View Full Version : Environment Student's "shill bids" push up final price of oil and gas drilling leases
Sounds like he helped extract full value on those lots. Value that tax-payers otherwise wouldn't have obtained.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/12/activist_accused_of_tainting_d.php
Activist accused of tainting drilling lease sale
BLM: Environmental activist tainted auction for drilling leases in Utah
PAUL FOY
AP News
Dec 19, 2008 20:53 EST
An environmental activist tainted an auction of oil and gas drilling leases Friday by bidding up parcels of land by hundreds of thousands of dollars without any intention of paying for them, a federal official said.
The process was thrown into chaos and the bidding halted for a time before the auction was closed, with 116 parcels totaling 148,598 acres having sold for $7.2 million plus fees.
"He's tainted the entire auction," said Kent Hoffman, deputy state director for the U.S. Bureau of Land Management in Utah.
Hoffman said buyers will have 10 days to reconsider and withdraw their bids if they think they paid too much.
Tim DeChristopher, a 27-year-old University of Utah economics student, said his plan was to disrupt the auction and he feels he accomplished his goal.
DeChristopher won the bidding on 13 parcels, auction records show, and drove up the price of several other pieces of land.
"I thought I could be effective by making bids, driving up prices for others and winning some bids myself," the Salt Lake City man said.
Some bidders said they were forced to bid thousands of dollars more for their parcels, while others fumed that they lost their bids.
"We were hosed," said Jason Blake of Park City, a consulting geologist who was outbid on a 320-acre parcel. "It's very frustrating. I hope the guy is prosecuted."
Several bidders said they hadn't decided whether they would withdraw their bids. Some said they may reluctantly hold on to their leases — despite the higher cost — out of concern that the parcels might not go up for auction again under President-elect Barack Obama's administration.
BLM criminal investigators questioned DeChristopher, who says he expects to be charged. He was released and the case was referred to federal prosecutors for possible fraud charges, said Melodie Rydalch, a spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney's office.
"I'm willing to deal with that," DeChristopher said.
Other bidders at the auction had complained about DeChristopher as unfamiliar and bidding in an unconventional fashion, which raised suspicions, said Terry Catlin, leader of the BLM's Utah Energy Team.
DeChristopher snapped up 22,500 acres of land around Arches and Canyonlands parks but said he could afford to pay for only a few of those acres. He owes $1.7 million on all of his leases.
patteeu
12-24-2008, 11:12 AM
An aggressive pursuit of all applicable legal penalties is in order, IMO.
I'm sure they will, and should if the guy broke the law. But I would find it worthwhile to find a way to replicate this legally.
There doesn't seem to me to be anything wrong with using such a method to find a buyer's point of maximum valuation of the item. There are lots of practices out there that are designed to do just that. Why is this one somehow bad?
Donger
12-24-2008, 11:26 AM
An aggressive pursuit of all applicable legal penalties is in order, IMO.
Yep. I hope that there is law that requires this person to pay what he bid. He chose to do this instead of chaining himself to a well.
dirk digler
12-24-2008, 11:29 AM
Yep. I hope that there is law that requires this person to pay what he bid.
People driving up bids and not paying happens all the time on eBay
patteeu
12-24-2008, 11:30 AM
I'm sure they will, and should if the guy broke the law. But I would find it worthwhile to find a way to replicate this legally.
There doesn't seem to me to be anything wrong with using such a method to find a buyer's point of maximum valuation of the item. There are lots of practices out there that are designed to do just that. Why is this one somehow bad?
Because it's dishonest.
Because it's dishonest.
Are you going to start regulating honesty into commerce? That's interesting.
Donger
12-24-2008, 11:37 AM
I wonder what this person's motivation was in doing this. Just to be a sh*t? A feeble attempt at stopping the drilling?
If so, I sure hope that he rides a bicycle and doesn't heat his home with NG or electricity.
dirk digler
12-24-2008, 11:47 AM
I wonder what this person's motivation was in doing this. Just to be a sh*t? A feeble attempt at stopping the drilling?
He was a environmental whacko but his attempt wasn't feeble since it appeared to work.
Donger
12-24-2008, 11:51 AM
He was a environmental whacko but his attempt wasn't feeble since it appeared to work.
