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 12:33:24 -0400, 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

Facts, schmacts. Truth isn't required for conservatives to slime.

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.

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 Jun 29, 1:16*pm, 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/...t_honduras_ref....

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.
--

Forté Agent 5.00 Build 1171

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by
the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do.
So, throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor.
Catch the trade winds in your sails.
Explore. Dream. Discover." * - Unknown

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepagehttp://pamandgene.tranquilrefuge.net/boating/the_boat/my_boat.htm

The president was detained "In compliance with a court order". The
courts had ruled his attempts to have this referendum was illegal and
unconstitutional.
If Obama was to attempt to hold such a referendum on his own and
ignored court orders, he should be arrested.

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