TwoGuns

That guy looks familiar....your dads name wouldnt be Joe would it? just a hunch.... darren

Man Named Fox Wrecks Car After Picking Up 'Dead' Fox Tuesday, October 07, 2008 E-Mail Print Share: A man who decided to take home a fox he hit on the road wrecked his SUV after the animal he thought was dead revived. Tommy Fox ran over the fox last Wednesday near Dover, Tenn., as he returned home from work, the Leaf Chronicle reports. Thinking the animal was dead, he decided to take the animal home to cut off its tail as a souvenir, Dale Grandstaff of the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency told the paper. "The tails are real bushy and pretty and thick this time of year," Grandstaff said. Instead, the driver flipped his GMC Jimmy trying to keep the fox — that had awoken in the backseat — from biting him, Grandstaff told the paper. Fox suffered minor injuries and bruises, the Leaf Chronicle reports. The fox died, though it was unclear if it was from initial injuries or the subsequent wreck of the vehicle.

This morning was an awesome morning chasing elk. Mike, Dino and I headed out this morning trying to fill Dino's 11m bull tag with something to hang on the wall. He was determined to kill a BIG bull...I guess you could say he did just that. We started out in the dark, bugling and listening, and that is how we got on the herd with this bull. There were about 30 cows and at least 3 bulls. The bulls were screaming at each other, and we were able to get set up to try and call in a bull. With Mike calling and Dino and I set up closer to the elk, and after much patience and persistence, we finally had to get pretty aggressive as the bulls would not come close enough. We kept getting closer till we finally pissed off this big boy enough that he decided he was going to run us off. That was the last bad decision for him. The worst part was that as we kept moving in on them, we ended up in line with Mike who was calling, so the bull came straight at us. Finally, at 20 yards he turned a little, but was still quartering to us, and Dino drilled him at 18 yards. He made it about 200 yards before he died, and he did not drip one drop of blood. But with our expert tracking abilities, we found him in no time... He is one NASTY dude. He is not real long on top, but he has massive antlers with tons of junk everywhere. Really unique, and probably 12+ years old. Anyway, that is how it went down more or less. And Dino will soon have the Kachina non-typical bull on his wall over the fireplace. Apparently it was big enough... Here he is in velvet during the summer...and Doug, I hope you dont mind me reposting your awesome pictures. He is on the right with his tongue out. As you can see in this picture, he was one of the largest bodied elk I have ever seen. Here he is on the ground... One excited dude with his trophy... and his final resting place...on Dino's lawn. We all want to thank the good Lord for letting things happen the way they did this morning. We were(are) truly blessed. Twoguns

Motorboat Surprise Silly Cone

David, thanks for the congrats. I dont think they have put a tape to him yet....but I would have to guess somewhere between 300 and 400 inches... probly closer to the latter. It really is so hard to judge his score because he has so many points going every which way, and not sure if I mentioned he is so thick all the way up. The other thing that is hard to see I think in the pictures is how absolutely gigantic his body is, and that tends to make the horns look somewhat smaller than they really are. We cut him in half, and it still took a small army of guys to load him in the truck. Im afraid Dino will have about 400 lbs. of hamburger in his freezer...but who cares with them sweet horns on the wall! I wondered if anyone might ask how far from Kachina he was. I havent had a chance to look at a map yet, but I have to guess he was ...ok looked at a map, and he was about 4 - 4.5 miles from Kachina field. What I have to wonder is if the other big bull in the herd, probably 365 - 375 inches, was also a Kachina bull. Guess we will have to wait for someone else to ground check him. Darren

pics and story on kachina NT shortly...

