Vic Smith wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:24:43 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

The Honduran Supreme Court removed their president in accord with
legal procedure and the dictates of their constitution because the
President was in violation of the law and the constitution. However,
Obama, Chavez, and Castro refuse to recognize the new president. The
Honduran president was attempting to institute a vote to allow himself
to remain president but the constitution did not give this authority.
Instead, he ordered ballots from Chavez but the army on orders from
the Supreme Court took control of the ballots as provided for in the
constitution. The presidents men broke in the are where the ballots
were held and were trying to instate a referendum in violation of the
constitution and the courts.
Thus, Obama is clearly in favor of a govt outside the rule of law and
constitutional authority. He has clearly sided with extremist
dictators. Does this bode well for an election in 2012? Start buying
ammo now.

Did you see that thread about the flats boat going to Bermuda and
beyond?
Tunnel hull, and catamaran-like shape.
Something about the tunnel hull that attracts me.
With fuel being such a concern now, a gas-miser boat would seem to be
a good marketing opportunity.
One thing I've noticed is that when you go to planing hulls, weight is
the most important factor in gas milage. Maybe for displacement hulls
too.
The reason the Carolina Skiff gets such good gas milage is only partly
due to the small pad when planing. A bigger factor is the weight of
the boat. It's about half the weight of a similar length Ranger.
A lot of the weight of the higher-priced boats is all the doo-dad
accessories - bait wells, heavy seats, t-tops, etc.
All that weight takes gas to move.
Don't know if this is up your alley as an inventor, but a new
lightweight composite material needs inventing.
What we need is a 24' boat with an 8' beam that weighs 1000 pounds.
That sucker will move fast, and only sip fuel.
Hull hydrodynamics is secondary, but you might look at the Intruder in
that thread. The tunnel/cat appears to offer a good platform.
What do you think?

--Vic


Froggy will come up with three 8' sheets of "sorta marine" ply, with a
1"x8" nailed around the sides. 24' x 8' boat. Who needs steeeekin' hull
hydrodynamics.

Oh...he'll spec used plywood, pulled off from previous use as concrete
forms. New nails, though.

On Jun 29, 2:17*pm, HK wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:24:43 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

The Honduran Supreme Court removed their president in accord with
legal procedure and the dictates of their constitution because the
President was in violation of the law and the constitution. *However,
Obama, Chavez, and Castro refuse to recognize the new president. *The
Honduran president was attempting to institute a vote to allow himself
to remain president but the constitution did not give this authority.
Instead, he ordered ballots from Chavez but the army on orders from
the Supreme Court *took control of the ballots as provided for in the
constitution. *The presidents men broke in the are where the ballots
were held and were trying to instate a referendum in violation of the
constitution and the courts.
Thus, Obama is clearly in favor of a govt outside the rule of law and
constitutional authority. *He has clearly sided with extremist
dictators. *Does this bode well for an election in 2012? *Start buying
ammo now.

Did you see that thread about the flats boat going to Bermuda and
beyond?
Tunnel hull, and catamaran-like shape.
Something about the tunnel hull that attracts me.
With fuel being such a concern now, a gas-miser boat would seem to be
a good marketing opportunity.
One thing I've noticed is that when you go to planing hulls, weight is
the most important factor in gas milage. *Maybe for displacement hulls
too.
The reason the Carolina Skiff gets such good gas milage is only partly
due to the small pad when planing. *A bigger factor is the weight of
the boat. *It's about half the weight of a similar length Ranger.
A lot of the weight of the higher-priced boats is all the doo-dad
accessories - bait wells, heavy seats, t-tops, etc.
All that weight takes gas to move.
Don't know if this is up your alley as an inventor, but a new
lightweight composite material needs inventing.
What we need is a 24' boat with an 8' beam that weighs 1000 pounds.
That sucker will move fast, and only sip fuel.
Hull hydrodynamics is secondary, but you might look at the Intruder in
that thread. *The tunnel/cat appears to offer a good platform.
What do you think?

--Vic

Froggy will come up with three 8' sheets of "sorta marine" ply, with a
1"x8" nailed around the sides. 24' x 8' boat. Who needs steeeekin' hull
hydrodynamics.

