[Rhodes22-list] Rhodes22-list Digest, Vol 1540, Issue 2
R22RumRunner at aol.com
R22RumRunner at aol.com
Wed Jul 2 10:33:09 EDT 2008
Art,
What are you doing sitting on the cushions anyway? They are meant for
leisure time....after the sailing is done. :) I have never seen any configuration
of the cushions different from mine. Two side cushions for the seats and one
large one to cover the Lazzerette.
Rummy
In a message dated 7/2/2008 9:26:23 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
czerwonky at earthlink.net writes:
William,
You might inquire about the shapes, materials, and fit of the three
cushions. Do the side cushions extend entirely to the transom. I have found the
short cushions can fall all over unless fastened to the cockpit seats - not a
good safety or convenience factor when heeled over in heavy sailing.
Art
-----Original Message-----
>From: "William McCready Jr." <wmccready at hotmail.com>
>Sent: Jul 1, 2008 8:11 PM
>To: rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org
>Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Rhodes22-list Digest, Vol 1540, Issue 2
>
>
>David Bradley,
>
>Thanks for the welcome and advice on the options I am considering. I will
definitely get the cockpit cushions andwill consider the filler cushions.
>
>William E.B. McCready Jr., CFP
>Investment Advice offered through Medallion Advisory Services, LLC*
>Insurance products offered through Medallion Insurance Services, LLC*
>*Wholly Owned Subsidiaries of the TMG Holding Company, Inc., T/A The
Medallion Group
>
>CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
>This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged and
confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
message is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify me immediately by replying to the message or calling me at (410)
544-6150 and deleting the message from your computer. Thank you.
> > From: rhodes22-list-request at rhodes22.org> Subject: Rhodes22-list Digest,
Vol 1540, Issue 2> To: rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org> Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008
23:13:56 -0400> > Send Rhodes22-list mailing list submissions to>
rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit>
http://www.rhodes22.org/mailman/listinfo/rhodes22-list> or, via email, send a
message with subject or body 'help' to> rhodes22-list-request at rhodes22.org>
> You can reach the person managing the list at>
rhodes22-list-owner at rhodes22.org> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific>
than "Re: Contents of Rhodes22-list digest..."> > > Today's Topics:> > 1. Re:
Introduction-soon to be new old Rhodes owner (Leland)> 2. Re:
Introduction-soon to be new old Rhodes owner (David Bradley)> 3. Genoa Furling Problems
(Leland)> 4. Re: Re ad CarefullyThis One! (Political) with historical>
perspective (Rik Sandberg)> 5. Re: What constitutes War; and quick shout out!
.!
> (TN Rhodey)> 6. Re: What constitutes War; and quick shout out. (Herb
Parsons)> 7. Re: What constitutes War; and quick shout out. (Brad Haslett)> 8.
Re: What constitutes War; and quick shout out. (Robert Skinner)> 9. Re: What
constitutes War; and quick shout out. (TN Rhodey)> 10. Pics of installed
Pop-Top enclosure (chetc)> 11. Re: What constitutes War; and quick shout out. (Herb
Parsons)> 12. First Time Out (MichaelT)> 13. Re: anchor locker - dumb
questions - reply to Mike C. (Rick Lange)> 14. Re: First Time Out (Jb)> 15. Re:
First Time Out (Brad Haslett)> > >
----------------------------------------------------------------------> > Message: 1> Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:00:17
-0700 (PDT)> From: Leland <LKUHN at cnmc.org>> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list]
Introduction-soon to be new old Rhodes> owner> To: rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
Message-ID: <18182346.post at talk.nabble.com>> Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii> > > Mac,> > Welcome to the club! Your Rhodes will seem like !
a!
> yacht compared to a> windsurfer, but she's light enough that you will
> be able to keep her on> course by shifting your weight. Not quite the
same.> > Excellent wish list. The cockpit cushions aren't cheap but they're
worth> the money. Cockpit bulkhead mounted compass and depthfinder are nice. I>
have a handheld GPS resting against the cabin bulkhead next to the sink to>
monitor my speed from the helm. I use a handheld anenmometer more often> than I
thought I would.> > Met a new co-worker Friday. Walked into his office and
immediately thought> that this guy has got to be into sailing. The picture
with him and Dennis> Conner was a bit of a hint. He lives on the Magothy where
he keeps his> Hunter 4200 Passagemaker. He has a slip on his dock that he
wants to lease> if you're interested. Just give me a call, 202.476.5369. Also
glad to give> you some "big boat" sailing time while you wait on your baby to
arrive.> > Congratulations!> > Lee> 1986 Rhodes22 At Ease> Kent Island, MD> > >
> William McCready Jr. wrote:> > > > > > Just wanted to intoduce m!
y!
> self and to say that I have put a deposit on a> > 1990 R-22 that will be
ready mid to late July. After windsurfing for 20+> > years I have decided to
learn to sail sitting down and through some undue> > influence from a friend,
Chris G., I have decided a Rhodes is the boat for> > me. I feel priviledged
to own (soon) one of these boats. So I have a lot> > to learn- about sailing,
the boat, and also how to equip the boat before> > picking her up.I live in
Arnold just north of Annapolis,MD and will be> > sailing on the Magothy River
(tributary of the Chesapeake Bay) and the Bay> > too. On my wish list so far
I have: pop top enclosure, a solar panel, and> > am considering a hatch (or
two?), a permanent head vs porti-potti, and a> > bimini, and purchasing a
8hp, high thrust,electric start, 4 stroke, Yamaha> > with 20" shaft instead of
the UPP package. Any and all suggestions about> > what to put on her and how
to educate myself on sailing and safety is> > appreciated. > > > > T!
h!
> ank you,> > Mac McCready > > > > William E.B. McCready Jr., CFP> > Inv
>estment Advice offered through Medallion Advisory Services, LLC* > >
Insurance products offered through Medallion Insurance Services, LLC* > > *Wholly
Owned Subsidiaries of the TMG Holding Company, Inc., T/A The> > Medallion
Group > > > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > > This message is intended only for the
use of the individual or entity to> > which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is privileged and> > confidential. If the reader of this
message is not the intended recipient,> > you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of> > this message is prohibited. If you
have received this communication in> > error, please notify me immediately by
replying to the message or calling> > me at (410) 544-6150 and deleting the
message from your computer. Thank> > you.> > > >
_________________________________________________________________> > Do more with your photos with Windows
Live Photo Gallery.> > http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TX!
T!
> _TAGLM_Wave2_photos_022008> >
__________________________________________________> > To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list
go to> > http://www.rhodes22.org/list> >
__________________________________________________> > > > > > -- > View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Introduction-soon-to-be-new-old-Rhodes-owner-tp18179954p18182346.html>
Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.> > > >
------------------------------> > Message: 2> Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:01:56 -0700>
From: "David Bradley" <dwbrad at gmail.com>> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list]
Introduction-soon to be new old Rhodes> owner> To: "The Rhodes 22 Email List"
<rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>> Message-ID:>
<5c154df70806290901i79866116o4623f4b9344f7e8e at mail.gmail.com>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1> > Hi
Mac. Welcome to the list. My two cents - you've got a good set of> options in
mind. We use our bimini a lot and I'm glad we bought it,> even though i!
t!
> 's a bit of a nuisance when not in use. You didn't> mention cockpit cu
>shions - they would be near the top of my list. One> option we bought that
we've really enjoyed is the cockpit filler> cushions - so you can stretch out
at anchor or at the dock. Permanent> head vs. porta-potti has been discussed
at lenght on this list - you> can search the archives - I think it comes
down to how much you'll> really be using it and how accessible pump out services
are. Porta> potti requires daily maintenance but won't have potential for
bigger> problems someday. UPP package is good if you have a tight moorage>
situation and need to maneuver into a slip and avoid expesnsive boats.> I'm glad
I have it every time I return to our slip but I disconnect> it as soon as I
leave the marina.> > Enjoy,> > Dave> > > On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 5:03 AM,
William McCready Jr.> <wmccready at hotmail.com> wrote:> >> > Just wanted to
intoduce myself and to say that I have put a deposit on a 1990 R-22 that will be
ready mid to late July. After windsurfing for 20+ years I have decide!
d!
> to learn to sail sitting down and through some undue influence from a
friend, Chris G., I have decided a Rhodes is the boat for me. I feel priviledged
to own (soon) one of these boats. So I have a lot to learn- about sailing,
the boat, and also how to equip the boat before picking her up.I live in
Arnold just north of Annapolis,MD and will be sailing on the Magothy River
(tributary of the Chesapeake Bay) and the Bay too. On my wish list so far I have:
pop top enclosure, a solar panel, and am considering a hatch (or two?), a
permanent head vs porti-potti, and a bimini, and purchasing a 8hp, high
thrust,electric start, 4 stroke, Yamaha with 20" shaft instead of the UPP package. Any
and all suggestions about what to put on her and how to educate myself on
sailing and safety is appreciated.> >> > Thank you,> > Mac McCready> >> >
William E.B. McCready Jr., CFP> > Investment Advice offered through Medallion
Advisory Services, LLC*> > Insurance products offered through Medallion!
!
> Insurance Services, LLC*> > *Wholly Owned Subsidiaries of the TMG Hold
>ing Company, Inc., T/A The Medallion Group> >> > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE> >
This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged and
confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
message is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify me immediately by replying to the message or calling me at (410) 544-6150
and deleting the message from your computer. Thank you.> >> >
_________________________________________________________________> > Do more with your
photos with Windows Live Photo Gallery.> >
http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_Wave2_photos_022008> >
__________________________________________________> > To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing
list go to http://www.rhodes22.org/list> > _________________________!
_!
> ________________________> >> > > > -- > David Bradley> +1.206.234.3977>
dwbrad at gmail.com> > > ------------------------------> > Message: 3> Date: Sun,
29 Jun 2008 09:17:21 -0700 (PDT)> From: Leland <LKUHN at cnmc.org>> Subject:
[Rhodes22-list] Genoa Furling Problems> To: rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
Message-ID: <18182434.post at talk.nabble.com>> Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii> > > Went sailing yesterday with a fellow Rhodie who has a brand new 175
Genoa. > She mentioned that she was having a difficult time furling the
Genoa tight> enough so the UV protector would completely cover the sail. I now
"humbly"> consider myself an expert furler, but no matter how much tension I
put on> the sheets, I couldn't furl the Genoa tight enough on a port tack, and
could> barely get the UV protector to cover the sail completely on a
starboard> tack.> > I noticed that the foot of her sail hangs lower than mine, which
is probably> good for sail shape but I thought it might be the probl!
e!
> m with the furling.> > Any advice?> > Lee> 1986 Rhodes22 At Ease> Kent
> Island, MD> -- > View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Genoa-Furling-Problems-tp18182434p18182434.html> Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing
list archive at Nabble.com.> > > > ------------------------------> > Message:
4> Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 11:25:25 -0500> From: Rik Sandberg
<sanderico1 at gmail.com>> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Re ad CarefullyThis One! (Political)
with> historical perspective> To: The Rhodes 22 Email List
<rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>> Message-ID: <4867B775.5050801 at gmail.com>> Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed> > Ed,> > Thanks for the links. Sowell,
In my mind, can show more common sense > than most any 10 other journalist
combined.> > Rik> > Ayn Rand was a prophet - - it isn't my fault> > > > Tootle
wrote:> > Brad:> >> > Good summary of situation. Unfortunately the guy who
should read it has> > become so entranced with his personal agenda, that he will
not give fair> > evaluation regarding expenses. > >> > Too bad he l!
e!
> ft the list. He could defend the Europeans creating a black> > hole when
they start their new accelerator. Could it be that his> > application was one
of those not accepted? See:> >> > http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/06/29/eu
rope/EU-FEA-SCI-Switzerland-Doomsday-Collider.php> >> > All that being said,
here are three post by Thomas Sowell that gives> > historical perspective to
Ron's agenda:> >> >
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/the_imitators.html> >> > http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell062508.php3> >> >
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell062608.php3> >> > There are members
of this forum who deny history. It is important to> > understand what this
man is saying.> >> > Ed K> > Greenville, SC, USA> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Same
lies, same faces waiting for another turn at the helm with the "Black"> >
Messiah.> >> > Brad> >> > ---------------> >> > LIARS' ROUND-UP> >> > By RALPH
PETERS> > <http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/nyp.postopinion/opedcolumni!
s!
> ts;comp=' +> > adid + ';pos=menusky1;sz=160x600;dcove=d;tile=1;ord=123
>456789?>> > *June 28, 2008* --> >> > THE facts about *your* security are
being torn to shreds by activist liars.> > And they think that you're too
stupid to know the difference.> >> > Let's lay out the worst current examples of
media make-believe and> > election-year truth-trashing:> >> > *Whopper No. 1:
America is less **safe today than it was on Sept. **10, 2001> > *. Oh,
really? Where's the evidence? The Clinton years saw New York City> > attacked and
Americans slaughtered by terrorists around the globe.> > *Nothing*was done to
protect us.> >> > And the true end of the Clinton era came on 9/11.> >> > A
record to be proud of.> >> > Countless aspects of the Bush-Cheney
administration deserve merciless> > criticism. But fair is fair: Since 9/11, we haven't
suffered a single> > successful terrorist attack on our homeland. Not one.>
>> > Explain to me, please, how this shows we're less safe. What factual> >
measurement applies, other than the absence of attacks?> >> > God kno!
w!