A friend of mine found this skull in 6a this week. Would love any opinions on whether you think it muley or coues? http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r210/tw...os/DSC01020.jpg thanks, twoguns

Analysis: Fact-Checkers Fall Short in Criticizing NRA's Anti-Obama Ads Wednesday, September 24, 2008 By John R. Lott, Jr. E-Mail Print Share: Guns have become an important issue for Barack Obama’s campaign. Starting around the Pennsylvania primary, Obama and his campaign surrogates began strenuously assuring gun owners that he supports gun ownership, and it appears to be paying off. A poll in August showed that John McCain led Obama among hunters by only 14 percentage points, just about half the 27-point lead that President Bush held over John Kerry in 2004. If McCain had a similar lead, he would be ahead in most polls, particularly in many battleground states. This past weekend, Joe Biden, campaigning in southwest Virginia, called any notion that Obama wanted to take away people’s guns “malarkey.” Montana's Democratic governor, Brian Schweitzer, previously told reporters that Obama "Ain't ever going to take your gun away." Obama regularly makes similar statements -- at least about rifles and shotguns. Yet, the NRA, which has given the voting records of both Obama and Biden an “F” rating, has a quite different view, and has started a $15 million ad campaign to warn people about what it regards as Obama’s and Biden’s records. One mailer from the NRA says, "Obama would be the most anti-gun president in American history." RelatedColumn Archive Analysis: Fact-Checkers Fall Short in Criticizing NRA's Anti-Obama AdsPlausible deniability?Analysis: Reckless Mortgages Brought Financial Market to Its KneesMedia One-Sided in Covering PalinIn Defense of Price GougersFull-page John Lott Jr. Archive Stories Obama's Tax Proposals Make a Complex System Worse John R. Lott Jr.: D.C. Handgun Ban Giuliani Bobs and Weaves on Gun Control Record A 'Tip' for Hillary: Admit Your Mistakes Media Coverage of Mall Shooting Fails to Reveal Mall's Gun-Free-Zone Status Critical news stories have been run on the NRA’s ads in the Washington Post, FactCheck.org, CNN, and many other places. ABC’s Jake Tapper and CBS’s Brian Montopoli posted stories that merely stated what the NRA ads said. The Washington Post describes its own Fact Checker report as giving the NRA “spot three out of four Pinocchios for its claims that Obama would take away guns and ammunition used by hunters.” The Dallas Morning News describes FactCheck.org as saying that “NRA ads and mailers that say Obama wants to ban handguns, hunting ammo and use of a gun for home defense are false.” CNN labeled the ads as “Misleading” and claimed that “While Obama has supported some measures to limit gun rights, he has backed nothing on the scale suggested in the ad.” Brooks Jackson, who authored the FactCheck.org piece with D'Angelo Gore, was extremely upset about the NRA ads. Jackson told FOX News: “They are lying. This is what they do. This is how they make their money. Do these people have no shame? They are just making this up. I just wish that they would tell the truth.” He said that their ads were “one of the worst examples of lying” that he had “ever seen.” But what are the facts? Were the NRA ads this bad? How accurate are the fact checkers? FactCheck.org, which is regularly relied on by FOX News, had the longest critical discussion of the ads. Here is a review of their most critical comments. "Ban the Manufacture, Sale and Possession of Handguns" -- FactCheck.org writes that this is “false,” because of a 2003 statement from Obama that “a complete ban on handguns is not politically practicable.” They discount an earlier 1996 candidate survey where Obama says that he supports such a ban primarily because it was older than the 2003 statement. While they don’t mention another statement from 1998 where Obama supported a ban on the sale of all semi-automatic guns (a ban that would encompass the vast majority of guns sold in the U.S.), they presumably also discounted that for the same reason. But Obama has come out for handgun bans as recently as this past February. ABC News’ local Washington, D.C., anchor, Leon Harris, asked Obama: "One other issue that's of great importance here in the district as well is gun control ... but you support the D.C. handgun ban." Obama's simple response: "Right." When Harris said "And you've said that it's constitutional," Obama again says "right" and is clearly seen on tape nodding his head "yes." A statement to the