Lucky is my dog, every now and again I find the time to load him up in his car, the old one that I didn't trade so I could have it around because he would ruin the new car, and he and I go a hunting......

All of these shots were done with a 5DSR. The detail on a couple of these eagle shots is pretty awesome especially when you consider that they have been heavily cropped, I don't think that my Mark IV could produce the same results.

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

That mocking thing has been debunked. Trump made the very same gestures when describing others that had no physical impairments, it was just a mannerism Trump used when describing those who directly opposed him or his policies..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eoyfu2BsQs

No, I seriously doubt that is the reason, sometime back we decided that we could allow the rest of the world to build our products and we would simply sell them. Somehow those in the know seemed to think that the financial sector could help with the trade balance. So now what do we have? Trade deficits year in and year out, instead of building our own country's wealth we are building the wealth of others. We are seeing employment problems in this country while at the same time are loosing sk**led labor because there are no longer markets for it here. We have not done well and I think that Trump wants to stop the bleeding. The democrat side of the Carrier deal that they use to criticize Trump only goes to highlight that fact, even after we gave Carrier all kinds of tax considerations and incentives according to articles that Dirt Posted most of those jobs left anyway, something must be a little uneven in our arrangement. Then consider all the auto manufacturing down there and the fact that foreign manufacturers, German, Japanese, and others are making investment there instead of here.

Hey, I love the economics of Classical Liberalism, but what that school of thought does not consider is that free trade today even if we could break down all the trade barriers is not exactly free. Labor markets in some countries is hardly different than s***ery, in fact I have heard it said more than once that s***ery is alive and well in the 21st century and being used to make some of the products that we consume. So how are we to compete against that? Then we the imbalance of tariffs, many countries including China and Mexico are considered to be developing countries and because of that we have tolerated tariffs on our goods going in while their goods coming into this country receive much more favorable tax considerations.

I think that Trump is right in what he is trying to do but I do agree that it is a risky business, but in the end I can't help but think that the US comes out on top because we are by far the largest economy in the world and our consumption of imported goods probably far exceeds most any other economy. China can not afford to lose this market, nor can Mexico or Canada.

Sectors and individual businesses will be hurt, we have already seen concern in the farming industry when the Chinese proposed a 175% tariff on a crop used to feed livestock, we have heard from US manufacturers that his tariffs on steel and aluminum will hurt their industries possibly making them non competitive in their markets. There will undoubtable be pain throughout the process but is that not part of the problem? Have we not been so risk reverse that we have never fully demanded a fair deal for our economy and its workers? This country has enjoyed the highest standard of living in the world and for the most part still does, there are a few small countries that out perform us but they are hardly larger than a large US city so they really don't count when considering large complex economies.

There are a lot of things that need to be addressed that our politicians will not touch, trade is one of them and entitlements is another. You are a smart man George, study our budgets and what drives the deficits. We are going to have to address Social Security, Medicare, and entitlements, mathematically there is no way to avoid it. I know that democrats don't believe in the tax structure that was just passed by Trump, but I truly hope you are wrong because given our governments course and its thirst for more and more spending and taxes I just could not see a reason for businesses to invest in the US. Prior to this tax bill what did we have to offer, highest corporate taxes, high regulation costs, high labor costs.... Why would businesses, even American businesses that have a multinational presence invest in America when they could go overseas and be much more profitable?

Those are my thoughts, time may prove me wrong in my hopes for the tax cuts and time will tell, but honestly I still would not consider the tax cuts permanent as the dems say that the first thing they will do when they regain control of congress is repeal the tax bill, if I were an investor looking at the US business environment this would cause me concern.

I use it and love it focus then frame without having to worry about the camera deciding my subject is something other than I am focused on. Works well for wildlife as well.

You're being ridiculous, have you ever turned your eyes towards twitter, there is a lot of nasty vitriol on both sides of the aisle. The difference here is that the woman was a paid comedian at a charity event that was televised nation wide.... think about that for a few moments and then consider that the event was hosted by an association made up by members of our several national media outlets, a group that should be at least professionally unbiased and neutral.

The bulk of her standup was not even funny, yeah she got a few good lines out but she was mostly rude and d********g.

Totally agree, except the last part.

OMG, Obama never stopped campaigning, seems that is what presidents do these days. SCOTUS has the travel ban so we will soon see just how unconstitutional it is, I am betting that it is not, that it was the lower courts that were acting outside of their constitutional mandate when they politicized the issue. Sorry George, your claims are still at this point unfounded, and I don't have any idea what you are talking about when you bring up the Justice Department.

JCBoy3, LOL.

How so c*****rs?

Again, you losers are the only embarrassments to your countries, there was nothing wrong in what he said, hey c*****rs, maybe we can put all the i*****l i*******ts on a train to Canada that would probably change your attitude. Oh! That's right, Canada has i*********n l*ws that would send them back to their country of origin.

Let us not forget that the liberal's reaction to the results of the e******n was more than the Russians could have ever hoped for, they have successfully torn this country apart.

I understand Tom, what the author is trying to say, but I just don't subscribe to it, I don't think he is true to his science and I would offer that he probably began his investigation with a predetermined outcome. You need to consider yourself, you come here and post a left wing opinion piece by a professor/author who is a progressive and has written books that attempt to describe conservatives as intellectually inferior to liberals such as yourself.... Are you really so vain that you think that you can have a constructive conversation on such a topic?

I don't see where anything I pointed out to you in my previous posts was wrong, like I said, you just want to have a liberal claptrap circle jerk. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Thanks Bob, Thanks Mike, Bob, I still think that the person behind the eyepiece is the most important piece of equipment, I am certainly not talking about myself because I still have much to learn and have much more to explore in photography...

I am laughing Tom, it is really a silly premise, but believe it if you will. Conservatives according to you and your academics are hardly above fight trained pit bulls.... Think of the absurdity of your mind and how it thinks Tom....

That is not true, she never asked for money and in congressional testimony the person overseeing those decisions, Charlene Lamb, testified to congress that funding was not an issue.