Andrewwhyte

Don't forget that his mortality may well come up. You need to be ready for that too, 'cause I don't think that one is easy either.

Only if every USPA jumper lives on a 7 day a week DZ, does not have a job, and is independently wealthy. I know that when I visit the US I jump 25-40 times a week; do you think the average USPA jumper does?

By an order of magnitude? You think there are 50,000 active, year round, non-USPA jumpers in our country? We do have a fair number of foreign jumpers visit for a week or two to a month or so, but I don't think that number is far greater than the USPA's membership rolls. Two other points: 1- Visiting jumpers, by definition, have less likely to get killed jumping in the US because of their limited time here. 2- Not all of the USPA's membership are active jumpers. That skews the odds to being more dangerous than we thought. But hey, it's all just an estimate I made in my head, some way to quantify the risk we run. From my 30+ years in the sport, I will say that jumping from a plane is not as safe as driving to the DZ. I've lost many friends jumping, but few of them from auto accidents; Or maybe skydivers just make incredibly safe drivers. No, I didn't mean non-USPA jumpers are there year round. However as the USA is by far the No 1 destination for international skydivers the number of international jumpers who at least jump once is huge. The number we were initially comparing it to was USPA members. Since we have no data on how many jumps they made we must assume they at least intended on jumping at least once or they would not have renewed their membership, but that is all we know. Therefore the comparison is valid. (Attention grammar police: I know I started the sentence with a preposition but I am drinking and cannot think how to correct it). Your point #1 works against my point. Your point #2 works in favour of it.

They recently put restrictions on the discounts here in Alberta.

So if three or four bikers wearing colours "asked" you to give up your seat so some of their friends could sit there (say in better seats to see the big event on TV at a bar) would you see that as intimidation? Just an example.

If they were asked to do so by representatives of any level of government I would classify that as intimidation at some level. Representatives of the city should have declined to involve themselves in the matter. I am quite sure that if a group of atheists complained to them about religious signs they would not ask the group to remove them.

Of the 3000ish CSPA members I would estimate 40-50% jump at least once in the US every year. I would guess that 5000 non USPA jumpers is low by an order of magnitude.

+1. I saw a tool advertised on TV the other day that seems to have no other function than dismantling plastic packaging.

I would start at Men's Warehouse.

If he is an "off the rack" proportioned guy he will be able to buy off the rack. The only tailoring necessary will be pant length. It is possible that they could do it today, but I wouldn't bet on it. Can you do that much?

I am an atheist and I don't hate God any more than I hate the Easter Bunny. I also don't mind Christian billboards. What I really hate is their suppressing of atheist billboards.

And they could not find one Obama voter in the entire nation who knew who controlled congress. News flash- these people are liars.

Ever since lawyers decided tho sue bartenders for the actions of their patrons, and ever since juries actually listened to such clap-trap, yes the bartender has the 'right' to cut you off.

I never realized that Peter Jennings was part of the conspiracy.

I think you should consider telling him Grampa is sick first. Let is sink in and let him ask the questions and slowly work it out of you. The fact that Grampa is going to die can wait for a day or two.

Its "too"!! Sorry that just annoys me and instead of yelling at co-workers on a Saturday morning I am taking it out on you. Ya, I am annoyed by that shit two.

I am sure the Boston Tories were preaching the same message.

I doubt it. During a recession most Americans are relatively unconcerned with the State dept. If she was in Health or Labour I think you would be right, but not State.

Rookie is right. That there is a racist 'push back' should surprise no one. The test of the nation will be how sustained it is and how it is met by the citizenry.

So who gets one? Anyone know if there is a limit? Dick Cheney? Gonzales? Libby? Conrad Black is reported to be pleading for one.

Minor point: Venuzuela is within OPEC

I believe humans are animals and animals causing other animals to go extinct is part of evolution (which is "natural"). True. However us going extinct because we changed the environment would also be 'natural.' To say something is natural is not the same as saying it is desirable. Famine, disease, pestilence, being eaten by a polar bear are all examples of natural things that I would not consider desirable. Of course individual preferences may vary.

OPEC will almost certainly cut production. Production here in Alberta will have some reduction at this price level, and a lot at $40.00. Even in recession the price elasticity of demand in US can be expected to be high in this neighbourhood. Although China's demand is expected to be relatively flat it is still expected to be a rise, same for India. BTW I don't think $100M worth of hi-jacked oil will affect the price.

Yes exactly, I think we are a bit over confidant. I truly do not believe that we know the true implications of such actions, and introducing a new species that has been extinct might produce problems that we have not even thought about. Introducing wheat to North America was a good thing, no? Admittedly not much good has come from introducing barley to the same.

from Mike's post #53: However, the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (section 349)states: Quote “From and after the effective date of this Act a person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by -- (1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application, upon an application filed in his behalf by a parent, or duly authorized agent, or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person: Provided, That nationality shall not be lost by any person under this section as the result of the naturalization of a parent or parents while such person is under the age of twenty-one years, or as the result of naturalization obtained on behalf of a person under twenty-one years of age by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, unless such person shall fail to enter the United States to establish a permanent residence prior to his twenty-fifth birthday With the quoted above, Berg doesn't appear to have a leg to stand on from a legal sense in regards to the renunciated citizenship issue, since Obama *did* return to the U.S before his 25th birthday.