> s, the terrorists desperately *wanted* to strike our homeland. And> > they
couldn't. Are we supposed to believe that was an accident?> >> > *Whopper
No. 2: Al Qaeda is **stronger than ever*. Al Qaeda just suffered a> > strategic
defeat in Iraq that may prove decisive. It can't launch attacks> > beyond
its regional lairs. The cowardly Osama bin Laden can't show his face> >
(remember his Clinton-era pep rallies?).> >> > Yes, terrorists can still murder
innocents on their home court. I personally> > prefer that to them killing
Americans in Manhattan and Washington. Even in> > Iraq, al Qaeda's been beaten
down to violent-fugitive status.> >> > By what objective measurement is al Qaeda
stronger today than it was when it> > had an entire country for its base and
its tentacles reached all the way to> > Florida and the Midwest?> >> >
*Whopper No. 3: Success in Iraq **is an illusion - the **surge failed*.> > Folks,
this is something only a New York Times columnist could believe.> >!
>!
> > Every single significant indicator, from Iraqi government progress
>through> > the performance of Iraqi security forces to the plummeting level
of> > violence, has changed for the better - remarkably so.> >> > If current
trend-lines continue, it may not be long before Baghdad is safer> > for
Iraqi citizens than the Washington-Baltimore metroplex is for US> > citizens.
Iraq's government is working, its economy is booming - and its> > military has
driven the concentrations of terrorists and militia from every> > one of
Iraq's major cities.> >> > And our troops *are* coming home. Where's the
failure?> >> > *Whopper No. 4: Iran is **stronger than ever*. Tell that to the
Iraqis,> > who've rejected Iranian meddling in their affairs, who've smashed the> >
Iran-backed Shia militias and who didn't take long to figure out that> >
Tehran's foreign policy was imperialist and anti-Arab.> >> > The people of Iraq
don't intend to trade Saddam for Ahmadinejad. Iran has *> > lost* in Iraq. At
this point, all the Iranians can do is to kill a handful> > of inn!
o!
> cent Iraqis now and then. Think that wins them friends and influence?> >>
>> > *Whopper No. 5: **The US-European relationship is **a disaster*. In
fact,> > Washington and the major European capitals have built new, sturdier
bridges> > to replace old ones that badly needed burning.> >> > The Europeans
grudgingly figured out that they need us - as we need them.> > The big break in
2003 cleared a lot of bad air (there was no break with> > Europe's young
democracies). Relations today are sounder than they were in> > the
fiddle-while-Rome-burns Clinton era.> >> > Oh, and NATO has become a serious military
alliance - fighting in> > Afghanistan, patrolling the high seas and conducting
special operations> > against terrorists. The Germans announced this week that
they're sending> > another thousand troops to Afghanistan. France is
re-engaging with NATO's> > military side. Where's the disaster, *mon ami?*> >> >
*Whopper No. 6: As president, **Barack> > Obama<http://www.nypost.com/n!
e!
> ws/p/obama_barack/obama_barack.htm>would> > bring pos> > **itive chang
>e to our foreign policy* *- and John McCain's too old to **get> > it.*> >>
> Hmm: Take a gander at Obama's senior foreign-policy advisers: Madeleine> >
Albright (71), Warren Christopher (82), Anthony Lake (69), Lee Hamilton> >
(77), Richard Clarke (57) . . .> >> > If you added up their ages and fed the
number into a time-machine, you'd> > land in Europe in the middle of the Black
Death.> >> > More important: These are the people whose watch saw the first
attack on the> > World Trade Center, Mogadishu, Rwanda, the Srebrenica
massacre, a pass for> > the Russians on Chechnya, the Khobar Towers bombing, the
attacks on our> > embassies in Africa, the near-sinking of the USS Cole - oh,
and the US> > bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade.> >> > Their legacy
climaxed on 9/11.> >> > You couldn't assemble a team in Washington with more
strategic failures to> > its credit.> >> > *Whopper No. 7: Our troops are
**all coming home as psychos vic**timized by> > their participation in !
*!
> *military atrocities*.> >> > Tell it to the Marines.> >> > *Ralph Peters'
new book is **"Looking For Trouble."*> >> >> > On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 3:38
AM, Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com>> > wrote:> >> > > >> Hank (and
Brad)> >>> >> Don't you guys know, the information that the PDD's (poor duped
dems)> >> were basing their opinions on were bad intel. Perpetrated by Bush Sr
and> >> the MIC (Military Industrial Complex). Though some of those opinions>
>> predate President Bush, the fix was already in, and the PDD's were> >>
unwittingly (who could ever accuse these people of having wits?) dragged> >>
into it and fooled.> >>> >> Yep, had to be what happened...> >>> >> Hank
wrote:> >> > >>> Brad,> >>>> >>> Have you seen this by the GOP? Kinda hard for the
dems to deny video> >>> evidence, isn't it?> >>>> >>> Hank> >>>> >>> A Must
see; think of the current impeachment efforts of the liberals> >>> > >>
while> >> > >>> you watch this. Also remember the video starts with clips !
f!
> rom> >>> January/February 1998 and Bush was first elected in 2000.> >>
>>> >>> The next time you hear the expression 'Bush's war' remember
this----note> >>> that there's no 'opinion,' just direct video which deserves wide>
>>> distribution.> >>>> >>> This may have been passed around before. While it
is endorsed by the> >>> Republican National Committee, it shows the comments
of Democrats> >>> > >> concerning> >> > >>> the reasons for war in Iraq.>
>>>> >>> American leaders can be a fickle lot...> >>>> >>> THIS COUNTRY NEEDS
TO RUN THIS VIDEO OVER AND OVER UNTIL ALL OF US FULLY> >>> UNDERSTAND WHAT IS
GOING ON!!!> >>>> >>> The most despicable acts of deceit ongoing in this
country are the lies> >>> > >> and> >> > >>> hypocrisy perpetrated by the
people seen in this short video. Here's a> >>> > >> video> >> > >>> compilation
you definitely won't see on main stream media.> >>>> >>> http://www.bercasio.>
>>> com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv<> >>> > >>
http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv>> >> > >>> ____________________________!
_!
> _____________________> >>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with
using the mailing list go to> >>> > >> http://www.rhodes22.org/list> >> > >>>
__________________________________________________> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >
>> __________________________________________________> >> To
subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to> >>
http://www.rhodes22.org/list> >> __________________________________________________> >>> >> > >
__________________________________________________> > To subscribe/unsubscribe
or for help with using the mailing list go to> >
http://www.rhodes22.org/list> > __________________________________________________> >> >> >> > > > >
------------------------------> > Message: 5> Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 12:54:17
-0400> From: "TN Rhodey" <tnrhodey at gmail.com>> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list]
What constitutes War; and quick shout> out.> To: "The Rhodes 22 Email List"
<rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>> Message-ID:> <ebee322a0806290954sf67aa8g4c9f!
6!
> cb01cb6ad6d at mail.gmail.com>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-885
>9-1> > Herb, I don't know why I try. I did not comment further on the name
calling> because it wasn't your post and like I said it is silly. I thought
Brad's> "chickenshit" comments were a little over the top. No biggie I guess
we are> all adults and no I am not trying to make any changes to the list.> >
What is muddy? A quick review.....Rummy said we did not declare war. Ed said>
that the resolution was the same thing. I sided with Rummy, and President>
Bush.....a War Resolution is different from a Declaration. Honestly from> your
post i can not make out your position. Are you saying they are the same>
thing? For some reason you are making this more complex than it really is.> >
Care to comment on our formers AG's quote? Congress did not vote to declare>
war. Congress did pass War Resolution. No value judgement here...just a> fact.
There is a difference. Do you disagree? If so why?> > Because we did not
declare war treaties and agreements concerning times of> war are not i!
n!
> play.Do you disagree? Why?> > It is not like you to disagree with current
administration so maybe I am> missing something.> > Well I will go back into
troll mode. I really do hope some of you are> sailing.> > Wally> > > On
6/29/08, Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com> wrote:> > > Actually, the war
powers act muddied the waters. As I stated previously,> > there is nothing that
says what is a declaration of war. In days of old,> > and act of war was
considered a de-facto resolution. of war. Then little> > skirmishes came up. A
blockade here, taking of a vessel there, incursion> > on sovereign ground here
and there. These types of actions are what> > caused the case mentioned to be
taken to the SC in the 1800's. Those> > bringing the case, and cases similar
to hit, said "this is war, and the> > constitution clearly says that
congress must declare war". The war> > powers act acted on the SC decision, and
actions involving "limited> > hostility" (most notably Vietnam), by say!
i!
> ng that they, Congress, were> > going to be the ones to decide what co
>nstitutes "limited hostility".> >> > The problem is that "that side" had
already said that these actions are> > war. So now we have Congress voting for
"these actions" which were> > considered war. If/when Congress votes to allow
something that they, and> > others, consider to be war, and Congress must
vote to DECLARE war, well,> > I think any right thinking person can see how
folks will say - you just> > declared war with that vote.> >> > Muddy the waters
a little more with the idea that most of the Presidents> > since the voting
of the war powers act view it as an unconstitutional> > incursion on the
powers of the executive branch, and basically don't> > acknowledge its validity.
Because of that, you will regularly find> > wording similar to Mr Gonzales.>
>> > I you are mistaken on the current administration's stance on the
Geneva> > convention. The stand is that the enemy combatants are members of> >
terrorist groups, not members of a recognized army, and thus are not> >!
!
> party to the GC.> >> > I noticed that you asserted I "missed" the name
calling, but didn't give> > an example. I don't think any exist, care to
enlighten me? There were> > some pretty silly accusations made, such as calling
other posts> > "polluting"; but I didn't see the name calling.> >> > TN Rhodey
wrote:> > > Herb, Relax....Please re-read my post. I stated that war
resolutions are> > not> > > the same as a War Declaration. I was agreeing with Rummy's
post. Please> > note> > > I didn't claim the many past and current "War"
Resolutions were illegal.> > I> > > really don't know how you got that from my
post. I claim they are not the> > > same....do you disagree? Former AG
Gonzales and the current> > administration> > > agree with me.> > >> > > To quote
Gonazales before Senate Hearing 2/6/06...:GONZALES: "There was> > not> > > a
war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was> > an>
> > authorization to use military force. I only want to clarify that!
,!
> because> > > there are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a
> war declaration,> > > you're possibly talking about affecting treaties,
diplomatic relations.> > And> > > so there is a distinction in law and in
practice. And we're not talking> > > about a war declaration. This is an
authorization only to use military> > > force."> > >> > > I do have a problem with
the US holding people in prisons for years with> > no> > > trial. I did mention
the recent SC ruling...do your own research> > regarding> > > this ruling.
The recent ruling did not involve the legality of the> > > Resolution and
neither did my post. This is the ruling I mentioned. I> > don't> > > think War
Resolutions are illegal. Got it?> > >> > > I do think that (in most cases) if
we decide to attack a country we> > should> > > go "all in" and have Congress
vote to Declare War. If past perforamance> > is> > > any indication of
future results....well it just seems we have better> > > results when we declare
war verses "resolutions".> > >> > > Regarding childish names I don't !
d!
> oubt you missed them.> > >> > > Been sailing lately? Fair Winds!> > >> > >
TN Rhodey - Wally> > >> > >> > > On 6/29/08, Herb Parsons
<hparsons at parsonsys.com> wrote:> > >> > >> TN,> > >>> > >> Maybe you could be so kind as to
reference where the "official"> > >> declaration of war wording for the US can
be located. In the Bas v.> > >> Tingy case in 1800, the Supreme Court
clearly ruled that the executive> > >> branch had the power for limited action
(action that would normally be> > >> called "an act of war") without declaration,
or approval, of Congress.> > >> Since that ruling, there have been various
instrument to attempt to> > >> quantify just how limited that limited action
can be. The war powers act> > >> of 1973 was probably the best known of those
attempts. No matter if you> > >> agree with Congress constitutional "right"
to pass such a restriction on> > >> the executive branch, one thing is
clear.> > >>> > >> The President acted within the restraint of that act.> >!
!
> >>> > >> In 1992 Congress overwhelmingly passed a joint resolution aut
>horizing> > >> the President's action.> > >>> > >> SC Precedent says this
war is allowed, both sides of Congress authorized> > >> it, and the President
acted.> > >>> > >> In what way do you think something was done improperly?
Maybe they> > >> forgot to check with you first?> > >>> > >> What childish
names were called, I must have missed that one.> > >>> > >> TN Rhodey wrote:> >
>>> > >>> I still get list emails but seldom have time to read and even less
to> > >>> respond. I will say all is well and we just paid off our home.
