DawgTalkers.net Forums Active Threads

I am going to be brutally honest with this topic.

Somehow trying to attach what trump is doing with our National Parks to a political party or warped support for anything trump does disgusts me.

As a generation our obligation to future generations is to make our country better and pass on a legacy of stewardship.

Since the National Park Service began tracking data in 1904, over 4.6 billion visits have been recorded at national park sites. In 2025 alone, there were over 323 million recreational visits, following a record-setting 331.9 million in 2024.

Justifying the actions of trump in regards to this topic is an insult to every American.

What are the "National" Parks for?

Why were they created?

Who owns the "National" Parks ?

Do you know what the entry fees are applied to?

Please explain how you know who has been to the Parks and how often?

And what does that have to do with what trump is doing?

. "They are considered "public lands," which means they are held in trust by the government for public use, conservation, and preservation."

Unbelievable attitude. Sorry - that sort of shrug of the shoulders and lack of any interest in something so important to so many is ... I don't even have the words. It speaks of someone totally groomed to defend and enable anything TD does.

Over 323 million recreational visits were recorded across the U.S. National Park Service (NPS) system in 2025. While this number reflects total visits (including international tourists and repeat visits by individuals), it highlights the immense popularity of the 433 NPS units, which include 63 designated national parks

If they belonged to us we wouldn't have a pay to enter.

Technically you don't have to pay to enter the Smokies by charter mandate. The work around is if you park for over 10 minutes you have to purchase a parking sticker.

I know most people have been to one of the parks but most only one or two of them, and then only once or twice.

Dak would fit for sure.

It's how he rolls. Over and over, and over again.

Would Dack Prescott fit the definition, unless he isn't considered as good as Cousins?

Those guys were QBs that got passed over by 31 teams. Exactly the same? No, but nobody claimed that, before you in your strawman distraction attempt.

Statistics tell you what happened in the past. They don't tell you what will happen in a specific future case. The low percentage of success you keep throwing out has no direct connection to Taylen Green. If he fails or succeeds, it will have nothing to do with that percentage. No one but you is giving a percentage, and yours is being misapplied. You don't know if he's a Brock Purdy or Tom Brady. All 6th round QBs aren't the same. No one is saying he will absolutely be one of those guys. He could be. No one knows the percentage likelihood.

You bring up some good points on the positives.

He does have negatives, but repeatedly saying he'll "fail" ~95 times out of 100, because he's a 6th round QB, feels extra negative. Maybe I just don't like box score scout BS and bad usage of statistics.

One may begin to think the things he is doing has nothing to do with "All Americans".

This is something I hope Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and everyone else should fight against.

Then trump has the audacity to put his picture on Park passes and now passports.

If any American looks into all that had to happen in order to have National Parks. I think they would want to protect this incredible resource.

He wastes billions on a war he promised not to be engaged in.

U.S. national debt has surged to over $39 trillion, having grown by approximately $2.77 trillion in the past year alone.

And now he is out to destroy what has been in place since 1916 for all Americans.

They say that time heals all wounds ... and in come ways that's true. Different wounds heal differently. This one is going to take all the time it wants.

Dude, Lamar was drafted at #32. Not at pick #182. Teams passed on Lamar once. Every team passed on Green 5 times and some of them 6 times. I get it. Somehow in your world that's the same thing.

You bring up Tom Brady. You may as well bring up Brock Purdy too. Yes, there are exceptions to the rule that's why 6th round QB picks have a 5% to 6.38% chance of becoming a starter.

And allow me to explain what you claim is a "negative" which seems like a very clear loss of reality.

My assertion is that he is perfectly suited to run the RPO and can be used in schemes on a spot basis to keep opposing D's off balance. I also stated it is possible he could develop into a starting QB over time. Not likely but possible.

Do you have any clue how positive of a comment those things are for a 6th round pick at QB? Most 6th rounds QB's never contribute to any degree. With those statistical facts in mind do you have any clue how positive of a comment those things are for a 6th round pick at QB? t It appears that in Bull_Dawg land you don't.

Just because I'm not declaring him "the most athletic QB ever" or over inflating his odds of success is not negative. Actually I'm giving him a better odds of contributing to this offense than the stats would indicate he will.

I'm just not slobbering all over him which is what in some far off universe is your definition of being positive.

