SivaGanesha

Thanks for the reply Dave. The question then arises whether it is possible to participate in the Democratic caucus and the Republican primary so as to have some influence on both events that matter. I know that in 2012 (when there were only caucuses no primaries) participation in either caucus required signing a form that one wouldn't participate in the other party's caucus. The open question is whether participation in one party's caucus also bars one from participation in the other party's primary--a situation that didn't exist in 2012. The other question which comes up--although it wasn't my original question--is whether the Republican caucus, although only a "beauty contest", might still have some influence on the national race especially considering it is quite early in the game. It may not directly determine delegate count but will give some indication (and much earlier than the primary) as to which way the Republican vote in WA is leaning. I do know (for sure) that even though it won't actually be used for determining delegate count, presidential preferences (as a beauty contest) will still be voted on in the Republican caucus. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Yes I've already looked at those websites and as I explained--they don't have the information I'm looking for. The state Republican website in particular simply contains a pointer to the county Republican websites regarding the caucuses. The county website, at least in my county, simply says "More information TBA". A bit surprising given that the caucuses are only about a month away but that is nevertheless what it says. The Democratic website is only slightly more helpful. I'm sure eventually more information will be available but as both caucuses require in person participation on a weekend--and I'm trying to make some plans in advance to manage my time--I was hoping someone who lived in WA in 2008 would be able to help. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Thanks--this helps on the primary side (which is conducted under the auspices of the SOS) but I wasn't able to find as much information on the individual parties' websites (and it is the individual parties, not the SOS, who run the caucuses--that much I definitely know for sure from having participated in the process in WA in 2012). I'm still hoping that someone who was on the ground in WA back in 2008 can explain how these (somewhat competing) processes interact in practice. Given that the SOS has no role in running the caucuses, I don't think the complete picture can be obtained solely from the SOS website. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Is there anyone who lived in Washington state back in 2008--I only moved here in 2010--who can help me with this: The Washington state primary/caucus process is very confusing because this year there are both primaries and caucuses and also one doesn't register in advance as a voter for a specific party. In 2012 the only constraint was that one couldn't vote in both the Republican and Democratic caucuses. But 2012 was different from 2016 in that there was no presidential primary--just caucuses. 2016 is different because there are both caucuses and primaries. The sequence of events is: the Republican caucuses on Feb 20, the Democratic caucuses on March 26, and the primary on May 24. But what are the constraints here? If I vote in the Republican caucuses on Feb 20 that presumably bars me from participating in the Democratic caucuses. Does it also bar me from voting for a Democrat in the primary? Further complicating this is that it seems that the Republican caucuses may be purely a "beauty contest" whereas the primary may be purely a beauty contest on the Democratic side. Anyways the structure of things in 2016 seems dissimilar to 2012 but fairly similar to 2008. Anyone who was around Washington in 2008--when the structure seemed similar--know how it works? "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

In this case it is an act of war not terrorism. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Growing up in the 70's, when I thought of a 'terrorist' I thought of someone who was part of a specific organization with specific goals. They used terror--both violence and the fear of violence--in an attempt to achieve those ends. It had a very specific definition and it wasn't just an especially evil criminal. Examples of terrorist organizations from that era included the Front de Libération du Québec, the Symbionese Liberation Army, the Irish Republican Army, and the Red Brigades. For example, the Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA) which kidnapped Patty Hearst was rightly described as a terrorist organization because they did so for political reasons. Kidnappers who kidnapped merely for selfish gain (ie for a traditional ransom) would not have been described as terrorists no matter how evil their actions. Today the term seems to have evolved to the point where any sufficiently evil criminal is described as a terrorist. The term is quickly losing its value as it gets used in non-political situations. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Of course he can't personally and single handedly fix Mexico's problems but he should speak out against problems in Mexico with greater force than he does in the US given Mexico's much greater Catholic population. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Not his fault personally of course but if he were to use his good offices to encourage Mexico and its people (and other countries to the south of the US too) to stay home and make their own countries stronger, it would carry a lot of weight. Or at least it should carry a lot more weight than his remarks within the much more diverse US. I'm not aware of the Pope or any of his predecessors doing so. Everyone seems to put pressure on the US to accept immigrants but no one seems to have the courage to tell the countries that are sending the immigrants that they need to make much needed changes too. And it definitely is his fault for being dishonest about the numbers and saying 'thousands' when the true numbers are in the millions at the least. We can't expect the Pope to solve all the world's problems single handedly but we can I think expect him to abide by the 8th commandment. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

