DawgTalkers.net Forums Active Threads

Bone has given you plenty of specifics.

You posted this, not me.


None of this has been presented from an "extreme" other than the current White House because it's never been an issue until now.


If a frog had wings it wouldn't bump its ass every time it landed. You can come up with "ifs" all day. And none of that has anything to do with this. I know you reach on some topics but this is a Stretch Armstrong move.


So your idea is wait until something collapses or suffers obvious, tangible harm to address it? Because until then you have no idea if the moves made will harm it?


Hmmmm. What you've done to this point certainly doesn't appear that way.


So the man running around the neighborhood with a hatchet screaming at the top of his lungs isn't a danger until he kills someone? Wait until major damage is already done and then let's talk about it?


That seems like quite the dichotomy. Admitting you have no faith trump can be making a good decision while saying let's give the man you have no faith in masking a good decision.

How many people were displaced from their homes do to expanding those wildlife areas? I'll tell you. Zero. The expansions, which protected over 550 million acres of land and water (mostly marine), did not involve seizing private homes. The lands were already managed by the federal government and were placed under stricter conservation rules. You're just riff on things that aren't even true to make some fantasy story.


Maybe you should have looked at the details of those policies first. I'm 100% sure you had no idea those lands were already being managed by the federal government and all this policy did was to strengthen the conservation rules.

Gritty win. Some outstanding individual efforts. Let's ice it in The Land! We are finding out how tough we can be; our defense can improve more.

Great victory! Go,Cavs!

I also remember that playoff game against Houston where they moved the ball on us fairly easy. But, in defense of our D, they were on the field an awful lot because of our anemic Offense last season and many times had to defend a short field because of turnovers. A more productive O will help our D immensely.

The Jets only had 169 yards total offense in that game. The NOT So special teams are why the Browns lost that game giving up a kick return and a punt return for touchdowns in that game. That is why the special teams coach was fired. The only time the defense struggled was right after Maliek Collins got hurt in the 49ers, Titans, and Bears games. Then they seemed to find their selves again down the stretch vs the Bills, Steelers, and Bengals.

And don't forget how we got absolutely run over by the Jets. I would say that Schwartz's defense had a couple things happen that shouldn't happen to a defense of that caliber. It was a championship-caliber defense that let us down a couple times but, overall, was a special defense that was held back by an anemic offense. Even if they had come through for us in those two games, nothing significant would've been gained in terms of the season.

Greenland, no no I can't have it. They screwed me out of the Nobel Peace Prize.

Canada, I think I want it. Why not?

Cuba, oh I would like Cuba. Close Mar a large oo.

Venezuela mmm I love oil. Look Alcatraz can I have that?

What can I have my name on. How about passports?

Kim Jong Un what a swell guy. I wanna be Putin. Nap time.

Anything for Oil....

Sorry to hear about the troubles.

Always expected the unexpected, even if you don't know how it will manifest.

Great win for our Cavaliers.

No slack we have to take them down in town.

Giving up fewer yards in the second half happens when teams focus more on burning clock than scoring points. Especially when an atrocious offense wasn't keeping it close.

I may be overly influenced by the memory of the defense getting picked apart by Carson Wentz at the end of the Vikings game.

It didn't happen all the time, but when teams figured out how to handle the fastball, we got torched. Fortunately some teams couldn't handle the fastball, so we didn't need to adjust. Myles made the defense go more than the play calls made the defense go, in my opinion.

When an argument is based more on emotions and headlines and numbers without context than actual specifics, I consider that an extreme approach to a topic. (i.e, saying something happened because someone allegedly hates someone else and bringing up how one despises something.) You're the only one that said extreme issue in here.

If gas prices rise to the point where many can't afford travel to parks or the economy craters because we defaulted on our national debt, are the parks still being shared equally?

Most things aren't as simple as you try to make them. One might only understand a simplified version of something, but that doesn't make it the realistic version. There's more than one side to every story. I get the propensity for declaring every move Trump makes as horrible (many are), but it's just not that black and white. I'm not a fan of presupposition. I like to drill down to what the actual move is rather than just declaring it's horrible and evil because Trump did it (or someone claims some number means something.)

It could be horrible. (It could be much ado about not all that much.) I'm trying to figure out the actual changes beneath the seeming histrionics.

If someone gives an example of some irreplaceable natural feature being destroyed or horribly contaminated or even something meaningful being removed from a designation, I'll agree that's awful. If someone can give a non-biased cost/benefit analysis of the actual jobs being lost, I could form an opinion on how I felt about it. A biased article from an organization losing funding with a few surface numbers and inflammatory language doesn't actually tell me a whole lot. It does give me pause, so I ask questions and look for clarification.

The next president, as he's leaving office, says your home and business and/or all shipping routes to and from are now in a national park and you have to leave and/or can no longer use the roads/water. Eminent domain, here's a lowball check. Nothing you can do about it. Are you okay with that? Or would you like the incoming president to take a look at whether that actually makes sense? (Not that I have faith in Trump/future politician actually being able to make a good decision there.)

Allowing lame duck politicians to make irreversible decisions just seems like a horribly short sighted policy to me.

Cavaliers win game 5 in Detroit to go up 3-2.

LOL. Good one

Since when did protecting and funding federal lands and our national parks become a matter of "extremes"? People of all religions and all political viewpoints share equally in the enjoyment and reward of those lands and protecting them and preserving our natural wonders. Maintaining them have been continued and carried out by every president and administration for decades.

Now it's an extreme issue? Maybe you need to pause and ask yourself why it's now an extreme issue when it never was before? None of this is as complicated as you're trying to make it sound. I think even you know that.

