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.

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.


Your morning contribution to the "Are you as stupid as frogwatch?" saga?
Good start.

On Jun 29, 12:27*pm, HK wrote:
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.

Your morning contribution to the "Are you as stupid as frogwatch?" saga?
Good start.

More proof, Dems can't think

Frogwatch wrote:
On Jun 29, 12:27 pm, HK wrote:
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.
Your morning contribution to the "Are you as stupid as frogwatch?" saga?
Good start.

More proof, Dems can't think

What we have proof of here is that you cannot write.

On Jun 29, 12:32*pm, HK wrote:
Frogwatch wrote:
On Jun 29, 12:27 pm, HK wrote:
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.
Your morning contribution to the "Are you as stupid as frogwatch?" saga?
Good start.

More proof, Dems can't think

What we have proof of here is that you cannot write.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You do nothing here but cut and paste.

On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:29:39 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

On Jun 29, 12:27*pm, HK wrote:
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.

Your morning contribution to the "Are you as stupid as frogwatch?" saga?
Good start.

More proof, Dems can't think

Wow, that's a pretty wide brush you're wielding.

That doesn't speak so well of the Reptilians since the Dems thought
well enough to get elected into a wide majority.

Were the R's brains sidelined because of injury?

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

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...

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.