DawgTalkers.net Forums Active Threads

SOS is based on the last years records of teams.

It is of anecdotal information.

The NFCN has 4 good teams that took out the AFCN last year. Hence the AFCN win percentage was lower.

This year the AFCN plays the NFCS which had 4 teams tied at 8-9 and the saints at 6-11.

It is not that hard to figure out why the Browns have an easier schedule on paper this year.

Why would anyone, much less myself put thought into a manufactured falsehood? That's a pretty lame narrative.




Allow me to explain to you what a "lame narrative" sounds like. When a man has been displaying an obvious pattern over a long period of time showing a propensity to do something and when someone points that fact out to you, you try and dismiss it and belittle it as a "lame narrative". You're welcome.


That is how they were. Visitors centers have been around for decades. Promoting people visit our national parks has been happening for decades. WTH are you talking about?


So let's see if I have this correct. You want less government spending. Yet at the same time you oppose selling "knick knacks" at visitor centers which raises a lot of money for the park service which means they need less money from the government?

And "agenda driven narratives"? Is that what you call telling the entire history of a region where a national park is located? Let me explain what that really means. What that means is people simply want to remove the part of a regions history they want to hide and don't like. This allows them to selectively show what they like and erase what they don't like. That's the very definition of an "agenda driven narrative".

I’m sure we have a solid plan for this season! There are too many unknowns right now and it’s going to take a while to get some solid answers as to how things will play out. New OL, new WR’s new HC and staff not to mention our yearly quandary at QB. If I had to guess how many games we will win I would say 6-8 but it’s almost impossible to predict. Here’s hoping for the best and our young players to develop.

I agree. Want to win this series; I would welcome a little extra rest if we win tonight. For. The. Land! Go,Gavs!

The initial post was about budget cuts. Someone that works for an organization (the person that wrote the linked article) that is getting its budget cut has personal financial considerations.

I didn't say it was irreversible. People are arguing that designations should be. I disagree with that. Existing roads and sites are/were/will be no longer accessible. It's not all past history. Some had active practices (religious significance) from the locals. No longer being able to drive to sites deeper in the area makes them essentially impossible to get to in anything resembling a reasonable time frame. The Trump did it because it was Obama's is a lame narrative, and keeps taking us further from the initial post that was on budget cuts, work force reduction, and changing displays.

Where exactly is the reason "they did this" written out? Not some biased op ed or your made up opinion.

You haven't shown anything that shows the harm Trump is doing in this instance. Saying something "may very well be harmed" isn't evidence, it's conjecture and speculation.

Are only you supposed to be allowed to make up hypothetical harm?
I'd argue that promoting tourism is as likely to cause damage as leaving things as they were.

The history of federal mismanagement of national parks is its own separate issue.

Look I'm for preserving nature. I'm not a big fan of agenda driven narratives and selling knickknacks.

Personally, I'm weird and find the whole idea of owning land that the "owner" hasn't actually walked distasteful. Yes, claiming things is what governments do, but I don't have to like it.

Only idiots elect a man that says stupid nonsensical things on a consistent basis. These countries have no idea if trump is being serious or not if you look at his track record.

He is the same person that said if you elected the democrats they would start a war in the middle east but not if you elected him because he was a president of peace. He even pointed out that he didn't start any wars in his first term to back up what he was saying.

I suppose only idiots thought he was being serious then too?

That's been the standard line every time this fool says something stupid. Which is almost daily. "He was just joking." He wasn't being serious."

And you people keep repeating that BS. Right up until he actually tries to do it.

Increasing protections on land already owned and controlled by the federal government has no "financial gain" involved. And unless you think the National Park Service has some kind of slush fund that their employees are taking for themselves I have no idea what kind of financial gain you think there is in that department.

If it was just reversed how can you call it irreversible? The only thing you've been able to maintain in all of this has been made up possibilities and scenarios. Even after showing you that nobodies property was taken and nobody had to be relocated now you pivot in yet another direction. This harmed no one and only served to help forther protect land owned by the federal government. But since Obama did it, Trump had to undo it.

Or is that an obvious pattern you have missed in all of this? and since you're always searching for the truth, why don't you look at least far enough into the topic to see the reasoning of why they did this?

