Art,
The problem I see with the side cushions going all the way to the rear is  
that it limits accessibility to the lazzerette. You know me, I like to keep  
things simple. Anything that inhibits movement or accessibility is a real  
problem. I get enough bumps and bruises just mixing drinks while I'm  sailing.
 
Rummy
 
 
In a message dated 7/2/2008 10:44:12 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
czerwonky at earthlink.net writes:

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-tp18179954
p18182346.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-tp18067074
p18067074.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-tp18067074
p18067074.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-tp18067074
p180670
>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-tp18067074
p18067074.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
>__________________________________________________

__________________________________________________
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)