Chicago Tribune by Obama’s campaign the previous November stated that, "Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional." It doesn’t help that the Democratic Party National Platform this year supports the Chicago gun ban. Obama also served on the board of the Joyce Foundation, probably the largest private funder of anti-gun and pro-ban groups and research in the country. In total, the foundation gave $18.6 million to approximately 80 anti-gun efforts while he was on the board. For example, $1.5 million went to the Violence Policy Center, which puts out such claims as “Why America Needs to Ban Handguns.” During Obama’s time with the foundation, not a single donation was made to any group that supported individuals’ rights to own guns. But there is much more evidence that Obama supported handgun bans. As will be discussed below, there is legislation he supported in the Illinois state senate that would have banned over 90 percent of gun stores in the country and eliminated gun stores in most states. Brooks Jackson told FOX News that “I believe that [Obama] supported striking down the D.C. gun ban. That is what he said that he believed.” In addition, he said that the ad was “clearly discussing a national ban, not local bans. The two have absolutely nothing to do with each other. It is just an amazing lie.” Regarding Obama’s work with the Joyce Foundation, Jackson said, “You are an academic? You are asking about the Joyce Foundation? What does that have to do with anything? You would have failed the freshman college logic test.” "Barack Obama opposes my right to own a handgun for self-defense" -- FactCheck.org rewrites this slightly to read: "Ban use of Firearms for Home Self-Defense" and labels this statement as “false.” Their evaluation of this claim focuses solely on a 2004 vote Obama made in the Illinois state senate. An Associated Press article described the vote this way: "He also opposed letting people use a self-defense argument if charged with violating local handgun bans by using weapons in their homes. The bill was a reaction to a Chicago-area man who, after shooting an intruder, was charged with a handgun violation." FactCheck.org claims that the vote was merely over creating a “loophole” for letting people violate local gun ban ordinances. Yet, it is hard to look at this vote and the facts in the previous section and not see a pattern that Obama favors rules that ban handguns. He voted against any rules that would weaken the Chicago handgun ban, and if you support a handgun ban, it would seem obvious that you oppose those same people using handguns for self-defense. "Ban Rifle Ammunition Commonly Used for Hunting and Sport Shooting" -- FactCheck.org acknowledges that Obama voted for a bill that would “expand the definition of armor piercing ammunition,” but labels this statement as “false.” Their evidence is a statement by the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Ted Kennedy, that the bill “is not about hunting.” But here is the problem with Kennedy’s claim. The bill banned ammunition that “may be used in a handgun” and can penetrate the “minimum,” type 1, level of body armor, which only protects against the lowest-powered handgun cartridges. Any center-fire rifle, including those used for hunting or target practice, can penetrate this “minimum” armor. There are handguns that can fire these rifle rounds, so the bill’s language of banning ammunition that “may be used in a handgun” would be met. In addition, FactCheck.org ignores other information. Obama said in a 2003 questionnaire that he “support[ed] banning the sale of ammunition for assault weapons.” The rifles banned under the so-called assault weapons ban used such standard ammunition as .223 and .308 caliber bullets, the same ammunition used commonly in hunting rifles. When asked about these arguments, Jackson told FOX News, “Have you looked at the legislation? You have to look at the legislative history. This is just an amazing lie put out by them.” "Appoint Judges to the U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Judiciary Who Share His Views on the Second Amendment" -- FactCheck.org claims that this statement is “unsupported” because Obama hasn’t explicitly stated that he would appoint judges using such a litmus test. Indeed, I can find no record of Obama ever being asked if he would use the Second Amendment as a litmus test, but Obama has been very clear about what types of Justices he would and would not appoint to the Supreme Court. Obama has said that he “profoundly disagree