Sweet!> > >>>> > >>> Some of the subjects catch my interest but I delete most
withourt> > >>>> > >> reading.> > >>> > >>> This is going to be quite an
election. Brad was talking about voting> > for> > >>>> > >> a> > >>> > >>>
Clinton, Bill E supporting a republican! Well I am sure Ed still thinks> > >>>
everyone who disagrees with him is a Socialist or commie .....> > >>>> > >>> No
Ed the resolution is not the same as an actual declaration and that> > !
i!
> s> > >>> why there is a fuss. We need to step up and declare war when we
want> > to> > >>> attack a country. However not doing so (declaring war)
allows us to> > >>>> > >> ignore> > >>> > >>> Geneva Convention and according to
current admin the constitution.> > >>>> > >> Luckily> > >>> > >>> the
Supreme Court corrected some of this in recent decision.> > >>>> > >>> Yes Brad it
is true that thousands of POWs died in hell hole prison> > camps> > >>>
during Civil War. This has nothing to do with today's issues but it is> > >>> no
excuse for our current behavior. We also allowed slavery back then> > >>>> >
>> right?> > >>> > >>> By the same logic ....should we bring slavery back.
No sir we have come> > a> > >>> long way as a country. There is much to like
and admire about McCain.> > But> > >>>> > >> it> > >>> > >>> is hard to
believe he has flip flopped so much on the issue of torture> > >>>> > >> and> >
>>> > >>> treatment of detainees. Using the argument that they do worse t!
o!
> us is> > >>>> > >> not> > >>> > >>> relevant. I don't use terrorists
>behavior as our standard. We are> > better> > >>> than that.> > >>>> > >>>
My thoughts on the election...Do folks really think the Hillary's women> >
>>> supporters will not fall in line and vote for Obama? Once they figure> >
out> > >>> that Supreme Court judges and Roe Vs. Wade may be at stake they
will> > >>>> > >> vote> > >>> > >>> Democrat. The polls all show Obama ahead but
there is plenty of time> > for> > >>> either candidate to implode. Despite
what they say both sides are in> > bed> > >>> with the usual tacky lobbyist
groups. Money and politics always go hand> > >>>> > >> in> > >>> > >>> hand.>
> >>>> > >>> I tried hard to pick one of the big two but it looks like Bob
Barr is> > >>>> > >> going> > >>> > >>> to get my vote.> > >>>> > >>> Oh
yeah.....Why did you guys jump so hard on Ron? He figured out what I> > >>>
figured out over a year ago. Do any of you guys even go sailing> > anymore?> >
>>> Calling a guy childish names for deciding not get drawn into silly> >!
!
> >>>> > >> arguments> > >>> > >>> with people who have already made up
their minds....well it just seems> > >>> silly.> > >>>> > >>> Fair winds....I
will go back into troll mode.> > >>>> > >>> TN Rhodey> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> On
6/23/08, Tootle <ekroposki at charter.net> wrote:> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Rummy
said, "Question? I don't believe that the United States has> > >>>>
officially> > >>>> declared war> > >>>> on Iraq, have we? The Vietnam war wasn't a
declared war either, it was> > a> > >>>> "police action". Same holds true with
Korea. The last declared war was> > >>>> WWII.> > >>>> Correct me if I'm
wrong.> > >>>>> > >>>> I believe that the Congressional authorization against
Iraq is legally> > >>>> considered a declaration of war. I do not believe that
you find the> > >>>>> > >> word> > >>> > >>>> 'declaration of war' in the
subject line, but the language is legally> > >>>> conclusive.> > >>>>> > >>>>
That is why we still have all the fuss over that resolution.> > >>>>> > >>!
>!
> > For what it is worth department.> > >>>>> > >>>> Ed K> > >>>> Greenv
>ille, SC, USA> > >>>> "One of the challenges we have is to be able to read
the fine print> > >>>>> > >> indoors> > >>> > >>>> without any sunlight."
Kai Abelkis> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> --> > >>>> View this message in
context:> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> >
http://www.nabble.com/What-constitutes-War--reply-to-Captain-Rummy-tp18067074p18067074.html> > >>> > >>>> Sent from the
Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>
__________________________________________________> > >>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe
or for help with using the mailing list go to> > >>>>
http://www.rhodes22.org/list> > >>>> __________________________________________________> > >>>>> >
>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> __________________________________________________> >
>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to> >
>>>> > >> http://www.rhodes22.org/list> > >>> > >>>
__________________________________________________> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >> ______!
_!
> ___________________________________________> > >> To
subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to> > >>
http://www.rhodes22.org/list> > >> __________________________________________________> > >>> > >>>
> > __________________________________________________> > > To
subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to> >
http://www.rhodes22.org/list> > > __________________________________________________> > >> > >>
> >> > >> > __________________________________________________> > To
subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to> >
http://www.rhodes22.org/list> > __________________________________________________> >> > >
------------------------------> > Message: 6> Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008
13:59:24 -0500> From: Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com>> Subject: Re:
[Rhodes22-list] What constitutes War; and quick shout> out.> To: The Rhodes 22 Email
List <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>> Message-ID: <4867DB8C.7040009 at parsons!
y!
> s.com>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed> >
> I disagree. Since there is no formal wording to a declaration of war, >
how can one say this is or isn't with any certainty? The waters have > ALWAYS
been muddied, whether you acknowledge it or not, which is the > reason that
the supreme court had to chime in on the matter a mere 24 > years after our
country was founded.> > Since there is no "official" declaration of war, how is
war declared? By > an overt action? By a response to an action? Are the
words "We declare > war" required? Maybe we can do a Steve Martin thing and say
"I make war > with thee, I make war with thee, I make war with thee" and then
throw > dog poopie on their shoe.> > My point is that certain actions are
recognized by most countries as > "acts of war", and those actions are
considered, or can be considered, > by most countries as a declaration merely by their
actions.> > Incursion into another country is considered an act of war. If
that > action is considered a declaration, then one could reasonably!
!
> say that > when congress approved that action, they were declaring war.> >
It would be interesting, again keeping in mind that we have no official >
language for "declaring" war, to do a study and find how many of the >
congresscritters who voted for the resolution have called the results of > that
resolution "the Iraqi war".> > On the other issue, I put saying the post of said
poster were > "chickenshit" (though I DID miss that one) to be no more
offensive than > said poster referring to the posts of others to be "polluting".
Sorry > you missed that point.> > > TN Rhodey wrote:> > Herb, I don't know why
I try. I did not comment further on the name calling> > because it wasn't
your post and like I said it is silly. I thought Brad's> > "chickenshit"
comments were a little over the top. No biggie I guess we are> > all adults and no I
am not trying to make any changes to the list.> >> > What is muddy? A quick
review.....Rummy said we did not declare war. Ed said> > that the r!
e!
> solution was the same thing. I sided with Rummy, and President> > Bush
>.....a War Resolution is different from a Declaration. Honestly from> >
your post i can not make out your position. Are you saying they are the same> >
thing? For some reason you are making this more complex than it really is.>
>> > Care to comment on our formers AG's quote? Congress did not vote to
declare> > war. Congress did pass War Resolution. No value judgement here...just
a> > fact. There is a difference. Do you disagree? If so why?> >> > Because
we did not declare war treaties and agreements concerning times of> > war are
not in play.Do you disagree? Why?> >> > It is not like you to disagree with
current administration so maybe I am> > missing something.> >> > Well I will
go back into troll mode. I really do hope some of you are> > sailing.> >> >
Wally> >> >> > On 6/29/08, Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com> wrote:> >> >
> >> Actually, the war powers act muddied the waters. As I stated
previously,> >> there is nothing that says what is a declaration of war. In day!
s!
> of old,> >> and act of war was considered a de-facto resolution. of war.
Then little> >> skirmishes came up. A blockade here, taking of a vessel
there, incursion> >> on sovereign ground here and there. These types of actions
are what> >> caused the case mentioned to be taken to the SC in the 1800's.
Those> >> bringing the case, and cases similar to hit, said "this is war, and
the> >> constitution clearly says that congress must declare war". The war> >>
powers act acted on the SC decision, and actions involving "limited> >>
hostility" (most notably Vietnam), by saying that they, Congress, were> >> going
to be the ones to decide what constitutes "limited hostility".> >>> >> The
problem is that "that side" had already said that these actions are> >> war.
So now we have Congress voting for "these actions" which were> >> considered
war. If/when Congress votes to allow something that they, and> >> others,
consider to be war, and Congress must vote to DECLARE war, well,> >> I t!
h!
> ink any right thinking person can see how folks will say - you just> >
>> declared war with that vote.> >>> >> Muddy the waters a little more with
the idea that most of the Presidents> >> since the voting of the war powers
act view it as an unconstitutional> >> incursion on the powers of the
executive branch, and basically don't> >> acknowledge its validity. Because of that,
you will regularly find> >> wording similar to Mr Gonzales.> >>> >> I you
are mistaken on the current administration's stance on the Geneva> >>
convention. The stand is that the enemy combatants are members of> >> terrorist
groups, not members of a recognized army, and thus are not> >> party to the GC.>
>>> >> I noticed that you asserted I "missed" the name calling, but didn't
give> >> an example. I don't think any exist, care to enlighten me? There were>
>> some pretty silly accusations made, such as calling other posts> >>
"polluting"; but I didn't see the name calling.> >>> >> TN Rhodey wrote:> >> > >>>
Herb, Relax....Please re-read my post. I stated that war resolutions!
!
> are> >>> > >> not> >> > >>> the same as a War Declaration. I was agreeing
with Rummy's post. Please> >>> > >> note> >> > >>> I didn't claim the many
past and current "War" Resolutions were illegal.> >>> > >> I> >> > >>> really
don't know how you got that from my post. I claim they are not the> >>>
same....do you disagree? Former AG Gonzales and the current> >>> > >>
administration> >> > >>> agree with me.> >>>> >>> To quote Gonazales before Senate
Hearing 2/6/06...:GONZALES: "There was> >>> > >> not> >> > >>> a war
declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was> >>> > >> an> >> >
>>> authorization to use military force. I only want to clarify that, because>
>>> there are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war
declaration,> >>> you're possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic
relations.> >>> > >> And> >> > >>> so there is a distinction in law and in practice.
And we're not talking> >>> about a war declaration. This is an authoriza!
t!
> ion only to use military> >>> force."> >>>> >>> I do have a problem wi
>th the US holding people in prisons for years with> >>> > >> no> >> > >>>
trial. I did mention the recent SC ruling...do your own research> >>> > >>
regarding> >> > >>> this ruling. The recent ruling did not involve the legality
of the> >>> Resolution and neither did my post. This is the ruling I
mentioned. I> >>> > >> don't> >> > >>> think War Resolutions are illegal. Got it?>
>>>> >>> I do think that (in most cases) if we decide to attack a country
we> >>> > >> should> >> > >>> go "all in" and have Congress vote to Declare
War. If past perforamance> >>> > >> is> >> > >>> any indication of future
results....well it just seems we have better> >>> results when we declare war
verses "resolutions".> >>>> >>> Regarding childish names I don't doubt you missed
them.> >>>> >>> Been sailing lately? Fair Winds!> >>>> >>> TN Rhodey -
Wally> >>>> >>>> >>> On 6/29/08, Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com> wrote:>
>>>> >>> > >>>> TN,> >>>>> >>>> Maybe you could be so kind as to referenc!
e!
> where the "official"> >>>> declaration of war wording for the US can be
located. In the Bas v.> >>>> Tingy case in 1800, the Supreme Court clearly
ruled that the executive> >>>> branch had the power for limited action (action
that would normally be> >>>> called "an act of war") without declaration, or
approval, of Congress.> >>>> Since that ruling, there have been various
instrument to attempt to> >>>> quantify just how limited that limited action can
be. The war powers act> >>>> of 1973 was probably the best known of those
attempts. No matter if you> >>>> agree with Congress constitutional "right" to
pass such a restriction on> >>>> the executive branch, one thing is clear.>
>>>>> >>>> The President acted within the restraint of that act.> >>>>> >>>> In
1992 Congress overwhelmingly passed a joint resolution authorizing> >>>>
the President's action.> >>>>> >>>> SC Precedent says this war is allowed, both
sides of Congress authorized> >>>> it, and the President acted.> >>>!
>!
> > >>>> In what way do you think something was done improperly? Maybe t
>hey> >>>> forgot to check with you first?> >>>>> >>>> What childish names
were called, I must have missed that one.> >>>>> >>>> TN Rhodey wrote:>
>>>>> >>>> > >>>>> I still get list emails but seldom have time to read and even
less to> >>>>> respond. I will say all is well and we just paid off our
home. Sweet!> >>>>>> >>>>> Some of the subjects catch my interest but I delete
most withourt> >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>> reading.> >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> This is going
to be quite an election. Brad was talking about voting> >>>>> > >> for> >> >
>>>> a> >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> Clinton, Bill E supporting a republican! Well I
am sure Ed still thinks> >>>>> everyone who disagrees with him is a Socialist
or commie .....> >>>>>> >>>>> No Ed the resolution is not the same as an
actual declaration and that> >>>>> > >> is> >> > >>>>> why there is a fuss. We
need to step up and declare war when we want> >>>>> > >> to> >> > >>>>>
attack a country. However not doing so (declaring war) allows us to> >>>>>> >>!
>!