Temporarily, yes. But I'd imagine he was looking for some publicity, which seems to have been successful. Hopefully, he'll be forced to pay for that publicity.
patteeu
12-24-2008, 11:52 AM
Are you going to start regulating honesty into commerce? That's interesting.
I don't have to start it, we've been doing it longer than I've been alive. I hope this new information doesn't throw a monkey wrench into your business plans.
I don't have to start it, we've been doing it longer than I've been alive. I hope this new information doesn't throw a monkey wrench into your business plans.
Seems kinda contrary to self-regulating markets of the conservatives, right?
patteeu
12-24-2008, 12:08 PM
Seems kinda contrary to self-regulating markets of the conservatives, right?
No, not really. Neither conservatives nor libertarians believe in completely unregulated markets where fraud and the threat of violence are allowed to distort free and fair exchanges.
No, not really. Neither conservatives nor libertarians believe in completely unregulated markets where fraud and the threat of violence are allowed to distort free and fair exchanges.
Why isn't this something that can be left up to the rules of the particular auction markets? Why must the government create laws?
dirk digler
12-24-2008, 12:15 PM
Temporarily, yes. But I'd imagine he was looking for some publicity, which seems to have been successful. Hopefully, he'll be forced to pay for that publicity.
I am sure he will pay. I am interested in what he will be charged with. I suppose fraud of some kind..possibly
Mr. Flopnuts
12-24-2008, 12:17 PM
I hope they slap restitution on him and pursue it with the degree they do all other federally backed loans. I hope he can't file bankruptcy on it, and they garnish his wages to the fullest extent of the law until he either pays it back with interest, or he dies.
Fraud is a crime based on dishonesty. It's already governed in the marketplace, all too often it's just not pursued.
Well good for him, then...
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/249395.php
12.24.08 -- 1:28PM // link | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (8)
I Love It
Earlier I flagged the AP article about the environmental activist who snuck into a Bureau of Land Management auction and managed to marginally jack up the give-away prices a bunch of oil and gas companies were going to pay to lease the land. Now it turns out, according to one of our readers, that the 'scam' was only possible because the Bush administration did the whole thing on a rush basis in order to get as much of the public domain given away to energy industry cronies before January 20th ...
The fuss over DeChristopher stems from his disruption of a last-minute push by the Bush administration to give away public lands for a pittance. That's apparently why the rules were changed for this auction, waiving the time-consuming prequalification procedures that would ordinarily have prevented a stunt like this. As one former BLM director put it: "It was rush before the door slams behind them: 'Let's get as many leases out as possible.'"
But what I really love about the story is the complaint that DeChristopher "tainted the entire auction," by running up prices by thousands of dollars on all the lots he didn't actually win. Honestly, I don't understand that. How could bidders have overpaid? They knew what they were buying, and presumably, they wouldn't have been willing to bid
more than they felt the parcels were worth. So the complaint is that DeChristopher's intervention narrowed the spread between the value of the rights and their price at auction. I understand why the bidders are angry, but shouldn't BLM be pleased?
Auctions work on the theory that open bidding will efficiently yield the highest price any bidder is willing to pay. DeChristopher's stunt suggests that, for whatever reason, that's often not the case at BLM auctions. It turns out that, when pressed, most bidders are willing to pay more, often much more. In other words, DeChristopher exposed the
fact that we're routinely selling the rights to public land for less than its actual market value. No wonder BLM is mad.
Only a month before the raid on the public domain comes to a close.
At least for the moment.
--Josh Marshall
patteeu
12-24-2008, 12:37 PM
Why isn't this something that can be left up to the rules of the particular auction markets? Why must the government create laws?
For the same reasons conservatives and libertarians have always supported the need for government-imposed laws. We don't need over-regulation of the type liberals want to impose though.
For the same reasons conservatives and libertarians have always supported the need for government-imposed laws. We don't need over-regulation of the type liberals want to impose though.
Why did you bother to post such a non-answer?
Mr. Flopnuts
12-24-2008, 12:46 PM
I hope they slap restitution on him and pursue it with the degree they do all other federally backed loans. I hope he can't file bankruptcy on it, and they garnish his wages to the fullest extent of the law until he either pays it back with interest, or he dies.
