said. “That’s a risk that we simply can’t take.” In a second term, the sort of adults in the room from the first term would be absent, removing any restraints he might have previously had.

Her remarkable interviews and ongoing campaign to prevent the United States from “sleepwalking into dictatorship” should be a wake-up call to the remaining anti-MAGA Republican still deluding themselves that a second Trump term wouldn’t be all that bad. (As she told Maddow, “When you have a president who is willing to go to war with the rule of law, to ignore the rulings of the courts if he doesn’t agree with them, that has the potential to unravel everything.”)

Though Cheney does not carry weight with Trump’s hardcore base, her message might resonate with “soft” Republicans, independents and even left-wing Democrats in a snit about President Biden’s handling of the Israel-Gaza war and who vow not to support Biden.

How she will make her case in 2024 remains to be seen. Though she has not ruled out a third-party run, she might carry far more weight if she and pro-democracy Republicans such as Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah and former congressman Adam Kinzinger of Illinois endorse Biden and warn voters against enabling Trump by voting for one of the other candidates. As we learned in 2020, it is important to set up a “permission structures” that encourage Republicans to put fidelity to the Constitution and democracy above partisanship.

Cheney can also play another critical role: keeping the media focused on “not the odds, but the stakes” as media critic Jay Rosen put it. It has not been easy to get mainstream media to emphasize the stakes — the survival of our democracy — rather the horserace and premature, meaningless polls. Fortunately, mainstream outlets have started paying greater attention to Trump’s fascist vision, totalitarian plans, intention to destroy NATO and plans to turn the executive branch into his personal, partisan weapon.

It is not enough to run a story once every month or so. Unless the campaign is covered as a battle between democracy and authoritarianism, the real threat Trump poses will be concealed. Given Cheney’s extraordinary communications skills and ratings draw, her constant presence in print, online and TV coverage — and her willingness to dismiss efforts to normalize Trump and to assign Biden artificial demerits — might prove invaluable.

Cheney, long an ardent critic of Democrats, can provide one more service. After years of criticizing Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Democrats, she worked with them on the Jan. 6 committee, attesting to Pelosi’s willingness to put aside past barbs and Cheney’s fellow committee members’ fidelity to the Constitution. Cheney is a valuable character witness to debunk the demonization of Democrats that has driven Republicans to favor the grotesquely unfit Trump over a center-left, competent Democratic president.

No single voice can determine the outcome of the election. But few have as powerful or effective a voice as Cheney. If she wields her influence adroitly, she will earn her share of the credit for beating back the most serious threat to democracy in our history.

Opinion by Jennifer Rubin

Gomer, you and LC are such drama queens.  Our Republic hasn't been under direct threat except during the War of 1812 and WW2.  Well, maybe there's a one mile wide asteroid floating around with our name on it.  That might do it.

LC is just pissed that DJT bitch-slapped her father because he led America into an unwarranted war with Iraq so now she's venting, kind of like you.  Trump woke Americans to the fact that we keep being dragged into war by the same people over and over.  LC would be happy to continue that tradition, along with Brandon.

You should get outside more often and breathe fresh air.  It'll do your mind some good.  Remember, breathe in the good air, exhale the bad.  It's not the other way, you know.

 

ATHENS, Ga. — Carson Beck got a Lamborghini. Well, maybe he just leased it. Or maybe it’s just free use of one from the dealership in exchange for endorsements. Either way, Beck was photographed this week holding the keys to a Lamborghini Urus Performante, which we were told retails for about $270,000.

In the old days, it would have resulted in an immediate NCAA investigation. That is if we even knew about it, which we would not because everyone would have been smart enough not to call attention to it. Because the only way a college athlete could afford a swank new car would be, well, you know, bad. So very, very bad.

In the new days, Beck’s car still produced some baying, including one hot take that it shows “We broke college football.”

We’ve officially crossed a line now. I wanted college players to be compensated. This is obscene.

We broke college football. https://t.co/AolK7qVZRK

— Omar Kelly (@OmarKelly) February 7, 2024

Oh no, won’t someone think of the children?!

No, we did not break college football. College football changed, which is why it’s in this ongoing swirl of chaotic change. It’s why there are all the court cases, all the changes to the status quo, this vision of college football that so many grew up thinking was right and good.

On a legal level, it was always suspect. On a fairness level, it was always about the money.

There was once a time when there wasn’t as much money involved. Bear Bryant’s salary as Alabama coach in 1958 was $143,000. Bo Schembechler’s salary at Michigan in 1969 was $135,127. When Bobby Bowden took the Florida State job in 1976 he was earning just $35,000.

Yes, that was still a lot of money at the time, adjusted for inflation, and no the players weren’t getting a cut. But it was still much easier back then to say the players were getting the value of a scholarship and the exposure for the pros when the coaches’ salaries weren’t gargantuan.

The conferences and schools weren’t raking it in. In 1980, the SEC’s total payout to its 10 schools was just $4.1 million. Ten years later, it was up to $16.3 million. A key thing happened in between: The schools, led by Georgia and Oklahoma, sued the NCAA to be able to have conferences sell their television rights and won at the Supreme Court. From there, the dollars rolled in.

GO DEEPER

Ten key moments that have limited the NCAA's power

The SEC payout went up to $73.2 million in 2000. It more than doubled within a decade. And on Thursday, the conference announced its total revenues at $741 million.

