[Rhodes22-list] Introduction-soon to be Rhodes owner

[KUHN, LELAND]

Mac,

Short notice, but I plan on sneaking out early today--conditions look
very favorable.  Let me know if you're interested.  202.476.5369.

I'll be on vacation tomorrow until the 14th.  Massive relative-visiting
road trip to Kansas, Kentucky & Tennessee.  2nd time I've done this trip
since I vowed never to do it again.  Might want to contact me today if
you'd like me to hook you up with the slip owner.

Lee

-----Original Message-----
From: William McCready Jr. [mailto:wmccready at hotmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 9:04 PM
To: rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org
Subject: [Rhodes22-list] Introduction-soon to be Rhodes owner


Lee, 
 
Thanks for the warm welcome and the feedback on my wish list. I have
been working on becoming a member of a local yacht club and it may take
longer than expected so I will give your co-worker a call and thank you
for the referral. I would also greatly appreciate the opportunity to go
sailing before my boat is ready for pickup mid to late July.

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 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 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. > > > > 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
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=TXT_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-tp181
79954p18182346.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 it's a bit of a
nuisance when not in use. You didn't> mention cockpit cushions - 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 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.> >> > 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 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=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 problem 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 left 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/europe/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/opedcolumnists;comp=' +>
> adid + ';pos=menusky1;sz=160x600;dcove=d;tile=1;ord=123456789?>> >
*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 knows, 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 innocent 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/news/p/obama_barack/obama_barack.htm>would>
> bring pos> > **itive change 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 from> >>> 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:>
<ebee322a0806290954sf67aa8g4c9f6cb01cb6ad6d at mail.gmail.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1> > 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 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 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 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 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 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-tp180
67074p18067074.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 parsonsys.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 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 6/29/08, 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 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 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
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 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-tp180
67074p18067074.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> >
__________________________________________________> >> >> >> > > > >
------------------------------> > 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 to 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 6/29/08, 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 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 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 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> > 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-tp180
67074p18067074.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> >
__________________________________________________> >> > >
------------------------------> > 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>
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 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 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
6/29/08, 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 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 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 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> > 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-tp180
67074p18067074.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
installing 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.y
ahoo.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-tp18187054p181
87054.html> Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list 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 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> >
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 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
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 6/29/08, 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 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 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 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> >>>>>>>> > >> 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-tp180
67074p18067074.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> >>
__________________________________________________> >>> >> > >
__________________________________________________> > 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 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 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 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 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, 29 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 vent,
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
fact 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-list] First Time Out> To:
"The Rhodes 22 Email List" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.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/ coaming 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 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 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 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.> >> >
__________________________________________________> > 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 getting> 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 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 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 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 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.> >> >
__________________________________________________> > 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>
**********************************************
_________________________________________________________________
Don't get caught with egg on your face. Play chicktionary!
http://club.live.com/chicktionary.aspx?icid=chick_wlhmtextlink1_feb
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended 
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. 
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.