with [Clarence Thomas’] interpretation of a lot of the Constitution." He has also been critical of Antonin Scalia, John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Together these four justices provided four of the five votes to strike down the D.C. gun ban, with Scalia writing the majority opinion. On the other side, Obama has pointed to Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter, and Stephen Breyer as models for the type of people he would appoint to the court. Those justices provided three of the four votes that argued that there was no individual right to own a gun, and Breyer wrote one of the dissenting opinions. When asked about whether Obama’s statements about what judges he would appoint could explain the NRA’s concerns, Jackson said that it “doesn’t inform [Jackson’s] view. . . . He hasn’t said that he would appoint people who didn’t believe in the Second Amendment.” "Mandate a Government-Issued License to Purchase a Firearm" -- FactCheck.org takes Obama’s statement when asked about licensing and registration of gun owners that, "I just don't think we can get that done,” as evidence that the NRA’s claim is "misleading." FactCheck.org concedes that Obama has clearly supported licensing handguns, but argues that there is no evidence that Obama supported licensing for rifles and shotguns. Yet, it fails to mention the Illinois Firearms Owners Identification (FOID) Card that serves as a license that Illinois residents must have to buy any type of firearm. While a state senator, Obama clearly supported the licensing system. He voted to make it illegal for anyone to possess a firearm without a FOID card even when they were in direct supervision of someone with the card, and he voted against lowering the age for people to be eligible for a FOID card from 21 to 18. To Obama, these votes clearly indicate that the FOID card was a license to use the gun just as much as one needs a driver’s license to drive on public roads. "Increase Federal Taxes on Guns and Ammunition by 500 Percent" and "Close Down 90 Percent of Gun Shops in America" are classified as “uncertain” because even though Obama has indeed supported these policies in the past, FactCheck.org was unable to get the Obama campaign to state what his current position was on these issues. Yet, it is hard to see how FactCheck.org could even raise questions about the NRA ads on these points since Obama clearly held these positions in the past and has never said that he has changed his mind on them. The very fact that the Obama campaign would not issue any statement disowning these previous positions would seem to imply that Obama still supported them. "Obama would be the most anti-gun president in American history." -- FactCheck.org ends its analysis by questioning whether this “pretty tall statement” is justified and ends with a quote that Obama says that he has “always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms.” Yet, this is the same candidate who months earlier supported a ban on guns as constitutional and who refused join the other 55 Senators who signed the friend of the court brief asking the Supreme Court to strike down the D.C. gun ban. While previous candidates, such as Al Gore, have supported licensing and registration, no presidential nominee for a major party has ever supported such widespread bans on guns and ammunition. Jackson said that “Obama agrees with the NRA on this issue (that the Second Amendment is an individual right). They should just accept it rather than lying about it.” He noted that “Obama had to accept all sorts of abuse for coming out and saying this. It was the brave thing for him to do. He had to endure all sorts of abuse – claims of going back and forth on the issue, that he was vague on the issue.” Obama campaign representative Bill Burton told FOX News that "These ads are just complete crap." When Megyn Kelly asked "Has [Obama] ever supported a ban on handguns? . . . And he never has?" Burton said flatly "no." He added that "All the points in these ads are just flatly false." The Washington Post analysis only discusses two issues: the Kennedy ammunition ban and the 500 percent ammunition tax. On the Kennedy bill, the Post makes the same mistake as FactCheck.org. Regarding the tax, the Post doesn’t deny that Obama held that position, but points out that the legislation Obama supported was in 1999 and that it is not clear what guns would have their ammunition taxed. CNN’s discussion appears unwilling to admit that Obama has supported large-scale bans on gun ownership.