And I would also add: I'm actually personally open to the idea of legalizing a significant number of illegal immigrants, especially those who have been here a long time, have family here, and have generally abided by the law except specifically regarding their immigration status. But it is an internal policy and political decision for us to make within the US. We are free ethically and morally to either turn away or accept immigrants from any country. It is not an appropriate subject for moral or ethical lectures from foreign leaders and especially not from the leader of a country (Vatican City) which, by and large, won't even accept women as immigrants. Both the Chinese president and the Pope are visiting the USA this week. I am told that one of these guys is an inspiring leader and the other has a bit of a spotty human rights record, but I haven't quite been able to figure out which is which yet. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

So here is the Pope's quote from today: http://www.vox.com/2015/9/24/9391549/pope-remarks-full-text On this continent, too, thousands of persons are led to travel north in search of a better life for themselves and for their loved ones, in search of greater opportunities. Is this not what we want for our own children? We must not be taken aback by their numbers... In this quote, the Pope is urging Congress to admit any and all illegal immigrants from Mexico. Now let me get this straight: Mexico is a predominantly Catholic country (about 85% Catholic). The USA is far more diverse (only about 20% Catholic today). So the Pope is basically admitting that Catholics from Mexico can find a better life for themselves by emigrating--even illegally--to a predominantly non-Catholic country? If that claim is true, doesn't the Pope himself have a lot to answer for regarding that sorry state of affairs? Later he says not to be dismayed by the numbers, but he is admitting that the true numbers are pretty 'dismaying' when he says 'thousands' when the true numbers are millions if not tens of millions. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

But you also bullshitted the guy...presumably because you, too, also grew up in North America. I mean--you told the guy that you wanted him to show up at the next karaoke party. If you truly don't feel like sex is such a dirty shameful thing, why did you stop short of a direct invitation to your apartment in the next 10-20 minutes? You are claiming that you embrace a certain "European openness" but your behavior is definitely that of "North American mixed messages". Just saying'. And his age has nothing to do with it--I'm probably 10 years older than you but my reaction to your behavior is no different than it would be if I were 10 years younger than you. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Not the best day on the American calendar, huh? Thoughts? (In the above poll 'Nixon' refers to US President Richard Nixon although Missouri Gov Jay Nixon also figures prominently.) "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

The article may make some valid points about how one counts the number of deportations of Mexicans, but we are getting off topic here. The topic at hand is that the original poster's friend is from Portugal, not Mexico. I'm trying to help the original poster help his friend on a nonpartisan basis--not get into a partisan debate. My advice to the original poster is NOT to give up and NOT to assume that the friend will be put on the next plane back to Portugal. If the friend's most serious legal problems are the DUI and that he overstayed his visa, he ought to at least qualify to be released on bond while he fights deportation--assuming he has someone willing to post bond on his behalf. But the interaction between criminal and immigration law is a very tricky one and he may need a good lawyer--ideally one who understands both state criminal law in the state where the DUI occurred and federal immigration law. To be able to say for sure what the friend's prospects of release are, though, I think the lawyer will need a lot more details than have been posted here. Like I say--the article you post may well raise some valid questions about the official numbers, but because the focus of the article seems to be exclusively on the southern border--and that's not the friend's situation--I think we are veering too far away from the main topic here. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

If the numbers seem plausible then yes. Most immigration statistics that I've seen from the government do seem to roughly match the demographic changes that I've personally observed in the USA over the last few decades. So, yes, in the absence of evidence to the contrary (and such evidence is definitely absent from your post) I tend to believe the official numbers. I'm not so naive as to believe the government never lies but when my personal experience and the government data match closely, my working hypothesis is that the government data is roughly accurate in this particular case. If someone wants to persuade me otherwise, the burden of proof at that point is on them. I follow immigration matters quite closely and there is simply no evidence--from any source, not just the government--to support a claim that white Europeans are being deported from the USA in significant numbers. OTOH white Europeans do represent a much lower proportion of the immigrant population--both legal and illegal--than they used to--and, again, the official statistics are closely aligned with my personal observations here. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

The statistics don't seem to back up your view of the demographics of deportees. Have a look at the following websites: http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/350/ http://immigration.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000845#countries In fiscal year 2013 (the most recent year for which data is available), there were 241,493 deportations to Mexico. This was almost a thousand times higher than the number to the highest ranked European country with a high white population--namely the UK with just 254 deportations. Also 65.5% of deportations were to Mexico, but the estimated percentage of the illegal immigrant population from Mexico was just 58.8%. So Mexicans were, far from being given a free ride, actually being deported at a higher rate than their participation in the illegal immigrant population. And they weren't all murderers, because the number of deportations far exceeded the total murder rate in the USA. However, although deportations are at record levels, still only a small percentage of illegal immigrants from any country--including Mexico--end up getting deported. And it is usually because they first come to the attention of ICE due to some other crime (usually not murder though). "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