If an NFL GM drafts a QB in the 6th round and he becomes a solid cog in your offense by running the RPO in packages designed for him, you did a great job! You made a sixth round selection that became a sold contributor to your offense. That is a great return on your investment and a positive outcome. There's nothing "negative" about that.

right from the playbook that piggy seemed to know nothing about

Project 2025 proposes a massive overhaul of federal land management, aiming to pivot the Department of the Interior from conservation toward energy extraction. Key proposals include repealing the Antiquities Act to reduce national monument sizes, increasing oil/gas drilling in protected areas, and reversing the "30 by 30" land protection goal.Key Impacts on National Parks & Public LandsReduced Protections: The plan advocates for reversing national monument designations and shrinking boundaries to open lands to mining and drilling.Increased Drilling/Mining:
Project 2025 calls for expanding resource extraction in areas currently managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and near national parks.Repeal of Antiquities Act:
The plan suggests repealing the 1906 Act, which allows presidents to designate monuments.Personnel Changes:
It proposes replacing career staff with political appointees and restructuring the Department of the Interior to prioritize resource extraction over conservation.Wildlife Impact: .
It suggests weakening the Endangered Species Act and removing protections for species like grizzly bears and gray wolves.
Budgetary ContextAs of March 2024, the National Park Service proposed a budget of $3.57 billion for FY 2025. Project 2025, however, focuses on reducing federal footprint and increasing industry access, which contrasts with typical conservation-based park budgeting.

I cannot put into words how angry I am.

Trump administration finalizes plan to open pristine Alaska wildlife refuge to oil and gas drilling

JUNEAU, Alaska — The Trump administration on Thursday finalized plans to open the coastal plain of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to potential oil and gas drilling, renewing a long-simmering debate over whether to drill in one of the nation's environmental jewels.

U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum announced the decision Thursday that paves the way for future lease sales within the refuge's 1.5 million-acre ( 631,309 hectare) coastal plain, an area that's considered sacred by the Indigenous Gwich'in. The plan fulfills pledges made by President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans to reopen this portion of the refuge to possible development. Trump's bill of tax breaks and spending cuts, passed during the summer, called for at least four lease sales within the refuge over a 10-year period.

Burgum was joined in Washington, D.C., by Alaska Republican Gov. Mike Dunleavy and the state's congressional delegation for this and other lands-related announcements, including the department's decision to restore oil and gas leases in the refuge that had been canceled by the prior administration.

A federal judge in March said the Biden administration lacked authority to cancel the leases, which were held by a state corporation that was the major bidder in the first-ever lease sale for the refuge held at the end of Trump's first term.

Leaders in Indigenous Gwich'in communities near the refuge consider the coastal plain sacred, noting its importance to a caribou herd they rely upon, and they oppose drilling there. Leaders of Kaktovik, an Iñupiaq community within the refuge, support drilling and consider responsible oil development to be key to their region's economic well-being.

"It is encouraging to see decisionmakers in Washington advancing policies that respect our voice and support Kaktovik's long term success," Kaktovik Iñupiat Corp. President Charles "CC" Lampe said in a statement.

A second lease sale in the refuge, held near the end of President Joe Biden's term, yielded no bidders but critics of the sale argued it was too restrictive in scope.

Meda DeWitt, Alaska senior manager with The Wilderness Society, said that with Thursday's announcement the administration "is placing corporate interests above the lives, cultures and spiritual responsibilities of the people whose survival depends on the Porcupine caribou herd, the freedom to live from this land and the health of the Arctic Refuge."

https://www.npr.org/2025/10/24/nx-s1-5584883/trump-alaska-wildlife-refuge-oil-gas-drilling

There is much more to the article at the link provided.

Different people have different priorities. The preservation of these wonderful gifts of nature God has blessed us with isn't very high on some people's priority list. Instead they wish to kill renewable energy and exploit our land handing it over to the uber wealthy oil companies.

Murica!

As of May 2026, the Trump administration is enacting significant changes to national parks, focusing on restructuring historical exhibits to emphasize American achievements, resulting in the removal of hundreds of displays regarding slavery and climate change. These actions, alongside a 25% reduction in staffing since 2025 and proposed 2027 budget cuts, are damaging to our National Parks.

https://ncph.org/history-at-work/trumps-attacks-on-national-parks-is-an-attack-on-public-history/

This is tragic for every American and for Our National Parks which has been an American treasure since 1916.