Here is an interesting article on BO from Fox. Long, but worth the read. Obama and Ayers Pushed Radicalism On Schools By STANLEY KURTZArticle more in Opinion »Email Printer Friendly Share: Yahoo Buzz MySpace Digg Text Size Despite having authored two autobiographies, Barack Obama has never written about his most important executive experience. From 1995 to 1999, he led an education foundation called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), and remained on the board until 2001. The group poured more than $100 million into the hands of community organizers and radical education activists. AP Bill Ayers. The CAC was the brainchild of Bill Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground in the 1960s. Among other feats, Mr. Ayers and his cohorts bombed the Pentagon, and he has never expressed regret for his actions. Barack Obama's first run for the Illinois State Senate was launched at a 1995 gathering at Mr. Ayers's home. The Obama campaign has struggled to downplay that association. Last April, Sen. Obama dismissed Mr. Ayers as just "a guy who lives in my neighborhood," and "not somebody who I exchange ideas with on a regular basis." Yet documents in the CAC archives make clear that Mr. Ayers and Mr. Obama were partners in the CAC. Those archives are housed in the Richard J. Daley Library at the University of Illinois at Chicago and I've recently spent days looking through them. The Chicago Annenberg Challenge was created ostensibly to improve Chicago's public schools. The funding came from a national education initiative by Ambassador Walter Annenberg. In early 1995, Mr. Obama was appointed the first chairman of the board, which handled fiscal matters. Mr. Ayers co-chaired the foundation's other key body, the "Collaborative," which shaped education policy. The CAC's basic functioning has long been known, because its annual reports, evaluations and some board minutes were public. But the Daley archive contains additional board minutes, the Collaborative minutes, and documentation on the groups that CAC funded and rejected. The Daley archives show that Mr. Obama and Mr. Ayers worked as a team to advance the CAC agenda. One unsettled question is how Mr. Obama, a former community organizer fresh out of law school, could vault to the top of a new foundation? In response to my questions, the Obama campaign issued a statement saying that Mr. Ayers had nothing to do with Obama's "recruitment" to the board. The statement says Deborah Leff and Patricia Albjerg Graham (presidents of other foundations) recruited him. Yet the archives show that, along with Ms. Leff and Ms. Graham, Mr. Ayers was one of a working group of five who assembled the initial board in 1994. Mr. Ayers founded CAC and was its guiding spirit. No one would have been appointed the CAC chairman without his approval. The CAC's agenda flowed from Mr. Ayers's educational philosophy, which called for infusing students and their parents with a radical political commitment, and which downplayed achievement tests in favor of activism. In the mid-1960s, Mr. Ayers taught at a radical alternative school, and served as a community organizer in Cleveland's ghetto. In works like "City Kids, City Teachers" and "Teaching the Personal and the Political," Mr. Ayers wrote that teachers should be community organizers dedicated to provoking resistance to American racism and oppression. His preferred alternative? "I'm a radical, Leftist, small 'c' communist," Mr. Ayers said in an interview in Ron Chepesiuk's, "Sixties Radicals," at about the same time Mr. Ayers was forming CAC. CAC translated Mr. Ayers's radicalism into practice. Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with "external partners," which actually got the money. Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn). Mr. Obama once conducted "leadership training" seminars with Acorn, and Acorn members also served as volunteers in Mr. Obama's early campaigns. External partners like the South Shore African Village Collaborative and the Dual Language Exchange focused more on political consciousness, Afrocentricity and bilingualism than traditional education. CAC's in-house evaluators comprehensively studied the effects of its grants on the test scores of Chicago public-school students. They found no evidence of educational improvement. CAC also funded programs designed to promote "leadership" among parents. Ostensibly this was to enable parents to advocate on behalf of their children's education. In practice, it meant funding Mr. Obama's alma mater, the Developing Communities Project, to recruit parents to its overall political agenda. CAC records show that board member Arnold Weber was concerned that parents "organized" by community groups might be viewed by school principals "as a political threat." Mr. Obama arranged meetings with the Collaborative to smooth out Mr. Weber's objections. The Daley documents show that Mr. Ayers sat as an ex-officio member of the board Mr. Obama chaired through CAC's first year. He also served on the board's governance committee with Mr. Obama, and worked with him to craft CAC bylaws. Mr. Ayers made presentations to board meetings chaired by Mr. Obama. Mr. Ayers spoke for the Collaborative before the board. Likewise, Mr. Obama periodically spoke for the board at meetings of the Collaborative. The Obama campaign notes that Mr. Ayers attended only six board meetings, and stresses that the Collaborative lost its "operational role" at CAC after the first year. Yet the Collaborative was demoted to a strictly advisory role largely because of ethical concerns, since the projects of Collaborative members were receiving grants. CAC's own evaluators noted that project accountability was hampered by the board's reluctance to break away from grant decisions made in 1995. So even after Mr. Ayers's formal sway declined, the board largely adhered to the grant program he had put in place. Mr. Ayers's defenders claim that he has redeemed himself with public-spirited education work. That claim is hard to swallow if you understand that he views his education work as an effort to stoke resistance to an oppressive American system. He likes to stress that he learned of his first teaching job while in jail for a draft-board sit-in. For Mr. Ayers, teaching and his 1960s radicalism are two sides of the same coin. Mr. Ayers is the founder of the "small schools" movement (heavily funded by CAC), in which individual schools built around specific political themes push students to "confront issues of inequity, war, and violence." He believes teacher education programs should serve as "sites of resistance" to an oppressive system. (His teacher-training programs were also CAC funded.) The point, says Mr. Ayers in his "Teaching Toward Freedom," is to "teach against oppression," against America's history of evil and racism, thereby forcing social transformation. The Obama campaign has cried foul when Bill Ayers comes up, claiming "guilt by association." Yet the issue here isn't guilt by association; it's guilt by participation. As CAC chairman, Mr. Obama was lending moral and financial support to Mr. Ayers and his radical circle. That is a story even if Mr. Ayers had never planted a single bomb 40 years ago.

