No... but your Oline is only as strong as its weakest link. We will still have holes and those will get bigger as defenses key into weaknesses and the grind of the season takes its toll. I'd probably be a little more positive if I felt more confident that our LT of the future was currently on our roster. I think Fano will be a good NFL starter, but I wouldn't put money on him locking down the left side.
Don't get me wrong... I like what we did this offseason. Time will tell if we hit on our different acquisitions, but the probability is high that we will still be urgently plugging hole(s) in our Oline next off-season.
Is the OL only as strong as the weakest link or could the sum be greater than the parts? I'm not sure either will necessarily apply. Somethings are easier to cover up than others. Scheme can place more importance on different things.
We'll see how things shake out this go round. Hard to know how they'll play together when they've never played together, and we don't really have a firm grasp on who will do the playing where yet, nor a firm grasp on what the plan for the offense is.
Yellowstone was created in 1872 when President Ulysses S. Grant signed the Yellowstone National Park Protection Act.
This is not complicated.
There is a history of learning how to run, care, and protect.
There are experts with extensive Park knowledge.
What is not needed are cuts that have caused 3,000 employees to be laid off.
If you have an interest investigate. Watch The National Parks: America's Best Idea.
If they were employees that had complaints against them and poor performance reviews would it be okay? Or are no employees allowed to be laid off ever?
Edit: I'm not claiming they were bad employees, but repeating that 3,000 number over and over doesn't really tell me all that much.
If there weren't constantly so many bad/erroneous arguments made (I'm not saying you in particular), I'd probably not be sick of the topic and annoyed by people trying to twist what I say (again not you.)
I've probably watched it. I have/have had DVD boxed sets and a load of books on the National Parks. Yet, if I'm trying to investigate something I'm probably not going to a source with a title which seems to indicate an inherent bias.
What you have proposed is you have no objection to the government cutting the parks funding.
You want to cut the parks income by closing visitor centers. Because you know, "trinkets bad".
Then after cutting their budget coming from both direction your answer is to wait until it can no longer sustain itself and problems arise to fix it.
I'm not sure how you think they are "making money". Not only do they use the money they generate but also the government is subsidizing them with more money.
Since when is not generating enough money to sustain yourself and running at a loss "making money"?
You haven't shown any waste of funds. Instead you simply claim the funds are wasted with no basis in fact. Visitor centers actually help generate money to help sustain the parks yet you claim they should be closed.
None of that meandering makes any sense. Something that is actually beneficial to all Americans no matter their politics is something you target while showing zero basis in facts that any of what you propose is needed or justified.
Oh that's right, what if gas prices get to high for them to drive there.....
The thread stands on its own. You can't undo the things you have posted.
I have no objection to cutting the funding in theory. I need to know more about actual cuts to know whether or not I object to them.
I want to cut expenses and environmental impact, and I think selling consumer goods is counterproductive to the parks mission.
I'm not hellbent or up in arms about it, it's just my opinion.
If the surrounding businesses want to sell stuff, more power to them. I still don't particularly like it, but I don't like a lot about the modern consumer culture.
I don't think they are making money, yet that's an argument that keeps getting made in this thread, so I address it.
Claiming I don't want them to do something is not the same as my claiming that they are doing something.
I'm not targeting anything. I'm responding to posts on a message board and giving my opinion because that's what message boards are for.
Alas when responding to meandering, one tends to meander.
Not going into a deep dive because you seem to be avoiding any real debate here - it feels like trolling by way of a half hearted attempt at what might be a debatable point.
Your position seems to be that you are in favor of the cuts to the National Parks. You seem to have based at least part of that opinion based on the size of the organization and it's inefficiencies - it was something you stated as justification for your opinion. Hence size of the organization is a talking point.
1. The size of the Nat Parks reflects the number of sites and to some extant the number of visitors. Ergo "it is what it is". Because the Nat Parks Org has to be BIG because of this nature - either you believe everything/anything BIG needs to be culled, which would be a really bizarre position to take. Or - you think the Nat Parks is excessively inefficient and operates with poorer execution than other large organizations. THAT is why my question was asked.
2. The National parks are self funding and they "work" - they do not cost the tax payer money. Profit as such doesn't matter so much as the fact they do not cost the US tax payer money. This point is so very basic the very fact you deliberately try to miss it indicates your "debate" is in bad faith.