It makes me sick.

Millions and millions of people from all over the world come to Our Parks. We all have benefited from the foresight of Presidents like Teddy Roosevelt and other Presidents who have protected these magnificent displays of our county's beauty .

Now we have this corrupt criminal destroying what belongs to all of us.

Or teams just didn't see him as a scheme fit or already had backups they like in that role in place.

Teams passed on Lamar Jackson. Teams passed on Brady. Teams passing isn't the end all, be all on talent.

He's literally the most athletic QB ever. We'll see if he "bucks history." Your taking the negative view is no more valid than others considering the potential positives. It's not decided yet. The numbers don't include him.

I think Watson being QB1 while things are being installed makes sense. With Shedeur's quote on learning and teaching, I do wonder if he's more of a back yarder than an on his p's and q's type. Reactionary more than in command, and focused more on himself than knowing everyone else's assignments. Watson on the other hand has been around the block with multiple offenses. Watson is probably more likely to help get everyone else up to speed more quickly.

The historical situation is that players get drafted where they are ranked and according to what teams see their potential as. That didn't change in 2026.


And that's why I see him drafted where he was and what this FO saw him as. An RPO QB for special situations. Had they of seen more he would have been drafted higher. Surely you don't think every QB needy team passed on him five times and some six because they saw more than that do you?

As I said, it's "possible" he becomes more than that. But come on man. This wasn't some new "history breaking precedent" 6th round QB pick.

Most late round QBs are coming in behind established QBs who get most of the work and focus.

If a team invests in a 1st round QB, that QB is generally going to be the focus.

I think the outcomes are as much about situation as player ability. If Bledsoe hadn't gotten hurt, Brady might not have ever been a thing.

Green has interesting ability. Monken likes mobile QBs. The QBs in front of him aren't great. I don't think it's the typical historical situation that he's facing. I also see a path where he could get a small package to see the field early.

Unfortunately, I also see a potential path where he doesn't get much time this year, the Browns draft a QB early next year, and he never really gets a chance.

But, in the 6 round where most players aren't sticking around long, the high upside gamble on the most important position with an unsettled and uninspiring situation on the depth chart looks like good potential value.

I don't think anyone is ignoring the "numbers." Some people just don't give them undue weight as "history" isn't a 1 to 1 match for specific instances.

Edit: Plus, between Watson's health and Sanders' holding the ball, we'll probably need at least 3 QBs.

That all depends on how it was done, who did it, and what long term goals were set in order to do it.

For the sake of argument - let's say that the ultra wealthy are those in the top 0.1% of the USA. That means you have to have a minimum of about $62 million. Total assets - $25 trillion. 20% (your number) is $5 Trillion.

With $5 Trillion and just using AI as a tool.

- if you raised $5 trillion through a tax on the wealthiest 0.1%, that single injection of capital could theoretically fund the complete eradication of U.S. child poverty for nearly 28 years.

- The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) estimates that bringing U.S. infrastructure (roads, bridges, water systems) into "good repair" would cost nearly $2.6 trillion over 10 years. Economic ROI: Every $1 billion in infrastructure investment is estimated to add $3 billion to the GDP over a decade

- If directed globally, $5 trillion could solve several worldwide crises for decades. Ending World Hunger: The United Nations estimates a global fix at roughly $60 billion per year. A $5 trillion fund could bankroll this mission for 83 years.

- Universal Clean Water: Providing clean water and sanitation globally would cost roughly $150 billion annually, meaning $5 trillion could sustain this for 33 years.

- Expanding the American education system to include the earliest years would cost a fraction of $5 trillion. Universal Pre-K: Implementing high-quality preschool for all 3- and 4-year-olds is estimated to cost $351 billion over 10 years. Universal Childcare: A broader proposal to subsidise childcare for nearly all parents with children under 6 is estimated at $390 billion.

You could do an awful lot - 20% seems harsh. It's also impossible to implement - how do you tax unrealized gains? And - I've answered with the perspective of what you could do socially or to improve lives and infrastructure. That's important but as import - possibly even more importantly at this moment in time .... reduce the national debt !! It is unsustainable.