If the OP had focused on the fossil fuel extraction, mining, and commercial use aspect, I'd likely have taken a different approach.

I agree with you on lobbyists.

I think you are more consumed with hatred for Trump than Trump is consumed with hatred for Obama at the moment. Trump is playing politics. Trump is too busy counting his money to hate an individual that acts as a useful political tool/target. Honestly, I get your hate. I'm not a fan. I just think your hate bleeds into a negative bias that has an effect on your objectivity at times. But negative biases are a part of the human condition.

Unfortunately, Trump going down as the worst depends on when the history is written. Could get worse. (That's probably my bias towards politicians.)

1. Saying what I would like was not referring to what those in power are doing. So it really depends on if the details being paid attention to are the ones being talked about.

2. When every topic is presented from one extreme or the other, I guess trying to look at things rationally seems contrarian.

Thinking people are going too far towards one extreme on a specific topic does not mean I agree with everything the entity they are arguing against does.

I wasn't arguing for the government's (lack of) "efficiency." I agree with you, oober, that the current administration's approach has been a mess. Still, I think less big government is ultimately good if done correctly. Yes, slack would have to be picked up locally in many instances. Yet, I think most issues are better handled with local knowledge than through sweeping bureaucracy. Just because the government is doing a horrible job of something doesn't mean the original/underlying idea was wrong. Efficiency is good, everything else being equal.

I think the idea of national parks is great. I think I have different ideas than others what that should look like. I'd do away with the commercialized/touristy stuff altogether. That's my preference. I don't need shrines to America or someone's version of a history lesson. I prefer being able to appreciate things as they are rather than being told what I should be taking away. Others are welcome to feel differently.

While I think natural /"historical" areas should be preserved, I don't think giant blocks are necessarily the best way to do it. They do need a certain minimum size, but 1.36 million acres in one go seems overkill to me. I am for creating more smaller, protected natural areas. I don't mean that we should just make them all smaller, but that we should go back towards populated areas and create/designate more, but with an eye towards balance and locality over sweeping, near impossible to manage monstrosities.

I just feel like focusing on a percentage reduction doesn't really tell me anything without knowing the specifics of what the numbers actually represent on the ground. If the actual Buttes were no longer in the park that would be a problem for me. If the outlying area that possibly shouldn't have been included in the first place which blocked pre-existing commercial traffic was reduced, I'd feel differently.

That's what worries me....

We have a very talented defense, the question is on our new DC Mike Rutenberg!

Again, I think you are hand picking some information here. Yes, he took over a Titans defense that was really good and they became great... However, he took a 2013 Bills defense that ranked 20th in points allowed and his only year there, they went to 4th in points allowed. Then, he took a 28th ranked Eagles defense, first year there they moved up to 12th, then second year they were 4th.

Credit where credit is due, imho.

We live in a world of "What have you done for me lately", but we have arguably invested more in the QB room than any of those teams, signing Watson. To date, he has been the worst trade and sign player in the history of the league. However, the short history he has here is irrelevant to 2026. The one thing that Watson does care about is money. I don't think he will ever have enough and he wants another pay day. The only way he gets that is by winning the starting job this off season and balling out. If HE balls out, this team wins a lot of games, it's that simple. We know he has done it before, it just isn't something we know if he can ever do again.

Last words for me on this:

If Watson wins the job, I EXPECT that large turn around because of the investment.
If Sanders wins the job, it is more likely that is because they have no future plans for Watson and would rather see where Sanders can progress before designing a way to get one of the QBs in 2027.

The second scenario, it's hard to call it a loss... If Shedeur progresses into a franchise guy, we win, we can use draft capital to continue a progressive build overall. If Sanders ceiling has already been hit(which is pretty low), then the Browns enter 2027 off season with a top 5 draft pick to go get the QB they covet. It will be a lot easier to move up from a top 5 than from a mid-teen on down...

FOR ME, worst case scenario is that Sanders is so bad this off season, Monken sees no other option than Watson. Watson plays just well enough to get 2nd in the division, no playoff, leaves in free agency and we have zero chance at a QB in the draft. I love winning 7 games over 4 games, but the way this team is built right now, all it needs is a QB. I would rather sacrifice this season to get one, if Sanders is incapable.

Home
Baltimore Ravens W
Cincinnati Bengals W
Pittsburgh Steelers W
Houston Texans L
Indianapolis Colts L
Atlanta Falcons W
Carolina Panthers W
Las Vegas Raiders W

Away
Baltimore Ravens L
Cincinnati Bengals L
Jacksonville Jaguars W
Pittsburgh Steelers W
Tampa Bay Buccaneers L
Tennessee Titans L
New York Giants W
New York Jets W
New Orleans Saints L

10-7 Playoff Wild Card

Yes, in both those cases they made a heavy investment at the QB position before things turned around for them.

Drake Maye and good-Stroud. Young QBs, sure... but that's the big difference that pops out to me between those teams and ours.

He seems to really have a knack for taking talented defensive units and putting them over the hump into "SB-worthy".

Sounds like you are doing it right. Before I retired, we did new vehicles, roof, windows, general repair projects, all the things we could anticipate, trying to do them before regular pays ran out. Beefed up investments & savings. My post was trying to point up a need for emergency needs. Random timing, not a known amount or time frame. Paid off house which helped immensely and immediately. My medical procedure turned it all upside down.
We will work the plan as long as we can. For now being here helps because we needed to re-model for handicap facilities here.

Expect some challenging issues. Unforeseen can still be a load.