I'm not a lawyer but I suspect a lawyer would want to know why he got picked up. While it is possible (with low probability) that he was just unlucky, there are 11 million illegal immigrants in the USA--ICE doesn't have the resources to go around "picking up" that many people just because they are here illegally. Usually there is something--for example an arrest on some non immigration related matter--that triggers the ICE interest. For example, the Uncle in Chief, Omar Obama, faced deportation but only after a drunk driving arrest. Maybe the DUI did trigger the ICE interest in your roommate--or was it something else? Another question would be why he is being held without bond. Only certain types of illegal immigrants--generally those convicted of serious crimes, not just a single DUI--are required to be held without bond. But it is also possible he is eligible for bond but can't afford to post it. If he's eligible to be released on bond, then the decision as whether he is released to allow time to "wrap up his affairs" may be more up to you (or anyone else who could help him post bond) than up to ICE. If he's NOT eligible for bond, then his situation is more serious and it also would look less likely he can beat deportation. Another factor would be to what extent he has "taken care of" the DUI. Like I say a single DUI shouldn't result in his being held by ICE without being eligible for bond. But if he's been missing payments on the DUI due to his being in detention, that could result in new criminal charges for probation violation which would create further complications. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect these are some of the things a lawyer would want to know before trying to answer your question. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

I don't feel that it is nitpicking because I feel he has chosen to draw attention to his old tax returns by posting them online and boasting that he's posted more tax returns than any other prior presidential candidate. Why would he have posted them if he didn't want people to look at them and ask questions? "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

We are veering off topic here. My only "agenda" is to understand how a guy with money managed to accumulate only $4.57 in interest in 1981. He obviously had an interest bearing account or the number would be zero. Even minimal bank deposits would result in more interest than that. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

True but I said "welfare" not "homeless". Usually you need to have some kind of a home to qualify for welfare. Plus I believe there were a lot fewer homeless people in 1981. Even if they were living welfare check to welfare check--which I assume most were--they'd accumulate far more than $5 in interest at 1981 interest rates. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

So Jeb Bush has released 33 years of tax returns which he claims is the most any presidential candidate has ever released: Jeb Bush for President | My Career: Through 33 Years of Tax Returns But if you look at the very first line of the very first return, there is something fishy going on. He reported just $4.57 in interest income in 1981. But interest rates were astronomical in 1981 (unlike today): something like 20% or so. Interest income of $4.57 would imply he only had about $25 or so in the bank. Even if he wasn't quite as wealthy back then--and even if most of his money was invested rather than in a savings account--something isn't right with that number. In 1981, I would have expected even a welfare recipient to have far more in interest income than that. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

A trip back in time--which athlete at the 1976 Summer Olympics in Montreal, Quebec, Canada would you say best exemplified timeless qualities of manliness? "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

I believe that an angry family is part of the picture here, certainly. I also believe politics is another part of the story. The man who is charged was, until recently, a Republican lawmaker. The prosecutor who decided to proceed with charges is a Democratic appointee. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Hmmm...is this a fraternity house where students lived or simply a social club for male students who lived elsewhere? If it is the former--students actually lived there--then I have a big problem with the university's actions when it came to closing the frat. I agree with expelling those who are known to be responsible but unless you know for sure that ALL members were involved it seems wrong to evict students, some of whom may not have been guilty, from their homes on what I understand was very, very little notice. Basically I agree with expelling the guilty but not with evicting the not guilty. If it was just a social club and no one actually lived there it is not such a big deal to close it down. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

N/A

Hello, I wanted to ask the "greenies" why my message posted to the following thread: "Fatality - Ontario, CA - 27 April 2008" dated: "Apr 30, 2008, 7:50 PM" was censored and sent to the Recycle Bin? I recall at the time there were some concerns expressed about the content of the message but I was trying to express my condolences in the best way I knew how--and I didn't fully understand either the concerns or the actions you appear to have taken. This concerned a thread in the 'Incidents' forum regarding the first ever fatality at Skydive SWOOP in Dundas, Ontario, Canada involving a skydiver named Ahmed. Perhaps I never properly introduced myself when I initially joined these forums so let me do so now. My first jump was on May 28, 1983 at Skydive SWOOP--then known as the South Western Ontario Organization of Parachutists in Grand Bend, Ontario, Canada. Back in the day I made 81 jumps on a log book I no longer have, but subsequently returned to the sport in the USA and completed my A license at Skydance Skydiving. I'm not current at the moment but recently did 90 minutes in the tunnel and expect to get back in the air soon. Although I didn't personally know Ahmed, his death--being the first at the DZ where I initially started--cause me personal grief. The censorship of my message seemed to me to cut me off from an ability to share that grief with other members of the skydiving community, and I feel I've earned the right to understand why you did that. More recently, I've lost several friends of mine I did know personally at Skydance Skydiving and have attended their ash dives/funerals. Just trying to understand what was going on since this censorship felt weird to me. Thank you! "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014