> >> > >>>> ignore> >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> Geneva Convention and according to
current admin the constitution.> >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>> Luckily> >>>>> >>>> >
>>>>> the Supreme Court corrected some of this in recent decision.> >>>>>>
>>>>> Yes Brad it is true that thousands of POWs died in hell hole prison> >>>>>
> >> camps> >> > >>>>> during Civil War. This has nothing to do with
today's issues but it is> >>>>> no excuse for our current behavior. We also allowed
slavery back then> >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>> right?> >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> By the
same logic ....should we bring slavery back. No sir we have come> >>>>> > >>
a> >> > >>>>> long way as a country. There is much to like and admire about
McCain.> >>>>> > >> But> >> > >>>> it> >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> is hard to believe
he has flip flopped so much on the issue of torture> >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>> and>
>>>>> >>>> > >>>>> treatment of detainees. Using the argument that they do
worse to us is> >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>> not> >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> relevant. I don!
'!
> t use terrorists behavior as our standard. We are> >>>>> > >> better>
>>> > >>>>> than that.> >>>>>> >>>>> My thoughts on the election...Do folks
really think the Hillary's women> >>>>> supporters will not fall in line and
vote for Obama? Once they figure> >>>>> > >> out> >> > >>>>> that Supreme
Court judges and Roe Vs. Wade may be at stake they will> >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>
vote> >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> Democrat. The polls all show Obama ahead but there
is plenty of time> >>>>> > >> for> >> > >>>>> either candidate to implode.
Despite what they say both sides are in> >>>>> > >> bed> >> > >>>>> with the
usual tacky lobbyist groups. Money and politics always go hand> >>>>>> >>>>>
> >>>> in> >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> hand.> >>>>>> >>>>> I tried hard to pick one
of the big two but it looks like Bob Barr is> >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>> going>
>>>>> >>>> > >>>>> to get my vote.> >>>>>> >>>>> Oh yeah.....Why did you guys
jump so hard on Ron? He figured out what I> >>>>> figured out over a year ago.
Do any of you guys even go sailing> >>>>> > >> anymore?> >> > >>>>> Calling!
!
> a guy childish names for deciding not get drawn into silly> >>>>>> >>>>>
> >>>> arguments> >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> with people who have already made up
their minds....well it just seems> >>>>> silly.> >>>>>> >>>>> Fair winds....I
will go back into troll mode.> >>>>>> >>>>> TN Rhodey> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>
On 6/23/08, Tootle <ekroposki at charter.net> wrote:> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >
>>>>>> Rummy said, "Question? I don't believe that the United States has> >>>>>>
officially> >>>>>> declared war> >>>>>> on Iraq, have we? The Vietnam war
wasn't a declared war either, it was> >>>>>> > >> a> >> > >>>>>> "police
action". Same holds true with Korea. The last declared war was> >>>>>> WWII.>
>>>>>> Correct me if I'm wrong.> >>>>>>> >>>>>> I believe that the
Congressional authorization against Iraq is legally> >>>>>> considered a declaration of
war. I do not believe that you find the> >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>> word> >>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>> 'declaration of war' in the subject line, but the language is le!
g!
> ally> >>>>>> conclusive.> >>>>>>> >>>>>> That is why we still have all
> the fuss over that resolution.> >>>>>>> >>>>>> For what it is worth
department.> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Ed K> >>>>>> Greenville, SC, USA> >>>>>> "One of the
challenges we have is to be able to read the fine print> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >
>>>> indoors> >>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> without any sunlight." Kai Abelkis> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> --> >>>>>> View this message in context:> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>
http://www.nabble.com/What-constitutes-War--reply-to-Captain-Rummy-tp18067074p18067074.html> >> > >>>>>> Sent from the Rhodes 22
mailing list archive at Nabble.com.> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>
__________________________________________________> >>>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help
with using the mailing list go to> >>>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list> >>>>>>
__________________________________________________> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>> __________________________________________________> >>>>>
To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to> >>>>>>
>!
>!
> >>> > >>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list> >>>>> >>>> > >>>>>
__________________________________________________> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> > >>>> __________________________________________________> >>>> To
subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to> >>>>
http://www.rhodes22.org/list> >>>>
__________________________________________________> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> > >>>
__________________________________________________> >>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to>
>>> > >> http://www.rhodes22.org/list> >> > >>>
__________________________________________________> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> > >>
__________________________________________________> >> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with
using the mailing list go to> >> http://www.rhodes22.org/list> >>
__________________________________________________> >>> >> > >
__________________________________________________> > To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with usin!
g!
> the mailing list go to http://www.rhodes22.org/list> > ______________
>____________________________________> >> >> >> > > > >
------------------------------> > Message: 7> Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:14:29 -0500> From: "Brad
Haslett" <flybrad at gmail.com>> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] What constitutes
War; and quick shout> out.> To: "The Rhodes 22 Email List"
<rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>> Message-ID:>
<400985d70806291414p4fa1c8cend8524554c176e062 at mail.gmail.com>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1> > Wally,> > Just to
set the record straight, no one was called any names, at least not> by be.
Here's my original comment, "I try to keep my comments above the> line but
that last response and comment by Lipton was about as> chickenshitas they come."
Notice that "chickenshit" was directed at> the comment and> not the person.
This is no different than me saying to a student (which> sometimes I do),
"that was really a 'dumb ass' thing to do"! It is their> behavior that I'm
referring to and not them as a person, and if they're too> thin-skinned t!
o!
> tell the difference they're probably in the wrong> profession. We have a
candidate for POTUS who thinks every little thing is> directed at him and his
cult of worshipers behave in the same fashion and> waaay too often accuse of
anyone who doesn't drink their Kool-Aid as being> "filled with hate". I take
offense to that and find this whole hero-worship> thing a little creepy.> >
Since I'm publicly school educated and civilian trained, I can't rely on an>
Ivy League education to speak with nuance. Furthermore, I can't say "that's>
not the Bradley I knew" since I've been comfortable with the same skin for
a> good long while.> > There, how's that for sorting rat turds from the Milk
Duds?> > Brad> > On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 11:54 AM, TN Rhodey
<tnrhodey at gmail.com> wrote:> > > Herb, I don't know why I try. I did not comment further on
the name calling> > because it wasn't your post and like I said it is silly. I
thought Brad's> > "chickenshit" comments were a little over the top!
.!
> No biggie I guess we are> > all adults and no I am not trying to make
> any changes to the list.> >> > What is muddy? A quick review.....Rummy
said we did not declare war. Ed> > said> > that the resolution was the same
thing. I sided with Rummy, and President> > Bush.....a War Resolution is
different from a Declaration. Honestly from> > your post i can not make out your
position. Are you saying they are the> > same> > thing? For some reason you are
making this more complex than it really is.> >> > Care to comment on our
formers AG's quote? Congress did not vote to> > declare> > war. Congress did pass
War Resolution. No value judgement here...just a> > fact. There is a
difference. Do you disagree? If so why?> >> > Because we did not declare war
treaties and agreements concerning times of> > war are not in play.Do you disagree?
Why?> >> > It is not like you to disagree with current administration so
maybe I am> > missing something.> >> > Well I will go back into troll mode. I
really do hope some of you are> > sailing.> >> > Wally> >> >> > On 6/2!
9!
> /08, Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com> wrote:> >> > > Actually, the
war powers act muddied the waters. As I stated previously,> > > there is
nothing that says what is a declaration of war. In days of old,> > > and act of
war was considered a de-facto resolution. of war. Then little> > > skirmishes
came up. A blockade here, taking of a vessel there, incursion> > > on
sovereign ground here and there. These types of actions are what> > > caused the case
mentioned to be taken to the SC in the 1800's. Those> > > bringing the case,
and cases similar to hit, said "this is war, and the> > > constitution
clearly says that congress must declare war". The war> > > powers act acted on the
SC decision, and actions involving "limited> > > hostility" (most notably
Vietnam), by saying that they, Congress, were> > > going to be the ones to
decide what constitutes "limited hostility".> > >> > > The problem is that "that
side" had already said that these actions are> > > war. So now we h!
a!
> ve Congress voting for "these actions" which were> > > considered war.
> If/when Congress votes to allow something that they, and> > > others,
consider to be war, and Congress must vote to DECLARE war, well,> > > I think
any right thinking person can see how folks will say - you just> > > declared
war with that vote.> > >> > > Muddy the waters a little more with the idea
that most of the Presidents> > > since the voting of the war powers act view it
as an unconstitutional> > > incursion on the powers of the executive branch,
and basically don't> > > acknowledge its validity. Because of that, you will
regularly find> > > wording similar to Mr Gonzales.> > >> > > I you are
mistaken on the current administration's stance on the Geneva> > > convention.
The stand is that the enemy combatants are members of> > > terrorist groups,
not members of a recognized army, and thus are not> > > party to the GC.> > >>
> > I noticed that you asserted I "missed" the name calling, but didn't give>
> > an example. I don't think any exist, care to enlighten me? Ther!
e!
> were> > > some pretty silly accusations made, such as calling other
posts> > > "polluting"; but I didn't see the name calling.> > >> > > TN Rhodey
wrote:> > > > Herb, Relax....Please re-read my post. I stated that war
resolutions> > are> > > not> > > > the same as a War Declaration. I was agreeing with
Rummy's post. Please> > > note> > > > I didn't claim the many past and
current "War" Resolutions were> > illegal.> > > I> > > > really don't know how you
got that from my post. I claim they are not> > the> > > > same....do you
disagree? Former AG Gonzales and the current> > > administration> > > > agree
with me.> > > >> > > > To quote Gonazales before Senate Hearing
2/6/06...:GONZALES: "There was> > > not> > > > a war declaration, either in connection
with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It> > was> > > an> > > > authorization to use military
force. I only want to clarify that,> > because> > > > there are
implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war> > declaration,> > > > you're !
p!
> ossibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations.> > > A
>nd> > > > so there is a distinction in law and in practice. And we're not
talking> > > > about a war declaration. This is an authorization only to use
military> > > > force."> > > >> > > > I do have a problem with the US holding
people in prisons for years> > with> > > no> > > > trial. I did mention the
recent SC ruling...do your own research> > > regarding> > > > this ruling.
The recent ruling did not involve the legality of the> > > > Resolution and
neither did my post. This is the ruling I mentioned. I> > > don't> > > > think
War Resolutions are illegal. Got it?> > > >> > > > I do think that (in most
cases) if we decide to attack a country we> > > should> > > > go "all in" and
have Congress vote to Declare War. If past perforamance> > > is> > > > any
indication of future results....well it just seems we have better> > > >
results when we declare war verses "resolutions".> > > >> > > > Regarding childish
names I don't doubt you missed them.> > > >> > > > Been sailing late!
l!
> y? Fair Winds!> > > >> > > > TN Rhodey - Wally> > > >> > > >> > > > On
6/29/08, Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com> wrote:> > > >> > > >> TN,> > >
>>> > > >> Maybe you could be so kind as to reference where the "official"> >
> >> declaration of war wording for the US can be located. In the Bas v.> >
> >> Tingy case in 1800, the Supreme Court clearly ruled that the executive>
> > >> branch had the power for limited action (action that would normally
be> > > >> called "an act of war") without declaration, or approval, of
Congress.> > > >> Since that ruling, there have been various instrument to attempt
to> > > >> quantify just how limited that limited action can be. The war
powers> > act> > > >> of 1973 was probably the best known of those attempts. No
matter if> > you> > > >> agree with Congress constitutional "right" to pass
such a restriction> > on> > > >> the executive branch, one thing is clear.> >
> >>> > > >> The President acted within the restraint of that act.> > !
>!
> >>> > > >> In 1992 Congress overwhelmingly passed a joint resolution
>authorizing> > > >> the President's action.> > > >>> > > >> SC Precedent
says this war is allowed, both sides of Congress> > authorized> > > >> it, and
the President acted.> > > >>> > > >> In what way do you think something was
done improperly? Maybe they> > > >> forgot to check with you first?> > > >>>
> > >> What childish names were called, I must have missed that one.> > >
>>> > > >> TN Rhodey wrote:> > > >>> > > >>> I still get list emails but
seldom have time to read and even less to> > > >>> respond. I will say all is well
and we just paid off our home. Sweet!> > > >>>> > > >>> Some of the
subjects catch my interest but I delete most withourt> > > >>>> > > >> reading.> > >
>>> > > >>> This is going to be quite an election. Brad was talking about
voting> > > for> > > >>>> > > >> a> > > >>> > > >>> Clinton, Bill E
supporting a republican! Well I am sure Ed still> > thinks> > > >>> everyone who
disagrees with him is a Socialist or commie .....> > > >>>> > > >>> No Ed the!
!