Oh...he'll spec used plywood, pulled off from previous use as concrete
forms. New nails, though.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

How do you know? You don't know **** about building wooden boats
anyway so why bother. You seem to only open your mouth to change
feet... WAFA...

HK wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:24:43 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

The Honduran Supreme Court removed their president in accord with
legal procedure and the dictates of their constitution because the
President was in violation of the law and the constitution. However,
Obama, Chavez, and Castro refuse to recognize the new president. The
Honduran president was attempting to institute a vote to allow himself
to remain president but the constitution did not give this authority.
Instead, he ordered ballots from Chavez but the army on orders from
the Supreme Court took control of the ballots as provided for in the
constitution. The presidents men broke in the are where the ballots
were held and were trying to instate a referendum in violation of the
constitution and the courts.
Thus, Obama is clearly in favor of a govt outside the rule of law and
constitutional authority. He has clearly sided with extremist
dictators. Does this bode well for an election in 2012? Start buying
ammo now.

Did you see that thread about the flats boat going to Bermuda and
beyond?
Tunnel hull, and catamaran-like shape.
Something about the tunnel hull that attracts me.
With fuel being such a concern now, a gas-miser boat would seem to be
a good marketing opportunity.
One thing I've noticed is that when you go to planing hulls, weight is
the most important factor in gas milage. Maybe for displacement hulls
too.
The reason the Carolina Skiff gets such good gas milage is only partly
due to the small pad when planing. A bigger factor is the weight of
the boat. It's about half the weight of a similar length Ranger.
A lot of the weight of the higher-priced boats is all the doo-dad
accessories - bait wells, heavy seats, t-tops, etc.
All that weight takes gas to move. Don't know if this is up your alley
as an inventor, but a new
lightweight composite material needs inventing.
What we need is a 24' boat with an 8' beam that weighs 1000 pounds.
That sucker will move fast, and only sip fuel.
Hull hydrodynamics is secondary, but you might look at the Intruder in
that thread. The tunnel/cat appears to offer a good platform.
What do you think?

--Vic


Froggy will come up with three 8' sheets of "sorta marine" ply, with a
1"x8" nailed around the sides. 24' x 8' boat. Who needs steeeekin' hull
hydrodynamics.

Oh...he'll spec used plywood, pulled off from previous use as concrete
forms. New nails, though.

Whoops...make that six sheets of ply for a 24x8 boat. And a
Scott-A****er 60 hp electric start with the starting motor removed
because he needed a new motor for his garage door opener.

JustWaitAFrekinMinute! wrote:

How do you know? You don't know **** about building wooden boats
anyway so why bother. You seem to only open your mouth to change
feet... WAFA...

I've seen examples of your work. You built bitty rowboats and dinghies.
Some expert. And you didn't even know how to blend in the color of your
stitch'n'glue epoxy with the remainder of the interiors of your hulls.
Strictly amateur. Well, not as amateurish as that 50 cent paint job on
your personal rowboat.

"Gene" wrote in message
...

It isn't WHAT they did, it is HOW they did it.

How else would you expect them to deal with a President who is clearly in a
power grab and acting outside the law and against the Constitution of the
country?

Any other alternative would have ended in a Civil War.

On Jun 29, 2:23*pm, HK wrote:
JustWaitAFrekinMinute! wrote:
How do you know? You don't know **** about building wooden boats
anyway so why bother. You seem to only open your mouth to change
feet... * WAFA...

I've seen examples of your work. You built bitty rowboats and dinghies.
Some expert. And you didn't even know how to blend in the color of your
stitch'n'glue epoxy with the remainder of the interiors of your hulls.
Strictly amateur. Well, not as amateurish as that 50 cent paint job on
your personal rowboat.

How many have you built, Harry? Where did you see examples of Scotty's
boats?

"Gene" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:36:54 GMT, "Ron" wrote:


"Gene" wrote in message
. ..

It isn't WHAT they did, it is HOW they did it.

How else would you expect them to deal with a President who is clearly in
a
power grab and acting outside the law and against the Constitution of the
country?

Any other alternative would have ended in a Civil War.


