DawgTalkers.net Forums Active Threads

Ugh.

Bad math. We only play 17 games.

I can almost guarantee your’e not a true Christian, and I can almost guarantee you’re a Christian Nationalist in the trump cult. Amen.

As far as National Parks go. I get into all of them for free with my lifetime Gold Star Family/Veterans pass. And I’ve been to many before and after Trump took over. Before trump they weren’t great but now they are understaffed, the food and restaurants are trashy. Many of the entry gates are unmanned. The parks are overcrowded and the trails are trampled and littered. Foreigners pay an extra fee to get in,(which I agree with, but it’s like $50 per person, and when they find out how much it is, many turn around. And that’s the ironic thing most off the staff are Blacks, Latinos, and Asians.

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.

Congrats, Cavs! I was pleased to find this winning score. I am surprised by the margin. Our wins are earned. Knicks will be a chore. Not much chance to catch our breath.

Go, Cavs!

The only prediction I would be comfortable making on wins is 6-13. I know, I know, that really isn't a prediction, but there are so many question marks that it is impossible to know what we have. I can't believe we are worse today than we were at any point of 2025, so a one game increase I feel is pretty safe. It's all the other factors that go into anything beyond that.

I agree with the last few posts. I think we will have a better OL and the offense in general will be much improved. I really believe that Monken will bring a fresh new approach to our O which IMO, needed a change. It will take time to gel with all our new players, but the O has to be better than what we had last season. We should be able to move the ball and our games will be more competitive. How many more wins this will translate to is anyone's guess. I predicted 6-8 wins but honestly, it's a matter of conjecture.

Well stated 88.

I could not agree with you more.

There is no valid argument here.

The National Parks are beneficial to all and need protection. There should be no politics involved at all.

This is not an individual thing of what a single person prefers to happen or how they think things should be run.

The federal government has a clear mandate here. Protect the resource.

Until the Browns play it really hard to evaluate this team.

Lots of changes starting with the coaching staff.

The quarterback picture is so cloudy.

The offense will look a lot different. The defense should be very good and special teams should be improved.

As far as the season goes it should be way more fun to watch.

Last year the offense was so bad. It was hard to watch.

Guardians look like the best team in the Central.

I like the team make up.

My Braves are 14-1-1 in series played so far this year.

16-8 at home. 16-7 on the road.

+98 in run differential.

Acuna will return soon. Three starters will return by July. I am in shock with how well they are playing.

Wow what a great surprise.

I did not expect to win in Detroit.

Their energy was so better than in game six.

Really a great win. They have a good team. They will need to be at their best to win against the Knicks.

I think we have made significant progress - I think we should be better than last year in both pass protection and opening lanes for the run game. I also think we have improved the depth/reliability of the depth behind what will be our starters. I don't have high hopes for the QB evaluation, but you never know. Obv injuries can upset any of that.

As bad as last year??

The agree it was a complete undertaking to change out the entire line, but I have to believe it has improved with all the moves that have been made.

I don’t think anyone is talking Super Bowl.

My only real gauge is, did we do enough to to have a fair chance to evaluate the QB position? Last year was a wash. Way too many obstacles to even say whether there was progress or not.

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 ....

Guardians blow out the Reds to win the series.

We found about 10 ways to win tonight. (by 31!)

Bring on the Knicks.

Go Cavs!

While it's fun to do the what if's I don't think our Oline will be finished after 1 off-season. I think there will still be holes to address that will hold us back.

Assuming the defense doesn’t regress under new coaching and assuming the offense will almost certainly be better, this could be an interesting year. New scheme and a lot of rooks might offset the positives but 2 of our division mates are also going to have new schemes. I loathe the idea of DW being “the guy” but I think he’s going to be very motivated. If he can be just an average QB, I’m gonna say it.. the path is wide open for the playoffs.

The purpose of the parks isn't to make money. The value they provide is not financial to me.

I still don't want the parks to waste money or spend money in ways that are detrimental to their mission.

I do want the government to cut spending across the board. I know balancing a budget is a horribly complex idea for some, but it is generally seen as the fiscally responsible thing to do.

But feel free to keep trying to twist things if it makes you feel better.

He doesn't care if the parks operate in the red while at the same time wants government spending cut everywhere. You don't get it yet?

Because the question doesn't seem particularly relevant? Where does showing that other large entities also don't run well get us? My argument is for "right sizing."

What am I allegedly supporting?

I'm not sure that the profit numbers attributed to National Parks are as direct as some people are interpreting them. I'm guessing it's sort of like the discussion of how much income a Super Bowl brings to the surrounding region. Yes, money is coming in around it, but it's not necessarily directly paying for itself.

1. What risk are we talking about?

2. Sadly, some people do. But, it (whatever "this" is) is probably not "purely" about anything. What "bet" are we talking about?

Well the bigger something gets the more difficult it is to manage. Yes. That's fact.

But that doesn't answer the question - can you name something as big as the National Park Service that is run more efficiently? Just because something is large and has some inherent inefficiency due to it's scale, does not seem like a solid basis for supporting something that can potentially do much harm to natural resources that so many currently enjoy AND a service that makes money. The point of the profit isn't that it is making a large margin - it is the fact that it is not costing the tax payer to finance it.

We do not know for sure that irreversible harm is going to be done. [1] Why take the risk for a saving that is essentially pennies. [2] Does anyone think Trump and Project 2025 is about making ordinary US citizens enriched and have better lives? ... or is this purely about allowing companies to profit from looser regulations. . . which sort of brings us full circle. I can't comprehend thinking this is a good bet to make.

I'm not a big fan of agglomeration in general. I think the bigger an entity gets, the more it is responsible for, generally speaking, the worse it gets. Proper attention can't be given to everything. The more there is to pay attention to, the less attention each piece gets, often to the point of being overlooked altogether. I'd rather have good oversight of a 100k acre park, than poor oversight of a 1.36M acre park.

I'm also not a big fan of using profits as a measure of success. Too often, profits seem to come at the expense of other considerations. How much money the parks make is very low on my list of priorities. I don't care if they operate "in the red" if they are carrying out the mission of preservation. Yet, I'd still like to limit costs where it makes sense. How commercialized and profitable we can make the parks is not the goal for me.

I understand this is your opinion. But I'd be interested to know if you can site another institution or organization consisting of 400+ sites and experience 323+ million visitors annually that is run more efficiently or in your view executed more efficiently? Just like any organization including, in my opinion, both government and private enterprise - with enormous scale comes some inefficiency. And a little inefficiency in execution while providing access to the wonders of the national parks AND raising a net profit in the Billions is not a bad thing. jmo