DawgTalkers.net Forums Active Threads

Watts is kind of interesting. Could potentially land in a designated pass rusher role.

...Trump trying to "buy" a Democrat wouldn't surprise me.

You don't seem to understand how definitions work, or what the word wrong means.

Reader's Digest doesn't change a story about a dog tragically dying by getting hit by a car while heroically pushing it's owner out of the way into dumb dog runs in front of a car. That's more your kind of synopsis. See how the details kind of matter there?

I don't need to try to position myself, you're doing it so well for me. If anything has achieved "heights never reached before," it's your willful ignorance.

Where did I claim I was smart? Wait, I didn't? I like words and you constantly misuse common ones. Thinking you wouldn't be super familiar with a less commonly used one wasn't a giant leap.

If someone were to check your Google search history, would malfeasance be in it? Or do you have that set to auto delete? Or do you not even use Google in favor of a search engine more likely to agree with you and show you what you want to see? (Though I suppose Google does this, too)

I don't care if anyone else believes me. Belief isn't rational. It doesn't change the truth.

Darn those illegitimate questions. How dare they distract us from your talking about Hamas in a National Parks thread.

Again with false equivalence reductionism. I never said trinkets are bad. I said I'm not a fan of National Parks selling them. But I suppose you don't see a difference there.

I imagine that people that show you that you are wrong on the internet is a very common kind, you give us so very many opportunities.

Hmmmmm.... clearly I'm the one with the superiority complex. You're obviously so much smarter than all the people so much smarter than me.

…yea, I’m surprised the Braves are playing well. Just like it’s been shocking the Dodgers have won the past couple World Series. How did they do it? lol

So you used a word by it's very definition is wrong and now you insist on trying to justify that. And when Reader's Digest did the condensed version of a story they were wrong because they told the exact same story in much fewer words. Got it. And somehow you are now trying to position yourself as being smarter than I am as yet another excuse for your mistake. Your superiority complex is strong. You just made up yet another excuse for using a word that's definition does not fit your assertion by trying to claim it was because you were smart and I wouldn't understand the meaning of it. What a weak argument. Do you really expect anyone to believe that BS?

Asking legitimate questions that pertain to the discussion aren't a bad thing. But asking "whatabout eminent domain" where none exist, using "trinkets are bad" as some hair brained reasoning to close visitor centers..... It's just been one line of BS after another. Those are not the same thing as asking legitimate questions.

In your zeal to present yourself as the smartest guy in the room, you are falling well short of that. And none of your empty headed nonsense will ever irk me. Your kind are common everywhere on the internet. And as much as I hate to burst yiour bubble, a lot of people much smarter than yourself have tried to accomplish the same thing and failed miserably. You are no different.

I really don't want to go down any more rabbit holes. I was just raised to be a perfectionist, then worked in metrology (where accuracy and precision are the focus), and have a hard time resisting correcting you when you're wrong and/or inaccurate.

You repeatedly, purposefully change my words (seems wrongful and unjustified) in what seems a pathetic attempt to damage my reputation, and unfortunately you've been on the boards long enough and have enough of a following to have something of a "public position." So, yes, I used malfeasance. Mostly because it doesn't get used enough in my opinion, and I figured it would irk you when you didn't know what it meant and had to look it up.

I'm not playing the victim. I'm just pointing out what you do.

It's lying when you completely change the message-- Even if it's because you completely missed or misunderstood the message. Especially when you go on to claim that you know what I meant or know.

What false narrative did I create? You created false narratives of what I allegedly said. Do you have a problem with asking questions? I think people should ask more. There'd be fewer idiots with false certainty.

Nope, you're the one with the self-admitted voice in your head that talks to himself and seemingly projects on others.

You don't read enough if you think these mild foothills are heights never before achieved.

So nothing for all the people the trump administration has targeted via the justice department?

It is controlled by trump and we will not know where any of the money goes. There is no chance a penny goes to a democrat.

Sure. So they were better before the cuts and worse after the cuts and now you want to go down another rabbit hole.

Malfeasance? What illegal, wrongful, or entirely unjustified act are you claiming has been committed against you? Talk about playing the victim in unrealistic terms.

That's what it sounds like when someone claims they're trying to reach a destination as they take every off ramp they come to on the highway. Their actions do not follow their claim. They claim it's someone else trying to stay under an "umbrella".

Boiling down what someone has been saying by cutting out all of the crazy rhetoric added to the message is not lying. But I do understand how you would find that frustrating.

You have a habit of claiming others have made no point while all you have done is ask questions, throw out whatabouts and created false narratives that do not exist.

It's almost as if you're talking to yourself in parts of your post. But I will say you have elevated the art of extreme hyperbole to heights never before achieved.

Which cuts are we talking about? A lot of the cuts are only proposed and haven't taken effect yet. Which parks did he go to? The same parks or different parks? He could be right in his inference on cause, or not. Wasn't blatantly wrong, so didn't seem worth bringing up when there was so much elsewhere that was clearly wrong. Like I said I agree with what he said for the most part.

You keep trying to lump your bad arguments that I'm refuting with an overarching idea that I agree with. Just because the umbrella you keep trying to hide your malfeasance under exists, doesn't mean the lies you spun were the same thing.

You guys keep saying Obama and research supports that. If you want to quibble over park or monument when it was brought up in a National Park thread, I'll leave you to it.

