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