3. The 'bet' - is that we have beautiful, amazing natural resources. They are operated by an organization that costs us nothing. They are visited by over 300 million visitors annually. Any change to how they operate and from an environmental perspective what is allowed to take place on that land - is a risk. YOU argued just because there is change does not indicate that harm will necessarily follow. So you are betting/assuming/hoping/predicting with your opinion that harm probably won't come or won't be that significant ... there really isn't another way to interpret your statements. My point was why risk it? What's the benefit other than potentially a few dollars that are literally nothing in the big picture of Fed Govt. And knowing Trump and knowing Project 2025 and 'Big Business' - the potential to lose something precious is significant.
It really isn't hard at all. And yet ....
I don't have an opinion on specific cuts because no one has been willing to provide me with what exactly those cuts specifically are. That's what I've been asking for rather than making assumptions they are bad because of the reasoning of "they are bad because they are to the parks" or "they are bad because Trump made them." What exactly are they?
1. The size of the Parks in totality can potentially be problematic, but I've more been referring to the specific park that keeps being brought up. Why does Bears Ears have to be 1.36M acres? There seems to be this underlying assumption that more is always better. Unfortunately, more than one can effectively manage can be detrimental to all of that total.
If we lived in a system that had infinite resources, (human, material, and natural) more would be better. Unfortunately, we don't and everything is finite. Costs and values have to be considered and balanced.
I do think monopolies and oligopolies (BIG Business) should be broken up. I do think wealth (BIG accumulation) should be more evenly distributed. I do think the trend for more power to concentrate federally (BIG government) is bad and should be reversed. I think the messed up belief that more is better that this society pushes in every way fathomable is bad for humanity.
BIG is relative. But I do believe there is a very real point where things are bigger than they should be. Unfortunately, there won't always be more to consume.
2. If they don't cost the tax payers any money, where are these cuts coming from? Where do you think the federal budget gets its income?
3. ...Sure, the parks are the bet you've been referring to.... If they aren't operated "perfectly" which you seem to admit with your everything big has inefficiency line of thought, that seems to imply they could run better. Is there risk in change? Sure. But, you can analyze risk if you're willing, and perhaps find change for the positive. Am I saying the change absolutely is a good thing? No. I'm saying I don't know.
I'm not betting anything. I'm saying let's look at all the facts before breaking out our proverbial shotguns.
The rush to judgment we have nowadays in this age of highly polarized, ragebait media is not a good thing to me.
I really liked how aggressive Allen and Mobley have been. It’s like they read about there bad play in the playoffs the last few years, and said enough!
I think CAVS win in game 7 again, making it 3 game 7’s in a row.
Cool stat from the broadcast last night: Cavs are undefeated in Game 7's since 2016.
MINNEAPOLIS (FOX 9) - The Hennepin County Attorney’s Office filed charges against an ICE agent in connection with the January shooting of Julio Sosa-Celis, a Venezuelan national, in Minneapolis.
Christian J. Castro, 52, is facing four counts of second-degree assault with a dangerous weapon and one count of falsely reporting a crime.
ICE-involved shooting in Minneapolis
The backstory:
The ICE-involved shooting took place near the 600 block of 24th Avenue North just before 7 p.m. on Jan. 14.
Initial reporting detailed federal agents were pursuing a man in a vehicle who had crashed into a snowbank. The man then ran to a nearby home, where a pursuing agent caught up with him and attempted to make an arrest.
An "altercation" between the agent and suspect then ensued, which led to two other people arriving from a nearby apartment, and all three attacking the officer – one armed with a broomstick, according to DHS.
"Fearing for his life and safety as he was being ambushed by three individuals, the officer fired a defensive shot to defend his life," DHS initially claimed.
Julio Sosa-Celis, 24, a Venezuelan national, was taken to the hospital for treatment of a non-life-threatening gunshot wound, while Alfredo Alejandro Aljorna, 26, was also arrested in its aftermath.
Both men were charged with assaulting a federal agent in the aftermath of the altercation, but the DOJ later requested the charges be dismissed with prejudice, writing in a motion that, "newly discovered evidence in this matter is materially inconsistent with the allegations in the complaint affidavit."