> resolution is not the same as an actual declaration and> > that> > > is> >
> >>> why there is a fuss. We need to step up and declare war when we want>
> > to> > > >>> attack a country. However not doing so (declaring war)
allows us to> > > >>>> > > >> ignore> > > >>> > > >>> Geneva Convention and
according to current admin the constitution.> > > >>>> > > >> Luckily> > > >>> > >
>>> the Supreme Court corrected some of this in recent decision.> > > >>>>
> > >>> Yes Brad it is true that thousands of POWs died in hell hole prison>
> > camps> > > >>> during Civil War. This has nothing to do with today's
issues but it> > is> > > >>> no excuse for our current behavior. We also allowed
slavery back then> > > >>>> > > >> right?> > > >>> > > >>> By the same logic
....should we bring slavery back. No sir we have> > come> > > a> > > >>>
long way as a country. There is much to like and admire about McCain.> > > But>
> > >>>> > > >> it> > > >>> > > >>> is hard to believe he has flip flo!
p!
> ped so much on the issue of> > torture> > > >>>> > > >> and> > > >>> >
> > >>> treatment of detainees. Using the argument that they do worse to us>
> is> > > >>>> > > >> not> > > >>> > > >>> relevant. I don't use terrorists
behavior as our standard. We are> > > better> > > >>> than that.> > > >>>>
> > >>> My thoughts on the election...Do folks really think the Hillary's> >
women> > > >>> supporters will not fall in line and vote for Obama? Once they
figure> > > out> > > >>> that Supreme Court judges and Roe Vs. Wade may be
at stake they will> > > >>>> > > >> vote> > > >>> > > >>> Democrat. The polls
all show Obama ahead but there is plenty of time> > > for> > > >>> either
candidate to implode. Despite what they say both sides are in> > > bed> > >
>>> with the usual tacky lobbyist groups. Money and politics always go> > hand>
> > >>>> > > >> in> > > >>> > > >>> hand.> > > >>>> > > >>> I tried hard
to pick one of the big two but it looks like Bob Barr is> > > >>>> > > >>
going> > > >>> > > >>> to get my vote.> > > >>>> > > >>> Oh yeah.....Why did!
!
> you guys jump so hard on Ron? He figured out what> > I> > > >>> figured
out over a year ago. Do any of you guys even go sailing> > > anymore?> > > >>>
Calling a guy childish names for deciding not get drawn into silly> > > >>>>
> > >> arguments> > > >>> > > >>> with people who have already made up
their minds....well it just> > seems> > > >>> silly.> > > >>>> > > >>> Fair
winds....I will go back into troll mode.> > > >>>> > > >>> TN Rhodey> > > >>>> >
> >>>> > > >>> On 6/23/08, Tootle <ekroposki at charter.net> wrote:> > > >>>> >
> >>>> > > >>>> Rummy said, "Question? I don't believe that the United
States has> > > >>>> officially> > > >>>> declared war> > > >>>> on Iraq, have
we? The Vietnam war wasn't a declared war either, it> > was> > > a> > > >>>>
"police action". Same holds true with Korea. The last declared war> > was> >
> >>>> WWII.> > > >>>> Correct me if I'm wrong.> > > >>>>> > > >>>> I
believe that the Congressional authorization against Iraq is> > legally> > > >>>!
>!
> considered a declaration of war. I do not believe that you find the>
>> > >>>>> > > >> word> > > >>> > > >>>> 'declaration of war' in the
subject line, but the language is> > legally> > > >>>> conclusive.> > > >>>>> > >
>>>> That is why we still have all the fuss over that resolution.> > > >>>>>
> > >>>> For what it is worth department.> > > >>>>> > > >>>> Ed K> > >
>>>> Greenville, SC, USA> > > >>>> "One of the challenges we have is to be able
to read the fine print> > > >>>>> > > >> indoors> > > >>> > > >>>> without
any sunlight." Kai Abelkis> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> --> > >
>>>> View this message in context:> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>> > >> >
http://www.nabble.com/What-constitutes-War--reply-to-Captain-Rummy-tp18067074p180670
74.html> > > >>> > > >>>> Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at
Nabble.com.> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>
__________________________________________________> > > >>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the
mailing list go> > to> > > >>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list> > > >>>>
____!
_!
> _____________________________________________> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > >
>>>>> > > >>> __________________________________________________> > > >>> To
subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go> > to> > >
>>>> > > >> http://www.rhodes22.org/list> > > >>> > > >>>
__________________________________________________> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>
> > >> __________________________________________________> > > >> To
subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to> > > >>
http://www.rhodes22.org/list> > > >>
__________________________________________________> > > >>> > > >>> > > >
__________________________________________________> > > > To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go
to> > > http://www.rhodes22.org/list> > > >
__________________________________________________> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >
__________________________________________________> > > To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with !
u!
> sing the mailing list go to> > > http://www.rhodes22.org/list> > > ___
>_______________________________________________> > >> >
__________________________________________________> > To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with
using the mailing list go to> > http://www.rhodes22.org/list> >
__________________________________________________> >> > >
------------------------------> > Message: 8> Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 20:13:55 -0400> From: Robert Skinner
<robert at squirrelhaven.com>> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] What constitutes War;
and quick shout> out.> To: The Rhodes 22 Email List
<rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>> Message-ID: <48682543.C04A4861 at squirrelhaven.com>> Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=us-ascii> > Brad Haslett wrote:> > ...> > There, how's that
for sorting rat turds from the Milk Duds?...> > I first heard that as "Picking
milk duds out of rabbit shit."> Actually, my dogs have an equal affection for
both, and don't> bother with a sorting phase between confrontation and >
consumption.> > Sort of like the usual voter of any nominal position.> !
>!
> /Robert> > > ------------------------------> > Message: 9> Date: Sun, 29
Jun 2008 20:25:19 -0400> From: "TN Rhodey" <tnrhodey at gmail.com>> Subject:
Re: [Rhodes22-list] What constitutes War; and quick shout> out.> To: "The
Rhodes 22 Email List" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>> Message-ID:>
<ebee322a0806291725o36173f03nd02ec9c932bd1bf6 at mail.gmail.com>> Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=ISO-8859-1> > Herb, I agree that the Constitution is some what vague and
muddy....Section> 8 provides Congress the Power to Declare War with little
specifics. So I> do agree the Constitution is vague. OK? However our current
administration> is maintaining there is a difference. between Declaration of
War and a War> Resolution. It is duly noted that you disagree. with Bush ,Cheny
and the> ex-AG and think the two are one in the same. I actually agree with
current> administration on this one....there is a difference.> > Just for the
record we have officially Declared War. I will provide you an> exam!
p!
> le. See link for our official declaration of war (WW II) -> http://www
>.law.ou.edu/ushistory/germwar.shtml> > I am sure you can find copies of
other US Declarations of War. I think we> have officially declared war 5 times
give or take. Our War resolutions> have subtle and not so subtle differences
from Declarations. Often there are> funding and/or time limits involved.. If
you read a couple of Resolutions> verses Declarations of War the differences
become obvious..> > Wally> > > > > > On 6/29/08, Herb Parsons
<hparsons at parsonsys.com> wrote:> >> > I disagree. Since there is no formal wording to a
declaration of war,> > how can one say this is or isn't with any certainty? The
waters have> > ALWAYS been muddied, whether you acknowledge it or not, which
is the> > reason that the supreme court had to chime in on the matter a mere
24> > years after our country was founded.> >> > Since there is no "official"
declaration of war, how is war declared? By> > an overt action? By a
response to an action? Are the words "We declare> > war" required? Maybe we!
!
> can do a Steve Martin thing and say "I make war> > with thee, I make war
with thee, I make war with thee" and then throw> > dog poopie on their shoe.>
>> > My point is that certain actions are recognized by most countries as> >
"acts of war", and those actions are considered, or can be considered,> > by
most countries as a declaration merely by their actions.> >> > Incursion into
another country is considered an act of war. If that> > action is considered
a declaration, then one could reasonably say that> > when congress approved
that action, they were declaring war.> >> > It would be interesting, again
keeping in mind that we have no official> > language for "declaring" war, to
do a study and find how many of the> > congresscritters who voted for the
resolution have called the results of> > that resolution "the Iraqi war".> >> >
On the other issue, I put saying the post of said poster were> > "chickenshit"
(though I DID miss that one) to be no more offensive than> > said !
p!
> oster referring to the posts of others to be "polluting". Sorry> > you
> missed that point.> >> >> > TN Rhodey wrote:> > > Herb, I don't know why I
try. I did not comment further on the name> > calling> > > because it wasn't
your post and like I said it is silly. I thought Brad's> > > "chickenshit"
comments were a little over the top. No biggie I guess we> > are> > > all
adults and no I am not trying to make any changes to the list.> > >> > > What is
muddy? A quick review.....Rummy said we did not declare war. Ed> > said> > >
that the resolution was the same thing. I sided with Rummy, and President> >
> Bush.....a War Resolution is different from a Declaration. Honestly from>
> > your post i can not make out your position. Are you saying they are the>
> same> > > thing? For some reason you are making this more complex than it
really> > is.> > >> > > Care to comment on our formers AG's quote? Congress
did not vote to> > declare> > > war. Congress did pass War Resolution. No
value judgement here...just a> > > fact. There is a difference. Do you d!
i!
> sagree? If so why?> > >> > > Because we did not declare war treaties and
agreements concerning times> > of> > > war are not in play.Do you disagree?
Why?> > >> > > It is not like you to disagree with current administration so
maybe I am> > > missing something.> > >> > > Well I will go back into troll
mode. I really do hope some of you are> > > sailing.> > >> > > Wally> > >> >
>> > > On 6/29/08, Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com> wrote:> > >> > >> >
>> Actually, the war powers act muddied the waters. As I stated previously,>
> >> there is nothing that says what is a declaration of war. In days of
old,> > >> and act of war was considered a de-facto resolution. of war. Then
little> > >> skirmishes came up. A blockade here, taking of a vessel there,
incursion> > >> on sovereign ground here and there. These types of actions are
what> > >> caused the case mentioned to be taken to the SC in the 1800's.
Those> > >> bringing the case, and cases similar to hit, said "this is war,!
!
> and the> > >> constitution clearly says that congress must declare war
>". The war> > >> powers act acted on the SC decision, and actions involving
"limited> > >> hostility" (most notably Vietnam), by saying that they,
Congress, were> > >> going to be the ones to decide what constitutes "limited
hostility".> > >>> > >> The problem is that "that side" had already said that
these actions are> > >> war. So now we have Congress voting for "these actions"
which were> > >> considered war. If/when Congress votes to allow something
that they, and> > >> others, consider to be war, and Congress must vote to
DECLARE war, well,> > >> I think any right thinking person can see how folks
will say - you just> > >> declared war with that vote.> > >>> > >> Muddy the
waters a little more with the idea that most of the Presidents> > >> since the
voting of the war powers act view it as an unconstitutional> > >> incursion
on the powers of the executive branch, and basically don't> > >> acknowledge
its validity. Because of that, you will regularly find> > >> wording !
s!
> imilar to Mr Gonzales.> > >>> > >> I you are mistaken on the current
administration's stance on the Geneva> > >> convention. The stand is that the
enemy combatants are members of> > >> terrorist groups, not members of a
recognized army, and thus are not> > >> party to the GC.> > >>> > >> I noticed that
you asserted I "missed" the name calling, but didn't give> > >> an example. I
don't think any exist, care to enlighten me? There were> > >> some pretty
silly accusations made, such as calling other posts> > >> "polluting"; but I
didn't see the name calling.> > >>> > >> TN Rhodey wrote:> > >>> > >>> Herb,
Relax....Please re-read my post. I stated that war resolutions> > are> > >>>>
> >> not> > >>> > >>> the same as a War Declaration. I was agreeing with
Rummy's post. Please> > >>>> > >> note> > >>> > >>> I didn't claim the many past
and current "War" Resolutions were> > illegal.> > >>>> > >> I> > >>> > >>>
really don't know how you got that from my post. I claim they are not>!
!
> > the> > >>> same....do you disagree? Former AG Gonzales and the curre
>nt> > >>>> > >> administration> > >>> > >>> agree with me.> > >>>> > >>>
To quote Gonazales before Senate Hearing 2/6/06...:GONZALES: "There was> >
>>>> > >> not> > >>> > >>> a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida
or in Iraq. It> > was> > >>>> > >> an> > >>> > >>> authorization to use
military force. I only want to clarify that,> > because> > >>> there are
implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war> > declaration,> > >>> you're
possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations.> > >>>> > >>
And> > >>> > >>> so there is a distinction in law and in practice. And we're
not talking> > >>> about a war declaration. This is an authorization only to
use military> > >>> force."> > >>>> > >>> I do have a problem with the US
holding people in prisons for years> > with> > >>>> > >> no> > >>> > >>> trial.
I did mention the recent SC ruling...do your own research> > >>>> > >>
regarding> > >>> > >>> this ruling. The recent ruling did not involve the le!
g!
> ality of the> > >>> Resolution and neither did my post. This is the ruling
I mentioned. I> > >>>> > >> don't> > >>> > >>> think War Resolutions are
illegal. Got it?> > >>>> > >>> I do think that (in most cases) if we decide to
attack a country we> > >>>> > >> should> > >>> > >>> go "all in" and have
Congress vote to Declare War. If past perforamance> > >>>> > >> is> > >>> >
>>> any indication of future results....well it just seems we have better> >
>>> results when we declare war verses "resolutions".> > >>>> > >>> Regarding
childish names I don't doubt you missed them.> > >>>> > >>> Been sailing
lately? Fair Winds!> > >>>> > >>> TN Rhodey - Wally> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> On
6/29/08, Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com> wrote:> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> TN,>
> >>>>> > >>>> Maybe you could be so kind as to reference where the
"official"> > >>>> declaration of war wording for the US can be located. In the Bas
v.> > >>>> Tingy case in 1800, the Supreme Court clearly ruled that the e!
x!
