Ponderable

espola said:
Still bitter about Johnson's pond? Did you find those Wyoming state documents yet?
Click to expand...
Johnson's stock pond is still there, just as it was permitted by the State of Wyoming.
The EPA is back in DC, where they belong.
Sounds as if you're the bitter one ...MAGOO.
 
Lion Eyes said:
Johnson's stock pond is still there, just as it was permitted by the State of Wyoming.
The EPA is back in DC, where they belong.
Sounds as if you're the bitter one ...MAGOO.
Click to expand...

I'm happy for Johnson. He's a small-town guy just like me (and maybe you, I don't know enough to tell). I wish I could ask him personally about whether the agreement puts a crimp in his dreams of ranching. I would also ask him which of his neighbors he thinks ratted him out to the Feds.

But I'm not happy for his well-paid lawyer. When a lawyer makes a statement, the first thing I think is "Why did he say that? Is there any way to prove or disprove what he said?"

How about you?
 
Last edited:
Lion Eyes said:
They told the story... they weren't actually there e.
The people in the movie weren't actually there either.
The folks that were there, shared their experience with the producers of the movie.
It's probably hard for someone suffering was you do to understand that.
No problem. Where is your visiting angel?
Making you a tuna sandwich and some tomato soup?
Click to expand...

I have noticed that when you don't have a good rebuttal, you mix in some lies about me.
 
Bruddah IZ said:
Why would a country with the world's largest Jewish population, outside of Israel, admit large numbers of immigrants from countries where hatred of Jews has been taught to their people from earliest childhood?
Click to expand...

You don't have to go to all the trouble of bolding and underlining passages in the text. No one reads the shit you post anyway.
 
Wez said:
According to espola (you can check his source), it sounds like the movie repeats a few of the now proven wrong talking points that right wing sources like FoxNews continue to promote. What perspective are you looking for from the movie, the right wing perspective?
Click to expand...

He said he was looking for prospective, not perspective.
 
espola said:
I'm happy for Johnson. He's a small-town guy just like me (and maybe you, I don't know enough to tell). I wish I could ask him personally about whether the agreement puts a crimp in his dreams of ranching. I would also ask him which of his neighbors he thinks ratted him pout to the Feds.

But not happy for his lawyer. When a lawyer makes a statement, the first thing I think is "Why did he say that? Is there any way to prove or disprove what he said?"

How about you?
Click to expand...
Well e, look at what has occurred. The stock pond is still there. _ No doubt.
The state of Wyoming has never disputed that proper permits were obtained. - You have nothing from any source that says otherwise.
The EPA has agreed to what the court has ordered. - According to the settlement documents.

The above speaks volume as to proof that what the lawyers claim has occurred.
Your concerns about some mysterious neighbor was apparently of no concern to the courts and no neighbors were mentioned by the Johnson's or the EPA.
You want me to produce evidence to back your assertion that the state didn't permit the pond.
The fact that the pond is there and the court says it can stay, should tell you something e.
 
Lion Eyes said:
Well e, look at what has occurred. The stock pond is still there. _ No doubt.
The state of Wyoming has never disputed that proper permits were obtained. - You have nothing from any source that says otherwise.
The EPA has agreed to what the court has ordered. - According to the settlement documents.

The above speaks volume as to proof that what the lawyers claim has occurred.
Your concerns about some mysterious neighbor was apparently of no concern to the courts and no neighbors were mentioned by the Johnson's or the EPA.
You want me to produce evidence to back your assertion that the state didn't permit the pond.
The fact that the pond is there and the court says it can stay, should tell you something e.
Click to expand...

The lawyers' press release claimed some things that are not in, and in some cases, contrary to, the language of the settlement. I never said the state didn't permit the pond. I just want to read the actual language of the various permits and documents, since the secondary source to its language (Johnson's lawyer) has demonstrated he is not to be trusted.
 
espola said:
The lawyers' press release claimed some things that are not in, and in some cases, contrary to, the language of the settlement. I never said the state didn't permit the pond. I just want to read the actual language of the various permits and documents, since the secondary source to its language (Johnson's lawyer) has demonstrated he is not to be trusted.
Click to expand...
Contrary ? Okay...
Perhaps you wouldn't mind listing the contradictions?
Lawyers giving their slant on things is nothing new. The silence from the EPA is note worthy.
As far as the original permits & documents, you'll either have to search for those documents or accept the story as reported since the state was not a party to the action.
You seem to be convinced that something nefarious must have happened...good luck with that.
 
Lion Eyes said:
Contrary ? Okay...
Perhaps you wouldn't mind listing the contradictions?
Lawyers giving their slant on things is nothing new. The silence from the EPA is note worthy.
As far as the original permits & documents, you'll either have to search for those documents or accept the story as reported since the state was not a party to the action.
You seem to be convinced that something nefarious must have happened...good luck with that.
Click to expand...

The last time I hired the services of a lawyer, I listened to him explain away some faulty paperwork he had submitted for us with a few big whoppers. He knew he was lying, I knew he was lying, he knew I knew he was lying, my wife knew he was lying, and when she saw me fidgeting in my seat, she grabbed my hand and gave me a "Shut up!" look. Everybody in the room knew he was lying except the judge (and third parties waiting for their turns to be quiet while their lawyers minced the truth for them). If the judge had asked me, I would have had to tell the truth - I was under oath.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top