And it's quite odd that you raised a false flag about people having their property taken by eminent domain, which never happened, you then take issue with me asking if we should wait until irreversible harm is done to take actions to prevent it?

Here's the issue. You haven't actually presented anything the actions of Obama did to harm anything. You haven't shown anything to show it hurts the land or harmed any people. But there is certainly a chance that if protections are taken away from our federal lands and cuts made to our national parks things may very well be harmed.

It's as if you have just made things up as you've gone along that hold no substance.

Sounds like a plan

I sure hope that the Cavs can close the deal tonight.

It would be hard to win a seventh game in Detroit.

That's correct, except it is now 3 games, to get them to 17 total AND the opponents are determined in advance, not the schedules.

Now it is:
6 division games, 3 home and 3 away

8 non-division games from a rotating schedule of one division within each conference, this year it is AFC South and NFC South, (2) Home and (2) away from each division.

3 games, 2 from AFC and 1 from NFC, in our case, from a division different from the (2) above. So, for the AFC North in 2026, the AFC games will be the ranked opponents like your team in AFC West and AFC East. The last opponent will be ranked the same from any of the NFC East/West/North. Ranking in the division determines the opponent pool to choose from for the schedulers. These are the only (3) opponents undetermined at the end of the previous season. There is a rotating year over year from this tier that determines (2) home OR (2) away, one year you will have 8 home games, then next you will have 9 home games.

Our National Parks are geologic treasures.

Men of foresight recognized that. There was no political agenda.

These are natural wonders that should be available for all to see and enjoy. They must be protected from commercialization.

We are in a war that is costing billions.

As of May 2026, the Department of Defense (now called the Department of War) has asked Congress for a massive expansion in defense spending, totaling a $1.5 trillion, 44% increase in overall defense spending for Fiscal Year 2027, following a $1 trillion topline in FY2026.

The National Parks budget is roughly $3.5 billion, national parks generate an estimated $55 billion in economic impact, with visitors spending nearly $29 billion in surrounding communities in 2024.

trump is attacking a profitable resource that pays for itself and only requires what it needs to remain profitable.

As of May 2026, the U.S. national debt is approaching $39 trillion, with annual interest payments projected to exceed $1 trillion ($1.039 trillion) in fiscal year 2026. The Treasury is currently paying roughly $3 billion per day to service this debt.

trump is a business man?

Obviously.

I think 2 road games to start the season and then coming home to 2 teams that made the playoffs last year will be a fairly tough start to the season. The new Oline needs to gel quickly and hopefully Garrett and the defense gets off to a fast start.

I am a week to week guy.

I have no idea how the Browns will play right now. We don't know who will start at quarterback.

Once we have played three games or so you kind of get a sense of what we have.

The NFL is tight. The teams are close. Most of the games are close.

This. And you never know who will start fast or slow. Who will get injuries. Too many variables to read much into the tealeaves ... just prepare for each game one at a time. If we can get to 8-9 or 9-8 this year I will be surprised and happy.

Schedules are determined years in advance except for two games which are played against teams with similar records. One from the AFC, one from the NFC.

I agree that you can't get much out of strength of schedule. You can never tell from year to year how well a team is going to play.

Well that used to be the case - but Trump says and then does more and more idiotic things. So that old troupe is a wearing thin.

And what do you call someone who routinely enables and overlooks a POTUS that continually says moronic things?

OK up to $13.94 now

You might have a point. Maybe.

Except there's two pieces of information - fact based intelligence gathering you could call it if you wanted to try and dress it up fancy like you like to try and do:

[1] This is Trump. It's Project 2025. We've seen it enacted. We've seen it written down. We've seen the results elsewhere. When things like DOGE - which no doubt you might well have embraced as a great idea to cut spending and reduce government costs -- was a complete sham. A hatchet job that may end up costing us money and certainly got no-where remotely close to saving Billions the it claimed (other than thru dodgy accounting and misdirection). ICE is effective but arguably they are/were masked unidentified agents with no transparency or accountability. The war in Iran is a cluster whichever way you want to look at it. . . . that's just scratching the surface. So we have history of what Trump says and does often has negative impacts on every day Americans or a negative impact on whatever the focus is - or in some cases it is simply a disaster.