> ecutive> > >>>> branch had the power for limited action (action that w
>ould normally be> > >>>> called "an act of war") without declaration, or
approval, of Congress.> > >>>> Since that ruling, there have been various
instrument to attempt to> > >>>> quantify just how limited that limited action can
be. The war powers> > act> > >>>> of 1973 was probably the best known of
those attempts. No matter if> > you> > >>>> agree with Congress constitutional
"right" to pass such a restriction> > on> > >>>> the executive branch, one
thing is clear.> > >>>>> > >>>> The President acted within the restraint of
that act.> > >>>>> > >>>> In 1992 Congress overwhelmingly passed a joint
resolution authorizing> > >>>> the President's action.> > >>>>> > >>>> SC
Precedent says this war is allowed, both sides of Congress> > authorized> > >>>> it,
and the President acted.> > >>>>> > >>>> In what way do you think something
was done improperly? Maybe they> > >>>> forgot to check with you first?> >
>>>>> > >>>> What childish names were called, I must have missed that on!
e!
> .> > >>>>> > >>>> TN Rhodey wrote:> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I still get
list emails but seldom have time to read and even less to> > >>>>> respond. I
will say all is well and we just paid off our home. Sweet!> > >>>>>> > >>>>>
Some of the subjects catch my interest but I delete most withourt> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>> > >>>> reading.> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> This is going to be quite
an election. Brad was talking about voting> > >>>>>> > >> for> > >>> > >>>>
a> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Clinton, Bill E supporting a republican! Well I
am sure Ed still> > thinks> > >>>>> everyone who disagrees with him is a
Socialist or commie .....> > >>>>>> > >>>>> No Ed the resolution is not the same
as an actual declaration and> > that> > >>>>>> > >> is> > >>> > >>>>> why
there is a fuss. We need to step up and declare war when we want> > >>>>>> >
>> to> > >>> > >>>>> attack a country. However not doing so (declaring war)
allows us to> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> ignore> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Genev!
a!
> Convention and according to current admin the constitution.> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> > >>>> Luckily> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> the Supreme Court
corrected some of this in recent decision.> > >>>>>> > >>>>> Yes Brad it is true
that thousands of POWs died in hell hole prison> > >>>>>> > >> camps> > >>> >
>>>>> during Civil War. This has nothing to do with today's issues but it> >
is> > >>>>> no excuse for our current behavior. We also allowed slavery
back then> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> right?> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> By the
same logic ....should we bring slavery back. No sir we have> > come> > >>>>>> >
>> a> > >>> > >>>>> long way as a country. There is much to like and admire
about McCain.> > >>>>>> > >> But> > >>> > >>>> it> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>
is hard to believe he has flip flopped so much on the issue of> > torture> >
>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> and> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> treatment of detainees.
Using the argument that they do worse to us> > is> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>
not> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> relevant. I don't use terrorists behavior as
our!
!
> standard. We are> > >>>>>> > >> better> > >>> > >>>>> than that.> >
>>>>>> > >>>>> My thoughts on the election...Do folks really think the Hillary's>
> women> > >>>>> supporters will not fall in line and vote for Obama? Once
they figure> > >>>>>> > >> out> > >>> > >>>>> that Supreme Court judges and
Roe Vs. Wade may be at stake they will> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> vote> >
>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Democrat. The polls all show Obama ahead but there is
plenty of time> > >>>>>> > >> for> > >>> > >>>>> either candidate to implode.
Despite what they say both sides are in> > >>>>>> > >> bed> > >>> > >>>>> with
the usual tacky lobbyist groups. Money and politics always go> > hand> >
>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> in> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> hand.> > >>>>>> > >>>>> I
tried hard to pick one of the big two but it looks like Bob Barr is> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>> > >>>> going> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> to get my vote.> > >>>>>> >
>>>>> Oh yeah.....Why did you guys jump so hard on Ron? He figured out what>
!
>!
> I> > >>>>> figured out over a year ago. Do any of you guys even go sa
>iling> > >>>>>> > >> anymore?> > >>> > >>>>> Calling a guy childish names
for deciding not get drawn into silly> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> arguments> >
>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> with people who have already made up their
minds....well it just> > seems> > >>>>> silly.> > >>>>>> > >>>>> Fair winds....I will
go back into troll mode.> > >>>>>> > >>>>> TN Rhodey> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> >
>>>>> On 6/23/08, Tootle <ekroposki at charter.net> wrote:> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> >
>>>>>> > >>>>>> Rummy said, "Question? I don't believe that the United States
has> > >>>>>> officially> > >>>>>> declared war> > >>>>>> on Iraq, have we?
The Vietnam war wasn't a declared war either, it> > was> > >>>>>>> > >> a>
> >>> > >>>>>> "police action". Same holds true with Korea. The last declared
war> > was> > >>>>>> WWII.> > >>>>>> Correct me if I'm wrong.> > >>>>>>> >
>>>>>> I believe that the Congressional authorization against Iraq is> >
legally> > >>>>>> considered a declaration of war. I do not believe that you fin!
d!
> the> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>> word> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>
'declaration of war' in the subject line, but the language is> > legally> > >>>>>>
conclusive.> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> That is why we still have all the fuss over
that resolution.> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> For what it is worth department.> >
>>>>>>> > >>>>>> Ed K> > >>>>>> Greenville, SC, USA> > >>>>>> "One of the
challenges we have is to be able to read the fine print> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >
>>>> indoors> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> without any sunlight." Kai Abelkis> >
>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> --> > >>>>>> View this message in
context:> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>> >
http://www.nabble.com/What-constitutes-War--reply-to-Captain-Rummy-tp18067074p18067074.html> > >>> > >>>>>>
Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.> > >>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > >>>>>> __________________________________________________> > >>>>>> To
subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go> > to> >
>>>>>>!
!
> http://www.rhodes22.org/list> > >>>>>> _______________________________
>___________________> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>
__________________________________________________> > >>>>> To
subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go> > to> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> >
>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>
__________________________________________________> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> >
>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> __________________________________________________> >
>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to> >
>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list> > >>>>
__________________________________________________> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>
__________________________________________________> > >>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using
the mailing list go to> > >>>> > >> http://www.rhodes22.org/list> > >>> >
>>> __________________________________________________> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >
>>>> > >>>> > >> __________________________________________________> > >>
To!
!
> subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to> > >>
http://www.rhodes22.org/list> > >>
__________________________________________________> > >>> > >>> > >
__________________________________________________> > > To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to>
> http://www.rhodes22.org/list> > >
__________________________________________________> > >> > >> > >> > >> >
__________________________________________________> > To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list
go to> > http://www.rhodes22.org/list> >
__________________________________________________> >> > > ------------------------------> > Message: 10> Date:
Sun, 29 Jun 2008 17:44:35 -0700 (PDT)> From: chetc
<cclocksin at buckeye-express.com>> Subject: [Rhodes22-list] Pics of installed Pop-Top enclosure> To:
rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org> Message-ID: <18187054.post at talk.nabble.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii> > > Finally got around to install!
i!
> ng the used PTE I got from Stan. We ended up> installing snap studs on
> the boat to match the location of the snap buttons> already installed on
the enclosure. We did not use all of the snaps...I> think we ended up
installing 16 studs on the cabin top, starting with the> ones that go around the
chain plates, then the stern, and finishing up at> the bow. We're happy with the
way it turned out, and we got a chance to test> it in an afternoon rain
shower at the dock today. It sure makes it a lot> more comfortable in the cabin,
and I can't wait to do a little camp cruising> now. > More pictures of our
boat at:>
<ahref="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Rhodes22sailboat/">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Rhodes22sailboat/ > >
http://www.nabble.com/file/p18187054/IMG_1093_edited.jpg > >
http://www.nabble.com/file/p18187054/IMG_1094_edited.jpg > > http://www.nabble.com/file/p18187054/IMG_1098_edited.jpg > -- > View
this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Pics-of-installed-Pop-Top-enclosure-tp18187054p18187054.html> Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing lis!
t!
> archive at Nabble.com.> > > > ------------------------------> > Message:
11> Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 20:03:57 -0500> From: Herb Parsons
<hparsons at parsonsys.com>> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] What constitutes War; and quick
shout> out.> To: The Rhodes 22 Email List <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>>
Message-ID: <486830FD.8000207 at parsonsys.com>> Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed> > Oh nonono, you don't get to put words in my mouth.> >
You asked if I disagreed. That was with your definition. You have yet to >
show WHAT the Bush or Cheny thinks, nor do I accept that you are their >
spokesperson.> > I disagree with YOUR assertion. I haven't heard anything like
that from > the President or VP.> > TN Rhodey wrote:> > Herb, I agree that the
Constitution is some what vague and muddy....Section> > 8 provides Congress
the Power to Declare War with little specifics. So I> > do agree the
Constitution is vague. OK? However our current administration> > is maintainin!
g!
> there is a difference. between Declaration of War and a War> > Resolu
>tion. It is duly noted that you disagree. with Bush ,Cheny and the> > ex-AG
and think the two are one in the same. I actually agree with current> >
administration on this one....there is a difference.> >> > Just for the record we
have officially Declared War. I will provide you an> > example. See link for
our official declaration of war (WW II) -> >
http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/germwar.shtml> >> > I am sure you can find copies of other US Declarations
of War. I think we> > have officially declared war 5 times give or take. Our
War resolutions> > have subtle and not so subtle differences from
Declarations. Often there are> > funding and/or time limits involved.. If you read a
couple of Resolutions> > verses Declarations of War the differences become
obvious..> >> > Wally> >> >> >> >> >> > On 6/29/08, Herb Parsons
<hparsons at parsonsys.com> wrote:> > > >> I disagree. Since there is no formal wording to a
declaration of war,> >> how can one say this is or isn't with any certa!
i!
> nty? The waters have> >> ALWAYS been muddied, whether you acknowledge it
or not, which is the> >> reason that the supreme court had to chime in on the
matter a mere 24> >> years after our country was founded.> >>> >> Since there
is no "official" declaration of war, how is war declared? By> >> an overt
action? By a response to an action? Are the words "We declare> >> war"
required? Maybe we can do a Steve Martin thing and say "I make war> >> with thee, I
make war with thee, I make war with thee" and then throw> >> dog poopie on
their shoe.> >>> >> My point is that certain actions are recognized by most
countries as> >> "acts of war", and those actions are considered, or can be
considered,> >> by most countries as a declaration merely by their actions.> >>>
>> Incursion into another country is considered an act of war. If that> >>
action is considered a declaration, then one could reasonably say that> >>
when congress approved that action, they were declaring war.> >>> >> It!
!
> would be interesting, again keeping in mind that we have no official>
>>> language for "declaring" war, to do a study and find how many of the> >>
congresscritters who voted for the resolution have called the results of> >>
that resolution "the Iraqi war".> >>> >> On the other issue, I put saying
the post of said poster were> >> "chickenshit" (though I DID miss that one) to
be no more offensive than> >> said poster referring to the posts of others to
be "polluting". Sorry> >> you missed that point.> >>> >>> >> TN Rhodey
wrote:> >> > >>> Herb, I don't know why I try. I did not comment further on the
name> >>> > >> calling> >> > >>> because it wasn't your post and like I said
it is silly. I thought Brad's> >>> "chickenshit" comments were a little over
the top. No biggie I guess we> >>> > >> are> >> > >>> all adults and no I am
not trying to make any changes to the list.> >>>> >>> What is muddy? A quick
review.....Rummy said we did not declare war. Ed> >>> > >> said> >> > >>>
that the resolution was the same thing. I sided with Rummy, and Preside!
n!
> t> >>> Bush.....a War Resolution is different from a Declaration. Honestly
from> >>> your post i can not make out your position. Are you saying they
are the> >>> > >> same> >> > >>> thing? For some reason you are making this
more complex than it really> >>> > >> is.> >> > >>> Care to comment on our
formers AG's quote? Congress did not vote to> >>> > >> declare> >> > >>> war.
Congress did pass War Resolution. No value judgement here...just a> >>> fact.
There is a difference. Do you disagree? If so why?> >>>> >>> Because we did
not declare war treaties and agreements concerning times> >>> > >> of> >> >
>>> war are not in play.Do you disagree? Why?> >>>> >>> It is not like you to
disagree with current administration so maybe I am> >>> missing something.>
>>>> >>> Well I will go back into troll mode. I really do hope some of you
are> >>> sailing.> >>>> >>> Wally> >>>> >>>> >>> On 6/29/08, Herb Parsons
<hparsons at parsonsys.com> wrote:> >>>> >>>> >>> > >>>> Actually, the war powe!
r!