You forgot to add: In your opinion..... unless you have a crystal
ball.

You didn't answer the question.

Ron wrote:
"Gene" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:36:54 GMT, "Ron" wrote:

"Gene" wrote in message
...

It isn't WHAT they did, it is HOW they did it.
How else would you expect them to deal with a President who is clearly in
a
power grab and acting outside the law and against the Constitution of the
country?

Any other alternative would have ended in a Civil War.

You forgot to add: In your opinion..... unless you have a crystal
ball.

You didn't answer the question.


"How else would you expect them to deal with a President who is clearly in
a
power grab and acting outside the law and against the Constitution
of the
country?"


We let Bush/Cheney finish their term, though there still is a glimmer of
hope Cheney will be indicted, arrested, convicted, and offered the other
bunk in Madoff's cell.

On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:54:12 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:44:46 GMT, Ron penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|
|"Gene" wrote in message
. ..
| On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:36:54 GMT, "Ron" wrote:
|
|
|"Gene" wrote in message
m...
|
| It isn't WHAT they did, it is HOW they did it.
|
|How else would you expect them to deal with a President who is clearly in
|a
|power grab and acting outside the law and against the Constitution of the
|country?
|
|Any other alternative would have ended in a Civil War.
|
|
| You forgot to add: In your opinion..... unless you have a crystal
| ball.
|
|You didn't answer the question.
|

It was so ridiculous that I didn't think you'd want me too.....

Anyway, since he was an unpopular figure, civil war was HIGHLY
unlikely. I'd say that only about a 15% (or less) minority was upset
with him losing control.

What they should have done was *legally* order the elections stopped.
He should have been detained (not deported), charged, tried, and the
will of the court carried out. (Generally, in the US we hold the trial
AND THEN execute... not the other way around and everybody sort of
expects that. Not you?) What they did was not legal, it was
suspension of democracy by the military for some expedient. That is
NEVER a good idea unless you really don't value democracy.

Now, instead of the highly unlikely internal civil war, you have
fairly serious saber rattling all over South America. So far as I
know, there have been NO nations that have accepted the way things
were handled in Honduras. Do you know of any?

Fire, aim, ready and you're welcome to the GOP!

Gene wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:04:28 -0400, Keith Nuttle
wrote:

Gene wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:24:43 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

The Honduran Supreme Court removed their president in accord with
legal procedure and the dictates of their constitution because the
President was in violation of the law and the constitution. However,
Obama, Chavez, and Castro refuse to recognize the new president. The
Honduran president was attempting to institute a vote to allow himself
to remain president but the constitution did not give this authority.
Instead, he ordered ballots from Chavez but the army on orders from
the Supreme Court took control of the ballots as provided for in the
constitution. The presidents men broke in the are where the ballots
were held and were trying to instate a referendum in violation of the
constitution and the courts.
Thus, Obama is clearly in favor of a govt outside the rule of law and
constitutional authority. He has clearly sided with extremist
dictators. Does this bode well for an election in 2012? Start buying
ammo now.
The facts seem at odds with your assessment...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090628/...ras_referendum
What was said previously seems to paraphrase this paragraph from your
article.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++
His ouster came hours before polls were to open on a constitutional
referendum that Zelaya was pushing ahead even after the Supreme Court
and the attorney general said it was illegal. ***The constitution bars
changes to some of its clauses, such as the ban on a president serving
more than one term, they said.***
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++

From the article it appears Zelaya was trying to change the
constitution to allow him to be president for longer that allowed in the
constitution.

The author of the article does spins everything to make it appear that
Zelaya is in the right.

My point is that "the Honduran Supreme Court removed their president
in accord with legal procedure" is absolute BS.

Even FOX news says, "Soldiers seized the national palace and flew
President Manuel Zelaya into exile Sunday, hours before a disputed
constitutional referendum."

For you kiddies out there, I'm old enough to remember all of the
military "coup d'etats du jour" of the 50's through the 80's.... if
you aren't, it's time to hit the history books...

If we have learned anything from history, it should be that Obama is
rightfully concerned.

"support and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and
domestic" is the clause that scares Obama.