[2] We have your own history of simply being a contrarian. You can type away at your keyboard and claim that you're being rational and it's everyone else that's extreme and unable to think critically, but that does not make it so. It's a steady, consistent and repeated pattern of behavior on virtually every post in the political forum. Instead of using logic and what's in front of us - you "What If" any topic to death. What if your Uncle had balls? What if Trump is an alien? What if the pattern we have seen from Project 2025 is not really a pattern and just a coincidence. What if the price of gas goes so high no-one goes to the National Parks any more?

For anyone paying attention - it is easy to draw a relatively straight forward argument and conclusion. That doesn't guarantee that it's the right conclusion. We are all in the opinion based stage of analysis. One side is following Occam's Razor - you are debating from the perspective of improbability while hiding behind "we don't know all the result/facts". That's fine - but it does not make you right and it does not give you the moral or intellectual high ground. And when Bone expanded on the environmental impact - you didn't address that, just said it wasn't a big enough focus of the OP. That seems like simply sidestepping a fact because it's too hard to counter .... so maybe I have had it wrong all this time, maybe you are less contrarian and simply more of a sophist.

Like all things - we'll find out what this all means eventually. But maybe it will be too late to save something precious. Personally because of the potential to do irrevocable harm I would lean on a more conservative (conservationist) approach - not the shrug your shoulders approach.

Kind of an intersting order. Home opener 3 games in after 2 of our better non div opponents. No back to back divisional games. I know they base strength of schedule on last years records but I don’t have faith that the jags, saints, Texans and colts are going to be as bad as some expect. Bengals are also due for an on year. I just don’t think Mike McCarthy is a good coach so I don’t know what to expect of the Steelers. Or the Ravens. But both teams won’t be terrible. I just don’t believe in Jackson Dart but coaching is way better so giants are also a big ?. I feel like this could easily turn into a pretty tough schedule but whatever. I appreciate it when the bye is very near the middle.

Interesting to also get the super rare “easy” schedule the season before we’re likely gunning for a qb in the draft. Probably an 8-9 close and out of the running for a top QB unless we move Miles. It’s a season of question marks for sure. Way more questions than answers.

I actually think it worked out pretty well for us.

...We can see what Watson does before we have to worry about the home crowd boo birds wrecking his fragile ego.

Then we can switch to Shedeur during the mini-bye after Pittsburgh.

Then we can get Taylen Green ready over the actual bye.

Telling me a first rounder has a 50/50 chance to succeed isn't specific to an individual player. Telling me there's an 80% reduction doesn't tell me what land was actually excluded. Telling me 3,000 jobs doesn't tell me which jobs.

We're talking about two different "extremes."

Yes, I reach for more information. You jump to a short sighted, over simplified conclusion and push away anything that contradicts it without even attempting to understand what any one else is saying.

Someone saying there is going to be harm, doesn't actually require that there actually would be irreversible harm. I'm for looking to see if there actually would be harm rather than taking the word of someone with financial motivations for their position. Someone losing funding is obviously going to be against their own losing funding.

Appearances can be deceiving when you don't know what you are looking at.

You are always a danger, Pit, whether you break out the tomahawk or not. We're already talking about it and trying to determine whether major damage is being done.

Yes, the world is full of dichotomies. I'm capable of holding two separate ideas independently. I'm not taking Trump's decision on faith, I'm saying let's look at it.

You're right. No homes were taken in this instance. That's why I included the part after the and/or. I was also using a hypothetical and not the exact cases we were discussing to make the idea more broadly applicable. I'm against government overreach in all its many forms. The home version hits closest to home for most people. Alas, trying to get you to think rarely works once you've dug in.

Your assumptions are wrong, as usual. The "policy" I was referring to was "allowing lame duck politicians to make irreversible decisions" rather than the antiquities act itself. The argument that later Presidents shouldn't be able to change designations sounds like a bad idea to me. I get why they are saying that in this instance, but things change.

I Would have liked the Falcons for the Home opener.

JC

Only idiots thought he was being serious.

Carry on.