Big picture view:
The shooting occurred one week after the fatal shooting of Renee Good by ICE officers and ten days before the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti by federal officers. ICE agents under federal investigation
Dig deeper:
The U.S. Attorney’s Office later opened a criminal investigation into two ICE officers after video evidence allegedly showed the agents’ sworn testimony included "untruthful statements."
Court filings filed after the shooting showed the ICE officers’ accounts of the moments leading up to the shooting differed significantly from testimony provided by the two defendants and multiple eyewitnesses.
No... but your Oline is only as strong as its weakest link. We will still have holes and those will get bigger as defenses key into weaknesses and the grind of the season takes its toll. I'd probably be a little more positive if I felt more confident that our LT of the future was currently on our roster. I think Fano will be a good NFL starter, but I wouldn't put money on him locking down the left side.
Don't get me wrong... I like what we did this offseason. Time will tell if we hit on our different acquisitions, but the probability is high that we will still be urgently plugging hole(s) in our Oline next off-season.
Yeah, I don't see them going from disastrous to dominant by any stretch of the imagination. Just like the offense going from the worst to top 10 is not realistic. This team needs serviceable. A serviceable offensive line that can hold up in pass protection a little better than last year and at least give running backs a fighting chance. Judkins lead the league in carrys where he was contacted in the back field last year. Having a few more weapons in the pass game will help the run game and vice versa. If the offense can go from 30th statistically in 2025 to 20th statistically it would be a huge gain. Especially if the defense can remain top 5. There may be a drop with the new DC. Schwartz will be a hard act to follow but a serviceable improvement by the offense should in theory improve a defense so they won't have to be on the field as long and hopefully not have defend so many short fields. Need a special team's improvement to help there also. Just like the offense a serviceable special teams' unit will be a large improvement vs 2025.
No... but your Oline is only as strong as its weakest link. We will still have holes and those will get bigger as defenses key into weaknesses and the grind of the season takes its toll. I'd probably be a little more positive if I felt more confident that our LT of the future was currently on our roster. I think Fano will be a good NFL starter, but I wouldn't put money on him locking down the left side.
Don't get me wrong... I like what we did this offseason. Time will tell if we hit on our different acquisitions, but the probability is high that we will still be urgently plugging hole(s) in our Oline next off-season.
I really liked how aggressive Allen and Mobley have been. It’s like they read about there bad play in the playoffs the last few years, and said enough!
I think CAVS win in game 7 again, making it 3 game 7’s in a row.
I kinda feel like this team is mirroring the 90’s teams. Alot of young players, that in 1 more year will be completely ready to compete for a World Series year in and year out for quite a few years.
SoS is based on the previous year's results (which itself takes into account it's own SoS), but each team has turned over as much as 25-35% of its roster and 30% of all teams have new head coaches, staffs, and systems.
So, it sounds good, but there really isn't much you can reliably take away from it. It's predicting this year's corn crop based on last year's tomatoes.
President Donald Trump, his two eldest sons, and the Trump Organization dropped their $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service on Monday in exchange for the Department of Justice creating a $1.776 billion fund to settle claims by people who allege they are victims of so-called lawfare.
A Miami federal court filing by Trump’s lawyers dropping the lawsuit suggested it effectively barred a judge from analyzing whether the president’s civil suit was legally valid and from dismissing it if she finds it is invalid.
The move came days after ABC News reported the DOJ was negotiating the settlement, which was blasted by Democratic members of Congress who called the then-expected deal a “slush fund” for allies of Trump who had been prosecuted under the Biden administration.
In addition to dropping the lawsuit against the IRS, which related to a leak of Trump’s tax returns, the plaintiffs also agreed that, in exchange for the creation of this fund, Trump will withdraw two administrative claims, “including for damages resulting from the unlawful raid of Mar-a-Lago and the Russia-collusion hoax,” the DOJ said in a statement.
“The machinery of government should never be weaponized against any American, and it is this Department’s intention to make right the wrongs that were previously done while ensuring this never happens again,” said Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, in a statement.
″“As part of this settlement, we are setting up a lawful process for victims of lawfare and weaponization to be heard and seek redress,” Blanche said.
The DOJ said the fund will have “the power to issue formal apologies and monetary relief owed to claimants.”