> s act muddied the waters. As I stated previously,> >>>> there is nothi
>ng that says what is a declaration of war. In days of old,> >>>> and act of
war was considered a de-facto resolution. of war. Then little> >>>>
skirmishes came up. A blockade here, taking of a vessel there, incursion> >>>> on
sovereign ground here and there. These types of actions are what> >>>> caused
the case mentioned to be taken to the SC in the 1800's. Those> >>>> bringing
the case, and cases similar to hit, said "this is war, and the> >>>>
constitution clearly says that congress must declare war". The war> >>>> powers act
acted on the SC decision, and actions involving "limited> >>>> hostility"
(most notably Vietnam), by saying that they, Congress, were> >>>> going to be the
ones to decide what constitutes "limited hostility".> >>>>> >>>> The problem
is that "that side" had already said that these actions are> >>>> war. So
now we have Congress voting for "these actions" which were> >>>> considered
war. If/when Congress votes to allow something that they, and> >>>> oth!
e!
> rs, consider to be war, and Congress must vote to DECLARE war, well,> >>>>
I think any right thinking person can see how folks will say - you just>
>>>> declared war with that vote.> >>>>> >>>> Muddy the waters a little more
with the idea that most of the Presidents> >>>> since the voting of the war
powers act view it as an unconstitutional> >>>> incursion on the powers of the
executive branch, and basically don't> >>>> acknowledge its validity. Because
of that, you will regularly find> >>>> wording similar to Mr Gonzales.>
>>>>> >>>> I you are mistaken on the current administration's stance on the
Geneva> >>>> convention. The stand is that the enemy combatants are members of>
>>>> terrorist groups, not members of a recognized army, and thus are not>
>>>> party to the GC.> >>>>> >>>> I noticed that you asserted I "missed" the
name calling, but didn't give> >>>> an example. I don't think any exist, care
to enlighten me? There were> >>>> some pretty silly accusations made, s!
u!
> ch as calling other posts> >>>> "polluting"; but I didn't see the name
> calling.> >>>>> >>>> TN Rhodey wrote:> >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> Herb,
Relax....Please re-read my post. I stated that war resolutions> >>>>> > >> are> >> >
>>>> not> >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> the same as a War Declaration. I was agreeing
with Rummy's post. Please> >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>> note> >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> I
didn't claim the many past and current "War" Resolutions were> >>>>> > >>
illegal.> >> > >>>> I> >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> really don't know how you got that from
my post. I claim they are not> >>>>> > >> the> >> > >>>>> same....do you
disagree? Former AG Gonzales and the current> >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>
administration> >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> agree with me.> >>>>>> >>>>> To quote Gonazales
before Senate Hearing 2/6/06...:GONZALES: "There was> >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>> not>
>>>>> >>>> > >>>>> a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in
Iraq. It> >>>>> > >> was> >> > >>>> an> >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> authorization to
use military force. I only want to clarify that,> >>>>> > >> because> >> >
>>!
>!
> >> there are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war> >>>>> >
>> declaration,> >> > >>>>> you're possibly talking about affecting treaties,
diplomatic relations.> >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>> And> >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> so there
is a distinction in law and in practice. And we're not talking> >>>>> about
a war declaration. This is an authorization only to use military> >>>>>
force."> >>>>>> >>>>> I do have a problem with the US holding people in prisons
for years> >>>>> > >> with> >> > >>>> no> >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> trial. I did
mention the recent SC ruling...do your own research> >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>
regarding> >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> this ruling. The recent ruling did not involve the
legality of the> >>>>> Resolution and neither did my post. This is the ruling
I mentioned. I> >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>> don't> >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> think War
Resolutions are illegal. Got it?> >>>>>> >>>>> I do think that (in most cases)
if we decide to attack a country we> >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>> should> >>>>> >>>>!
!
> > >>>>> go "all in" and have Congress vote to Declare War. If past per
>foramance> >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>> is> >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> any indication of
future results....well it just seems we have better> >>>>> results when we
declare war verses "resolutions".> >>>>>> >>>>> Regarding childish names I don't
doubt you missed them.> >>>>>> >>>>> Been sailing lately? Fair Winds!>
>>>>>> >>>>> TN Rhodey - Wally> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> On 6/29/08, Herb Parsons
<hparsons at parsonsys.com> wrote:> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> TN,> >>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe you could be so kind as to reference where the "official"> >>>>>>
declaration of war wording for the US can be located. In the Bas v.> >>>>>>
Tingy case in 1800, the Supreme Court clearly ruled that the executive> >>>>>>
branch had the power for limited action (action that would normally be>
>>>>>> called "an act of war") without declaration, or approval, of Congress.>
>>>>>> Since that ruling, there have been various instrument to attempt to>
>>>>>> quantify just how limited that limited action can be. The war powers>!
!
> >>>>>> > >> act> >> > >>>>>> of 1973 was probably the best known of those
attempts. No matter if> >>>>>> > >> you> >> > >>>>>> agree with Congress
constitutional "right" to pass such a restriction> >>>>>> > >> on> >> > >>>>>>
the executive branch, one thing is clear.> >>>>>>> >>>>>> The President
acted within the restraint of that act.> >>>>>>> >>>>>> In 1992 Congress
overwhelmingly passed a joint resolution authorizing> >>>>>> the President's
action.> >>>>>>> >>>>>> SC Precedent says this war is allowed, both sides of
Congress> >>>>>> > >> authorized> >> > >>>>>> it, and the President acted.>
>>>>>>> >>>>>> In what way do you think something was done improperly? Maybe they>
>>>>>> forgot to check with you first?> >>>>>>> >>>>>> What childish names
were called, I must have missed that one.> >>>>>>> >>>>>> TN Rhodey wrote:>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> I still get list emails but seldom have
time to read and even less to> >>>>>>> respond. I will say all is well and we j!
u!
> st paid off our home. Sweet!> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Some of the subjects ca
>tch my interest but I delete most withourt> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >
>>>>>> reading.> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> This is going to be quite
an election. Brad was talking about voting> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> for>
>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> a> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Clinton, Bill E
supporting a republican! Well I am sure Ed still> >>>>>>> > >> thinks> >> > >>>>>>>
everyone who disagrees with him is a Socialist or commie .....> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No Ed the resolution is not the same as an actual declaration and>
>>>>>>> > >> that> >> > >>>> is> >>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> why there is a fuss. We
need to step up and declare war when we want> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> to>
>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> attack a country. However not doing so (declaring war)
allows us to> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>> ignore> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Geneva Convention and according to current admin the
constitution.> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>> Luckily> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >
>>>>>>> !
t!
> he Supreme Court corrected some of this in recent decision.> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes Brad it is true that thousands of POWs died in hell hole prison>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> camps> >>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> during Civil War. This has
nothing to do with today's issues but it> >>>>>>> > >> is> >> > >>>>>>> no
excuse for our current behavior. We also allowed slavery back then> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>> right?> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> By the
same logic ....should we bring slavery back. No sir we have> >>>>>>> > >>
come> >> > >>>> a> >>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> long way as a country. There is much to
like and admire about McCain.> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> But> >>>>> >>>> >
>>>>>> it> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> is hard to believe he has flip
flopped so much on the issue of> >>>>>>> > >> torture> >> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>
and> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> treatment of detainees. Using the
argument that they do worse to us> >>>>>>> > >> is> >> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> not>
>>>>>!
>!
> > >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> relevant. I don't use terrorists behavior a
>s our standard. We are> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> better> >>>>> >>>> >
>>>>>>> than that.> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> My thoughts on the election...Do folks
really think the Hillary's> >>>>>>> > >> women> >> > >>>>>>> supporters will not
fall in line and vote for Obama? Once they figure> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>
out> >>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> that Supreme Court judges and Roe Vs. Wade may be
at stake they will> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>> vote> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Democrat. The polls all show Obama ahead but there is
plenty of time> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> for> >>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> either
candidate to implode. Despite what they say both sides are in> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >
>>>> bed> >>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> with the usual tacky lobbyist groups. Money
and politics always go> >>>>>>> > >> hand> >> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> in> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> hand.> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> I tried hard to pick one
of the big two but it looks like Bob Barr is> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >
>>>>>> g!
o!
> ing> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> to get my vote.> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
Oh yeah.....Why did you guys jump so hard on Ron? He figured out what>
>>>>>>> > >> I> >> > >>>>>>> figured out over a year ago. Do any of you guys even
go sailing> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> anymore?> >>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> Calling
a guy childish names for deciding not get drawn into silly> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>> arguments> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> with people
who have already made up their minds....well it just> >>>>>>> > >> seems> >>
> >>>>>>> silly.> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fair winds....I will go back into troll
mode.> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> TN Rhodey> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6/23/08,
Tootle <ekroposki at charter.net> wrote:> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> Rummy said, "Question? I don't believe that the United States has>
>>>>>>>> officially> >>>>>>>> declared war> >>>>>>>> on Iraq, have we? The
Vietnam war wasn't a declared war either, it> >>>>>>>> > >> was> >> > >>>> a>
>>>>> !
>!
> >>> > >>>>>>>> "police action". Same holds true with Korea. The last d
>eclared war> >>>>>>>> > >> was> >> > >>>>>>>> WWII.> >>>>>>>> Correct me
if I'm wrong.> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I believe that the Congressional
authorization against Iraq is> >>>>>>>> > >> legally> >> > >>>>>>>> considered a
declaration of war. I do not believe that you find the> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > >>>>>> word> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 'declaration of war'
in the subject line, but the language is> >>>>>>>> > >> legally> >> >
>>>>>>>> conclusive.> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That is why we still have all the fuss
over that resolution.> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For what it is worth department.>
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ed K> >>>>>>>> Greenville, SC, USA> >>>>>>>> "One of the
challenges we have is to be able to read the fine print> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > >>>>>> indoors> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> without any
sunlight." Kai Abelkis> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>>
View this message in context:> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>
http://ww!
w!
>
.nabble.com/What-constitutes-War--reply-to-Captain-Rummy-tp18067074p18067074.html> >> > >>>>>>>> Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at
Nabble.com.> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
__________________________________________________> >>>>>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the
mailing list go> >>>>>>>> > >> to> >> > >>>>>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list>
>>>>>>>> __________________________________________________> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>
__________________________________________________> >>>>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using
the mailing list go> >>>>>>> > >> to> >> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>
http://www.rhodes22.org/list> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>>
__________________________________________________> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>> __________________________________________________>
>>>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to>
>>>!
>!
> >> http://www.rhodes22.org/list> >>>>>> ______________________________
>____________________> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>
__________________________________________________> >>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for
help with using the mailing list go to> >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>
http://www.rhodes22.org/list> >>>>> >>>> > >>>>>
__________________________________________________> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>
__________________________________________________> >>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help
with using the mailing list go to> >>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list> >>>>
__________________________________________________> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> > >>>
__________________________________________________> >>> To subscrib
e/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to> >>> > >>
http://www.rhodes22.org/list> >> > >>> __________________________________________________> >>>>
>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> > >> __________________________________________________>
>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to> !
>!
> > http://www.rhodes22.org/list> >>
__________________________________________________&> >>> >> > > __________________________________________________>
> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
http://www.rhodes22.org/list> >
__________________________________________________> >> >> >> > > > > ------------------------------> > Message: 12> Date:
Sun, 29 Jun 2008 19:08:43 -0700 (PDT)> From: MichaelT <mticse at gmail.com>>
Subject: [Rhodes22-list] First Time Out> To: rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
Message-ID: <18187630.post at talk.nabble.com>> Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii> > > Hello All,> > After working on the boat for the past several weeks
and taking down the> mast for the 1st time to add a new pop-top slider, windex
and pre-wiring for> a vhf I was finally set to go. Replaced my first
impeller on the 20 year old> yamaha 8hp, hiking stick w/ coaming box, all the
wiring/lights tested and> operable as the former owner never had a battery in!
s!
> talled. And a solar> panel from GB to boot.> > So I went out for the f
>irst time for the season yesterday this being my> first boat, first season.
Everything was going swell. Wind was 5-10 mph. 2> hours later the wind
picked up a notch and still all was well. When it was> time to go home, we lost
our bearing and realized we were downwind and> started to beat the wind. The
boat started to heel and heel a lot. So much> we the jib started touching the
water and scooping water from the gunnels. > > The wind picked up even more
and this when the problem started. I decided> that it would be best to take
down the sails and just motor in. We tried to> head the boat into the wind and
couldn't. Boat still heeling. We let out the> sheets to steady the boat.
Tried to furl the jib in. Furling jib is> stuck.What to do? While the boat was
heeling, wind is now 20+, I go forward> to check the furling unit and noticed
that there was hardly any line in the> spool. I had to hand wind the sail
itself and was able to roll in about> 2/3's of the jib. The 3rd still f!
l!
> apping. I grabbed the boom, lifted the> topping lift, released the outhaul
which just flew away and pulled hard on> the main sail furling line and
thank goodness the main sail furled in. Motor> down, motor started and we now
were heading into the wind motoring, the jib> still flapping. I noticed that my
mast stay turnbuckles on the starboard> side was being turned loose from the
flapping jib. Turnbuckles was> reinstalled w/o cotter pins by our marina guy.