The BLM and the NPS have different funding. Cutting the Bureau of Land Management's funding pushes a lot less buttons than invoking the "National Parks." Though, you may have finally accidentally stumbled upon a point. Bears Ears National Monument is funded through means outside the NPS, though as it was brought up in a National Parks thread about cutting the NPS's funding, It does all get rather confusing. It's not just government managed but also by some sort of tribal council. "While Bears Ears National Monument itself is a protected public area rather than a traditional national or state park, it literally surrounds and directly borders several distinct park units." (Google search results for are their parks in Bears Ears....) "In a legal context, a park is broadly defined as a tract of land set aside and maintained by a government body for the use, enjoyment, and recreation of the general public." (Google search legal definition of the word park.) Is it a "park"?

Changing someone else's words is lying about what they said. It's how the voice in your head operates. 888 keeps insisting tax payers don't pay anything for National Parks. Lies are lies even when one doesn't realize one is doing it.

White House Insists High Gas Prices Are Small Price To Pay For Accomplishing Nothing In Iran

https://babylonbee.com/news/white-h...to-pay-for-accomplishing-nothing-in-iran

Skepticism seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Your argument makes a lot more sense than the ones I read while trying to play catch up on the thread. I had been avoiding PP for reasons that once again manifested, but was down with an annoyingly lingering cold and bored and figured why not see what was up. Doesn't seem like much has changed. Overarching ideas I want to support, but arguments for them so bad I can't resist responding to them.

That sounds like a realistic expectation. I think seven or eight wins is being positive without going overboard.

Yet he, unless you believe he was lying, stated plainly the contrast of the quality of the parks before the cuts verses after.

Who "added a giant park" before Trump was elected? The only thing done was adding further protection to lands already owned and managed by the government. And none of that area is or was a "park".

You haven't pointed out any lies.

IMO the National Parks should be invested in to make them the best experience for all to enjoy.

There is expertise to make that happen.

The amount of business they bring to the surrounding areas is enormous.

Stores, restaurants, services, lodging etc. the tourist dollars are the local economies.

Every effort should be made to manage it for the benefit of the Parks themselves and the people who visit them.

We won 5 games last season with that cast of characters. I figure we should do at least a little better this season with the guys we’ve acquired. Maybe 2-3 games better.

Monken is going to play the guy who best executes his offense.

Whoever that may be.

Berry has made the effort to improve the OL. Hopefully they will improve and have better depth.

Q should be at full strength with a better line in front of him.

We have added receivers in the draft. Rookies will need to contribute right away. Receivers and runners have IMO the shortest learning curve coming into the league because their skills rely more on pure ability rather than learning new techniques.

I don't know the impact of Rutenberg replacing Schwartz?

How we play and how many games we can win will depend most on the play of the quarterback.

One guy once was good and since being here as done little. In addition we have no idea if his twice torn Achilles will not snap again.

The other guy has seven games played. His true ability is still unknown because last year in all honesty he had little support around him.
He flashed some and made mistakes which is hardly definitive.

At least it should be more entertaining for us fans.

I can understand the larger point you're trying to make.

I would be less skeptical of these cuts if we didn't have the DOGE saga as a backdrop (a series of cuts that showcased, among other things, a stunning lack of planning/thought and execution).

I'd be a little more positive if our QB/passing game were a little further along. I think a significant portion of the early half of the season is going to involve the offense getting in sync and seeing where certain people fit. Not only does that include the Oline, but will also include the QB position (I expect us to start at least 3 QBs over the course of the season).

This offense is nothing but question marks... and even that might be overly optimistic.

Unless you want to tank!😉

I didn't ignore his post. I agreed with it (excepting the religious bit at the beginning that I wasn't touching), so I felt no need to address it.

Or did you miss the they weren't great before part?

Adding a giant park right before the next guy takes over wouldn't stretch already limited resources even further?

Talking about how trashed and trampled things were didn't reflect my experience?

I get the desire to call what I've done nothing to minimize all your lies that I've pointed out. That doesn't make it true.

Your argument about possible harm isn't a "what if?"

It's sad, really.

Spiral gave you his first hand experience of visiting these parks before and after the cuts. Of course you ignored that. You really aren't fooling anyone here.

It might be bad. I've never said otherwise. Some of it is likely bad. Yet, I'm not just going to march along nodding my head when you repeat fiction as facts. The parks are not self funding.

If the argument is (/had only been) that the proposed budget cuts are huge and the system had already been stretched past what it could handle and that is bad, I could say yes, that makes sense.

A ~75% reduction in funding to the park system as a whole leads to the obvious question of how in the world is that supposed to work.

Yet when looking at more granular issues that had been brought up, opinions can vary.

I'm not arguing both sides, I'm arguing two different things. While large organizations inherently have some inefficiencies, that doesn't mean we should ignore every inefficiency and pretend they don't exist. Tax payer funded operations should strive to be as efficient as possible. Some inefficiencies can and should be addressed. To me, effectively saying they're big so they're allowed to be inefficient is a bad argument.

While efforts to restructure and improve do not need to center around financial cuts or loss of environmental protections, that doesn't mean that all cuts must be the wrong decision or that trying to apply environmental protections to every/anything is always furthering the parks' mission.

Sometimes (oft times?), politicians do seemingly good things in order to sabotage their replacements. Designating a national park sounds good. Adding extra responsibility and a giant area to an already cash strapped organization with an understanding of how the Republican party generally works and public sentiment toward the idea of National Parks was effectively dropping a grenade on the way out the door whether or not that was the intention.

Partisan politics being what they are, I have my suspicions.

At the same time, I do think "Trump's" response has been pretty awful.