The new “Anti-Weaponization Fund” will get its money from the DOJ’s judgment fund, which is a perpetual appropriation that allows the department to settle and pay cases.
The DOJ said that the new fund will stop processing claims no later than December 15, 2028.
A spokesman for Trump’s legal team, in a statement, said, “President Trump, his family, supporters, and countless other America First Patriots were illegally targeted by the Democrat-lead law enforcement agencies, including the Department of Justice, and the IRS.”
“The IRS wrongly allowed a rogue, politically-motivated actor to unlawfully leak private and confidential information about President Trump, his family, and the Trump Organization to left-wing news outlets such the New York Times and ProPublica, which was then illegally released to millions of people,” the spokesman said. “Similarly, President Trump was also the victim of illegal harassment and invasions of privacy as part of the politically motivated and completely discredited Russia, Russia, Russia Hoax, and the wrongful, election interfering raid of his home at Mar-a-Lago, in Palm Beach, Florida.”
“President Trump is entering into this settlement squarely for the benefit of the American people, and he will continue his fight to hold those who wrong America and Americans accountable,” the spokesman said.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., in a post on X on Monday shortly before the settlement was announced by the DOJ, said, “Trump is one step closer to creating a giant slush fund of taxpayer dollars for his MAGA buddies.”
“This is corruption on steroids,” Warren wrote.
Monday’s court filing noted that Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and The Trump Organization were voluntarily dismissing the lawsuit against the IRS “with prejudice.”
“With prejudice” means the plaintiffs can not renew the same claims in another civil complaint.
The notice of dismissal came two days before a deadline set by U.S. District Court Judge Kathleen Williams for the DOJ and Trump’s attorneys to answer whether a “case and controversy exists in this matter so as to establish the Court’s jurisdiction.”
Williams’ question suggested that because Trump is suing “entities whose decisions are subject to his direction,” there might not be enough actual adversity between the parties to satisfy a constitutional requirement that federal courts only adjudicate cases or controversies.
The filing on Monday said Trump’s dismissal means “no judicial analysis is appropriate, and any “subsequent order purporting to dismiss ‘all claims’ . . . [would be] a nullity.”
Trump sued the IRS in late January over the leak of his tax information by an IRS employee Charles “Chaz” Littlejohn in 2019 and 2020.
The IRS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., in a statement, said, “Regardless of whether Trump filed this lawsuit with a personal payday or a slush fund in mind, he deserves no credit for dropping it, and even by his standards the move he’s trying to get away with now is a stunning act of corruption.”
“What Trump wants is a $1.7 billion slush fund for right-wing political violence and subversion, and if he follows through, it will be the most brazen theft and abuse of taxpayer dollars by any president in American history,” Wyden said.
So trump appoints people to run the DOJ who in turn agrees to write a check for $1.776 billion dollars to give out checks to criminals and #triggered #snowflakes
Your tax dollars at work. We will stop wasteful spending they said.
According to most on draft day, this guy was massively overdrafted, and supposedly not on any team's radar.
I think this just reinforces that most draftniks & sites just really don't know and that reality is disguised by the ability to pick a lot of low-hanging "no-brainer" fruit in drafts. That said, the same applies to all front offices as well, given how many misses there are each year.
They're making a guess on future performance in one system against higher quality talent based on past performances in other systems against decidedly lower talent.... sometimes you'll hit, sometimes you won't.
as bad they were in Game 6 Friday evening, they were that dialed in last night.
I haven't watched any games at all in like two years, but because they're on Prime I was able to see these last two games. Friday was a major disappointment and it was compounded by the Tribe also losing. Well, last night reversed both in a BIG way. Cavs curb-stomped Detroit and the Indians absolutely abused the Reds. A fun Sunday in the CLE, indeed.
Xi and Putin Reach Agreement on Joint Ownership of Trump
BEIJING (The Borowitz Report)—Calling it a landmark deal, on Monday Presidents Xi Jinping of China and Vladimir Putin of Russia inked an agreement to jointly own Donald J. Trump.
According to sources familiar with the deal, the two leaders crafted a timeshare arrangement under which each will have the right to use Trump when the other is not.
Putin and Xi scooped up Trump at a bargain price since they acquired him in distressed or “as is” condition, sources said.
Both presidents were reportedly offered joint ownership of Eric Trump but passed.