Which way to tighen? Counter> clockwise ok. Settled down the jib on the mast
stays. Swells were building> up and we would hear the motor wining when it
caught air.> > As we started heading into our channel at Cedar Creek, our
point of sail was> now a beam reach and the 1/3 of our jib sail started to heel
us over and now> the motor was all air wining. Placed the motor in neutral
while we sailed> and instructed my partner to throttle the motor when the boat
flattened. We> finally made it into our marina, in our slip without!
!
> fanfare as the marina> was sheltered form the winds in the Barnegat. I
>t started raining cats and> dogs the moment we were gathering our things to
pack up. Secured the dock> lines, lifted the motor and rudder off the water.
We just left the boat amd> went home.> > What do I do now? I might have
broken the furling jib when I physicaly hand> wound the whole unit. Where do I
even start to figure out why there wasn't> any line in the spool. Is it
possible when the mast was taken down that it> may have gotten unwound? How do i get
the furling jib back in order? Other> questions linger...Why couldn't we
head into the wind? Center board was> down. We're we just having fun heeling and
seeing the jib touch water or> were we already in danger?> > Thanks for
listening and appreciate your input...> > Michael> Rhodes 87', Silverside> > --
> View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/First-Time-Out-tp18187630p18187630.html> Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at
Nabble.com.> > > > ------------------------------> > Message: 13> Date: Sun, 2!
9!
> Jun 2008 22:11:40 -0400 (EDT)> From: "Rick Lange"
<SloopBlueHeron at ISP.Com>> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] anchor locker - dumb questions - reply to>
Mike C.> To: "The Rhodes 22 Email List" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>>
Message-ID: <2183.12.75.93.33.1214791900.squirrel at www.isp.com>> Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"> > > > > Mike,> Use the anchor rode tray as
intended.? Hauling rode and> chain from the cockpit is a good way to lose it
overboard.> I only> use the vent to dry out a wet rode.? A solid cap works better.?
Unless you> have small hands available,?a thin nylon line attached to an eye
in the> cap can pull the bitter end of the rode out first to tie onto the
bow> cleat.? Then with another nylon line, pull out the last chain link to>
attach to the anchor.? Finally, pull out the rest of the rode and the> chain on
top.? Put it back in reverse order.> Minimum fuss, nothing> overboard in rough
seas?and more storage under your cockpit> seats.> As for a Nicro v!
e!
> nt, put a solar powered one aft of the solar> collector.? It keeps the
> humidity down in the cabin.> Rick> >> Just the angles of the vent. It
pays to turn the "horn" aft :-)> The Nicro > > will do a better job then "horn
(the way the> baffles work inside the > > Nicro) > > > > -mjm > > > >
-----Original Message----- > > > From:> rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org > >>
[mailto:rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org] On Behalf Of Mike Cheung > > Sent:
Saturday, June 28, 2008 11:10 PM > > To:> rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org > >
Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] anchor> locker - dumb questions - reply to > > Mike >
> C. > > > > > > I get the picture about the effectivenes of> the anchor tray
set up, but > > does > > the anchor tray> serve to "waterproof" the forward
ventilation? If not, > > what > > keeps water from entering through the
forward vent,> Nicro or otherwise? > > > > HMC > > > > > > > > MichaelMeltzer
wrote: > >> > >>> Install the vent and "forgetaboutit" the anchor locker, a>
Rubbermaid in > >> the > >> cockpit works much> better... it a known fac!
t!
> the anchor tray just does > >> not > >> work well. > >> > >> -mjm > >>>
> >> > > > > -- > > View this message in> context: > >>
http://www.nabble.com/anchor-locker---dumb-questions-tp18156518p18177008.htm> > > l > > Sent from
the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at> Nabble.com. > > > >>
__________________________________________________ > > To> subscribe/unsubscribe or for help
with using the mailing list go to > > http://www.rhodes22.org/list > >>
__________________________________________________ > > > >>
__________________________________________________ > > To> subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with
using the mailing list go to > > http://www.rhodes22.org/list > >>
__________________________________________________ > > > > > Join ISP.COM today -
$9.95 internet, less than 1/2 the cost of AOL!> Try us out, http://www.isp.com/>
> > ------------------------------> > Message: 14> Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008
20:09:11 -0700> From: "Jb" <j.bulfer at jbtek.com>> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-l!
i!
> st] First Time Out> To: "The Rhodes 22 Email List" <rhodes22-list at rhod
>es22.org>> Message-ID: <7C686802860049FF958EC88E19DBDEA3 at D7D52DF1>>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";> reply-type=original>
> sounds like my first time out.> It doesn't take 20+ wind to get that jib
to touch the water.> It's also real hard to furl with that much wind unless
you point into the > wind...... which is kinda hard to do in that much wind.>
the lesson is.......don't lose your bearings and end up down wind from the >
marina when a storm is brewin.> Jb> "Just bent"> > ----- Original Message
----- > From: "MichaelT" <mticse at gmail.com>> To: <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>>
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 7:08 PM> Subject: [Rhodes22-list] First Time Out>
> > >> > Hello All,> >> > After working on the boat for the past several
weeks and taking down the> > mast for the 1st time to add a new pop-top slider,
windex and pre-wiring > > for> > a vhf I was finally set to go. Replaced my
first impeller on the 20 year > > old> > yamaha 8hp, hiking stick w/ !
c!
> oaming box, all the wiring/lights tested and> > operable as the former
owner never had a battery installed. And a solar> > panel from GB to boot.> >>
> So I went out for the first time for the season yesterday this being my> >
first boat, first season. Everything was going swell. Wind was 5-10 mph. 2> >
hours later the wind picked up a notch and still all was well. When it was>
> time to go home, we lost our bearing and realized we were downwind and> >
started to beat the wind. The boat started to heel and heel a lot. So much> >
we the jib started touching the water and scooping water from the gunnels.>
>> > The wind picked up even more and this when the problem started. I
decided> > that it would be best to take down the sails and just motor in. We tried
> > to> > head the boat into the wind and couldn't. Boat still heeling. We
let out > > the> > sheets to steady the boat. Tried to furl the jib in. Furling
jib is> > stuck.What to do? While the boat was heeling, wind is no!
w!
> 20+, I go > > forward> > to check the furling unit and noticed that t
>here was hardly any line in > > the> > spool. I had to hand wind the sail
itself and was able to roll in about> > 2/3's of the jib. The 3rd still
flapping. I grabbed the boom, lifted the> > topping lift, released the outhaul
which just flew away and pulled hard on> > the main sail furling line and thank
goodness the main sail furled in. > > Motor> > down, motor started and we now
were heading into the wind motoring, the > > jib> > still flapping. I
noticed that my mast stay turnbuckles on the starboard> > side was being turned
loose from the flapping jib. Turnbuckles was> > reinstalled w/o cotter pins by
our marina guy. Which way to tighen? > > Counter> > clockwise ok. Settled down
the jib on the mast stays. Swells were building> > up and we would hear the
motor wining when it caught air.> >> > As we started heading into our channel
at Cedar Creek, our point of sail > > was> > now a beam reach and the 1/3 of
our jib sail started to heel us over and > > now> > the motor was !
a!
> ll air wining. Placed the motor in neutral while we sailed> > and
instructed my partner to throttle the motor when the boat flattened. > > We> >
finally made it into our marina, in our slip without fanfare as the marina> > was
sheltered form the winds in the Barnegat. It started raining cats and> > dogs
the moment we were gathering our things to pack up. Secured the dock> >
lines, lifted the motor and rudder off the water. We just left the boat > > amd> >
went home.> >> > What do I do now? I might have broken the furling jib when
I physicaly > > hand> > wound the whole unit. Where do I even start to
figure out why there wasn't> > any line in the spool. Is it possible when the mast
was taken down that it> > may have gotten unwound? How do i get the furling
jib back in order? Other> > questions linger...Why couldn't we head into the
wind? Center board was> > down. We're we just having fun heeling and seeing
the jib touch water or> > were we already in danger?> >> > Thanks fo!
r!
> listening and appreciate your input...> >> > Michael> > Rhodes 87', S
>ilverside> >> > -- > > View this message in context: > >
http://www.nabble.com/First-Time-Out-tp18187630p18187630.html> > Sent from the Rhodes 22
mailing list archive at Nabble.com.> >> >
__________________________________________________> > To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing
list go to > > http://www.rhodes22.org/list> > ______
____________________________________________ > > > > ------------------------------> > Message: 15>
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 22:13:27 -0500> From: "Brad Haslett" <flybrad at gmail.com>>
Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] First Time Out> To: "The Rhodes 22 Email List"
<rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>> Message-ID:>
<400985d70806292013h7032a720wa90345817a457ef0 at mail.gmail.com>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1> >
Michael,> > First, I am not a sailor, I am a sailboat owner. Rummy and Wally
and a> gazillion others can answer your questions as sailors better, but,>
mechanical problems with mechanical devices are the given. Without get!
t!
> ing> into the specific mechanical issues of your problems, the first thing
you> need to learn is how to eliminate that "big ass wing" in the breeze
when all> you want to do is just want to motor home. Read enough sailing books
and> you'll hear a tale or two about who was running the boat - nature or
me.> Chalk your experience up to "learning" and some old heads on the list will>
decipher your specific mechanical and sail plan issues. Anytime you learn a>
new skill it is intimidating in the initial phases, otherwise it wouldn't
be> worth learning!> > Brad> > On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 9:08 PM, MichaelT
<mticse at gmail.com> wrote:> > >> > Hello All,> >> > After working on the boat for
the past several weeks and taking down the> > mast for the 1st time to add a
new pop-top slider, windex and pre-wiring> > for> > a vhf I was finally set to
go. Replaced my first impeller on the 20 year> > old> > yamaha 8hp, hiking
stick w/ coaming box, all the wiring/lights tested and> > operable as!
!
> the former owner never had a battery installed. And a solar> > panel f
>rom GB to boot.> >> > So I went out for the first time for the season
yesterday this being my> > first boat, first season. Everything was going swell.
Wind was 5-10 mph. 2> > hours later the wind picked up a notch and still all
was well. When it was> > time to go home, we lost our bearing and realized we
were downwind and> > started to beat the wind. The boat started to heel and
heel a lot. So much> > we the jib started touching the water and scooping
water from the gunnels.> >> > The wind picked up even more and this when the
problem started. I decided> > that it would be best to take down the sails and
just motor in. We tried to> > head the boat into the wind and couldn't. Boat
still heeling. We let out> > the> > sheets to steady the boat. Tried to furl
the jib in. Furling jib is> > stuck.What to do? While the boat was heeling,
wind is now 20+, I go forward> > to check the furling unit and noticed that
there was hardly any line in the> > spool. I had to hand wind the sail!
!
> itself and was able to roll in about> > 2/3's of the jib. The 3rd still
flapping. I grabbed the boom, lifted the> > topping lift, released the outhaul
which just flew away and pulled hard on> > the main sail furling line and
thank goodness the main sail furled in.> > Motor> > down, motor started and we
now were heading into the wind motoring, the jib> > still flapping. I noticed
that my mast stay turnbuckles on the starboard> > side was being turned loose
from the flapping jib. Turnbuckles was> > reinstalled w/o cotter pins by our
marina guy. Which way to tighen? Counter> > clockwise ok. Settled down the
jib on the mast stays. Swells were building> > up and we would hear the motor
wining when it caught air.> >> > As we started heading into our channel at
Cedar Creek, our point of sail> > was> > now a beam reach and the 1/3 of our
jib sail started to heel us over and> > now> > the motor was all air wining.
Placed the motor in neutral while we sailed> > and instructed my par!
t!
> ner to throttle the motor when the boat flattened. We> > finally made
>it into our marina, in our slip without fanfare as the marina> > was
sheltered form the winds in the Barnegat. It started raining cats and> > dogs the
moment we were gathering our things to pack up. Secured the dock> > lines,
lifted the motor and rudder off the water. We just left the boat amd> > went
home.> >> > What do I do now? I might have broken the furling jib when I
physicaly hand> > wound the whole unit. Where do I even start to figure out why
there wasn't> > any line in the spool. Is it possible when the mast was taken
down that it> > may have gotten unwound? How do i get the furling jib back in
order? Other> > questions linger...Why couldn't we head into the wind? Center
board was> > down. We're we just having fun heeling and seeing the jib touch
water or> > were we already in danger?> >> > Thanks for listening and
appreciate your input...> >> > Michael> > Rhodes 87', Silverside> >> > --> > View
this message in context:> > http://www.nabble.com/First-Time-Out-tp18!
1!
> 87630p18187630.html> > Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at
Nabble.com.> >> > __________________________________________________> > To
subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to> >
http://www.rhodes22.org/list> > __________________________________________________> >>
> > ------------------------------> >
_______________________________________________> Rhodes22-list mailing list> Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
http://www.rhodes22.org/mailman/listinfo/rhodes22-list> > > End of Rhodes22-list
Digest, Vol 1540, Issue 2> **********************************************
>_________________________________________________________________
>Do more with your photos with Windows Live Photo Gallery.
>http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_Wave2_photos_022008
>__________________________________________________
>To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
http://www.rhodes22.org/list
__________________________________________________
**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for
fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
More information about the Rhodes22-list
mailing list