And, of course, by now the coaches were earning millions. Such as Florida’s Billy Napier, handsomely paid $7.1 million but fully cognizant it doesn’t make sense to say the players shouldn’t get anything.

“It’s foolish to say the players don’t deserve a piece of the pie,” Napier said during the summer of 2022.

GO DEEPER

SEC keeps getting richer: What that means for college sports

That brings us back to Beck and his Lamborghini. For those still seeking changes to the system, it’s a terrible example: Beck did not leverage the transfer portal to get more money. He is the returning starting quarterback for the team that probably will be the preseason No. 1 team. He will be 22 in November and in his fifth year in college. His coach will be earning $11 million. His offensive coordinator will be earning $1.1 million.

It’s perfectly reasonable for Beck to be driving around in a $270,000 car, plus whatever he’s able to get on the free market. And the same should go for every player. Everyone else in the sport is participating in a free market. The players should be too — and out in the open, not under the table and with the shady actors of the pre-NIL recruiting world.

But it’s reasonable for the coaches and schools to want their players to not leverage the portal every year. Among other rules, and it appears the only way to get that to pass legal muster will be contracts, collective bargaining and some kind of employee status. This is one of the key points in the debate about the future of college athletics. But we’re having this debate for a simple reason: money.

GO DEEPER

Emerson: Did college sports just reach an inflection point?

This pure world of college football, where the players are amateurs and the coaches and administrators are just molders of young men, doesn’t exist. Maybe it sort of did, but it doesn’t anymore. The coaches are well-paid. The administrators — the ones who have their schools switch conferences to chase TV dollars — are well paid. The others involved in the game, from sportscasters to television executives to other media members, are well-paid. They’re all well-paid because they get their share out of the free market, and thus the players do too.

That’s why the current debate is here. If we could snap our fingers and agree that everyone involved — coaches, administrators, TV personalities, media members — only worked for small, fixed salaries, then maybe the players could just play for the value of a scholarship.

But that’s not happening. That’s why Beck deserves whatever car he can get. That’s why, until the people who run college sports devise a system that isn’t an antitrust violation, recruits or transfers are going to be able to leverage their status for more money.

It always been about money. Too many are losing sight of that: We’re not in the current state because of lawyers, judges, politicians and rabble-rousing media members. We’re in it because of the money. As soon as it began pouring into college sports, it had to trickle down to the people playing the game.

Now it’s more than just a trickle. That’s not bad. It takes some getting used to. But the antiquated notion of amateur college football players is long gone because the antiquated notion of amateur college football was even longer gone. The old system wasn’t worth preserving because it wasn’t fair or legal. The new system hopefully will preserve what’s right and good about college sports while being fair and legal.

In the meantime, let the players enjoy their cars. And let’s enjoy that it’s out in the open. Beck being able to accept a Lamborghini and being able to publicize it isn’t a broken world. It’s progress.

(Photo: Nick Tre. Smith / Icon Sportswire via Getty Images)

This article originally appeared in The Athletic.

Georgia Bulldogs,College Football

What Georgia football QB Carson Beck’s Lamborghini says about the state of college sports (msn.com)

24 minutes ago, GwillMac6 said:

Coordinators rarely stay long anywhere though. Especially Auburn.

Unfortunately true, BUT, Charles Kelly has broken the norm with lengthy stays at multiple programs which promotes program stability.

CK's work record:

JSU- 5 years

Nicholls State- 4 years

Georgia Tech- 7 years

FSU- 5 years

UA- 4 years

He's a very rare person to be committed to the programs he's served.  Durkin, about 2 1/2 years per stint.  We'll see who's committed to AU and who isn't.

As an aside, coaching the AU program has been CK's dream since a child.  

22 hours ago, aucanucktiger said:

Kelly was a home run IMHO, this guy's a wait & see.

I'm curious as to how long Durkin stays.  His time with any single program is a little over 2 years.

17 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

thanx richard i should have known you would not be nice..............

My, my, what "nice" language you have.  Here's your trophy, to be shared with the guy who couldn't understand a simple question......

2 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

say something nice to those of us that try and fail.................

You type well

4 minutes ago, Mikey said:

The question was how many Charles Kelly would flip. I think my "under" bet is pretty safe.

You're probably the only one who can actually read a question.

8 hours ago, cbo said:

I realized reading the rumor today that a new QB is the one thing that will give me hope for next season. 

My hope is that Nix will let PT throw the ball more instead of running so much, like PM had him do, but that will be HF's call since he stated he wants up tempo.  He ran twice as many downs at AU, 10/gm.  And, his last 2 seasons at MSU PT averaged 388 passes and 3,000 yds/season with 61.4% completions.  He comes to AU and PM had him throw only 265x for 1,755 yds with 61.1% completions.  PT's efficiency at AU was almost exactly the same as at MSU, but PM had him throw passes less per game.  If he had the same completion %, then why not let him throw more often ?

PT is not really an up tempo player, but if HF persists trying to make him one, then most likely we'll have the same results unless his completion rate increases.  Can Nix improve that ?  For that matter, I don't think any of our qbs is really up tempo, except maybe WW.

I say call more passing plays which will be to the PT's strength, not force him to run as much, which isn't his strength.  Besides, if he goes down, then who replaces him ?

3 hours ago, Hank2020 said:

I think most that were ranting were using Freezes own words. Things would probably go smoother all around if he was wiser with his own comments. IMO of course 

This instance, "In MOST Opinions"