CONGRATULATIONs. Looks like a good time. Any goat with a bow is awesome. Darren

Too cool, Stone. Great job and what a sweet looking bull. I would have shot that thing at opening light or any other time for sure. Always cool how it happens at the right time in the right way. All that time chasen em, with no luck, then he pretty much walks right into you and it all comes together in a short time. Congratulations, Darren

Awesome Doug, congratulatios on a sweet speedgoat. Great story. darren

Like the army says..... those kids did more before 8am than most kids do all day. As a teacher, I would bet they learned more that morning than the rest of the day in class...

CNN Comes Up Short On Reporting Palin Bikini Photo Fraud and Other Rumors by FOXNews.com Wednesday, September 10, 2008 Here is a good example of the differences between the two networks...CNN obviously dont care what the truth is, just cares about their agenda. A CNN reporter this week didn’t seem to know or care that a fake photo showing a bikini-clad, rifle-toting Sarah Palin had been widely debunked days earlier as a fraud, the latest in series of incidents involving apparent misstatements or inaccurate reporting by the news network. “(John) McCain has been really good about painting (Barack) Obama as this lightweight … They don’t want that to come back on Sarah Palin, and people say, yes, she looks good in a bikini clutching an AK-47, but is she equipped to run the country?” CNN’s Lola Ogunnaike said in response to a question on the network’s “Reliable Sources” show, which aired Sunday. Ogunnaike’s remarks, which came in response to a question by host Howard Kurtz about whether Palin’s status as a political celebrity might undercut Republican efforts to portray the vice presidential nominee as a serious, reform-minded governor, were posted on CNN’s Web site and have since been reported and discussed on numerous other independent sites. CNN correspondents and analysts have also recently misrepresented Palin’s stance on incorporating creationism into Alaska’s school curriculum and falsely reported that she cut funds for people with special needs in the state budget. Regarding the doctored “bikini” photo, neither Kurtz, a “Washington Post” columnist, nor anyone else on the “Sources” discussion panel ever corrected Ogunnaike by pointing out that the picture was a fake. Speaking about Ogunnaike and the doctored photo, Kurtz told FOXNews.com on Wednesday that he figured everyone knew the photo was a fake. “I thought that Lola was joking around since the bikini was so obviously fake,” Kurtz said. “I thought she was making a lighthearted reference to it. “Lola is a very sharp former New York Times reporter so I seriously doubt that she bought into the notion that the governor of Alaska had in fact posed in a bathing suit carrying an assault rifle,” he added. “Lola’s comments were made in the context of the tabloid rumors that have emerged since Sarah Palin’s nomination to the ticket,” a CNN spokeswoman said. “She regrets that she didn’t make it more clear that the photo was not only a rumor but a hoax.” The infamous fake bikini shot first appeared during the early days of the Republican convention. But it was widely debunked within 24 hours, with bloggers and others quickly exposing the fraud by finding the original shot, reportedly taken in 2004 in Athens, Ga., by an amateur photographer of his then-girlfriend. FOXNews.com was among the news outlets to report the fake. During the show, Ogunnaike went on to compliment Us Weekly’s coverage of Palin, which has been widely attacked as unfair by critics and reportedly thousands of Us Weekly readers. “I have to say,” Ogunnaike said, “I read the ‘Us Weekly’ story, and they were actually pretty good. They actually did some pretty good journalism there. … And this is a bigger story here. … They can’t afford to ignore this story because this story drives magazine sales. And that’s the bottom line, that’s what they care about. So if you throw Palin on the cover and you have the words ‘Baby Scandal,’ they know that’s going to sell magazines.” Ogunnaike’s remarks are among several apparent misstatements made recently by CNN reporters. On Monday night, senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said Palin wants “to have creationism taught in public schools.” But numerous stories –- including CNN’s own reporting from last week — have noted that Palin has made no effort to try and include creationism in the state school curriculum. “I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class,” Palin has said. “It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.” The morning after Toobin’s remarks on creationism, CNN correspondent Jessica Yellin reported that Palin vetoed funds not only for so-called “earmarks,” but “even for people with disabilities.” This was an apparent reference to a charge discussed during a Sept. 4 interview, in which CNN’s Soledad O’Brien pressed a McCain spokeswoman on another accusation brought by Palin critics. O’Brien twice referred to the charge that while governor, Palin cut the state’s special needs budget by 62 percent. “Those advocates have said, as a woman who is now a mother of a special-needs child, she’s not fighting — she’s cut the budget by 62 percent since she came into office, and doesn’t that show a contradiction?” O’Brien asked McCain spokeswoman Nicolle Wallace, according to transcript available on CNN’s Web site. But Factcheck.org, a non-partisan group affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania, is among those that have reported that Palin “did not cut funding for special needs education in Alaska by 62 percent.” In fact, the group said in a posting published on Newsweek’s Web site, “She didn’t cut it at all. She tripled per-pupil funding over just three years.”

100% sure that my cousin installed that collar on that goat for G&F. He enjoys jumping out of the helicopter onto those things and all that...for some reason. and whoever said they would track you down was correct...you should hear the stories he tells of those that dont return em. Hilarious.

Spent last evening in the junipers and lower areas in a part of 6a south. Had a cool experience as I was able to get right in the middle of about 20 elk. It was a herd with one nice 340 - 350 bull and two 320 is bulls. They were bugling and fighting pretty good, they were also "glunking" I think is what they call it. really cool. then there were two other bulls that came across the flat to check out the herd. Both bulls were probably 350 - 360. seems that horn growth this year has been good. If I had a tag for this friday i would be REAL excited. They are finally getting it on.

Friend of mine saw a bull in 6a south tonight that he said would go around 370-380. But he was not with cows and not bugling when he saw him this evening. darren

been around several areas of 6a south, but mostly down lower, out of the pines and into the cedars. Ran into two bulls tuesday night, no bugles though, and they were together, not with any cows. Have not heard any talking, but I am pretty sure they will be real soon. The last 3 nights, since the storms passed, the temps have really dropped so I would assume that will start to help them get going. Even up high around flag they are not going full bore yet, but have picked up since tuesday from what I hear. Might work out perfect for the archery hunt though. The pre-rut can be the best time to kill a big herd bull, since once he has a bunch of cows protecting him he can be hard to get to. IMO twoguns

The longest lasting legacy, good or bad, for the next president will probably be their appointees to the Supreme Court. I think that is a huge consideration when voting...what type of justice would each candidate appoint? Because for years and years afterward, that justice will be shaping the way our country is run, and how our constitution is interpreted. We almost lost the right to personal firearm ownership this year, if not for 1 vote. If Obama gets to appoint judges as liberal as he is, you can see how things could change real fast for the worse. twoguns

+ 1 to what steve said. maybe some other options????

For the last few days, they have been talking a ton. I even heard sparring and a fight break out just out of sight. Sounded like world war III broke out in the woods! But, the bulls arent chasing cows just yet. I think it is still too hot except maybe up real high. IMO this week. darren

Dave, hope you checked to be sure it was a natural death instead of a human caused death or you might get busted by the fish police for taking that skull from those ants. i also hope you called one of those warden fellows to check it out before taking it... darren

Can I ask why she will use the 85 grain heads? If she moved up to 100 grains she would have tons of choices. Not trying to step on toes, just help. Depending on her set up, 15 grains might no make that much difference, and on elk, a little more weight up front might help as well. Just throwing that out there. twoguns

Sam, I think you and Desertbull might be chasing the same buck.... what do you think? Desertbulls trail cam buck

Sweet bucks! whats the story? looks like a neck shot....