Fraud is a crime based on dishonesty. It's already governed in the marketplace, all too often it's just not pursued.
Well good for him, then...
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/249395.php
12.24.08 -- 1:28PM // link | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (8)
I Love It
Earlier I flagged the AP article about the environmental activist who snuck into a Bureau of Land Management auction and managed to marginally jack up the give-away prices a bunch of oil and gas companies were going to pay to lease the land. Now it turns out, according to one of our readers, that the 'scam' was only possible because the Bush administration did the whole thing on a rush basis in order to get as much of the public domain given away to energy industry cronies before January 20th ...
The fuss over DeChristopher stems from his disruption of a last-minute push by the Bush administration to give away public lands for a pittance. That's apparently why the rules were changed for this auction, waiving the time-consuming prequalification procedures that would ordinarily have prevented a stunt like this. As one former BLM director put it: "It was rush before the door slams behind them: 'Let's get as many leases out as possible.'"
But what I really love about the story is the complaint that DeChristopher "tainted the entire auction," by running up prices by thousands of dollars on all the lots he didn't actually win. Honestly, I don't understand that. How could bidders have overpaid? They knew what they were buying, and presumably, they wouldn't have been willing to bid
more than they felt the parcels were worth. So the complaint is that DeChristopher's intervention narrowed the spread between the value of the rights and their price at auction. I understand why the bidders are angry, but shouldn't BLM be pleased?
Auctions work on the theory that open bidding will efficiently yield the highest price any bidder is willing to pay. DeChristopher's stunt suggests that, for whatever reason, that's often not the case at BLM auctions. It turns out that, when pressed, most bidders are willing to pay more, often much more. In other words, DeChristopher exposed the
fact that we're routinely selling the rights to public land for less than its actual market value. No wonder BLM is mad.
Only a month before the raid on the public domain comes to a close.
At least for the moment.
--Josh Marshall
If that's the case, I'd like to retract my previous statement. I don't condone the action, but I do love the intent. :evil:
Iowanian
12-24-2008, 03:17 PM
Activists are some of the biggest douchebags on the planet earth.
patteeu
12-24-2008, 03:18 PM
Why did you bother to post such a non-answer?
Because you're trying to pretend conservatives don't believe in any government at all when it comes to regulation of markets.
whatsmynameagain
12-25-2008, 03:04 PM
Because you're trying to pretend conservatives don't believe in any government at all when it comes to regulation of markets.
who is known as the great deregulator?
mikey23545
12-25-2008, 03:49 PM
Why isn't this something that can be left up to the rules of the particular auction markets? Why must the government create laws?
Since when is fraud not already against the law? How childish and moronic are you?
patteeu
12-26-2008, 06:04 AM
who is known as the great deregulator?
I don't know who you have in mind, but most of what goes by the name of "deregulation" in Washington DC is really just a change in the approach to regulation not an actual elimination of regulation. That said, I applaud the fact that Republicans tend to be less in favor of the type of heavy-handed, oppressive, commerce-damaging, freedom-stripping regulation that democrats seem to like.
Because you're trying to pretend conservatives don't believe in any government at all when it comes to regulation of markets.
Not at all. I'm trying to point out that this is a matter reasonably left to self regulation. In this case, the auctioner should have done it's due dilligence on the participants. The suggestion that faud took place misses this fact entirely. Fraud doesn't exist if the participants faild to invesigate the arrangement thoroughly.
Since when is fraud not already against the law? How childish and moronic are you?
At least I am familiar enough with the law to understand not to say something this silly without recognizing that when the the Feds dropped their normal vetting procedures, they abandoned any hope of convicting someone for "fraud" for an act like this.
patteeu
12-26-2008, 12:44 PM
Not at all. I'm trying to point out that this is a matter reasonably left to self regulation. In this case, the auctioner should have done it's due dilligence on the participants. The suggestion that faud took place misses this fact entirely. Fraud doesn't exist if the participants faild to invesigate the arrangement thoroughly.
At least I am familiar enough with the law to understand not to say something this silly without recognizing that when the the Feds dropped their normal vetting procedures, they abandoned any hope of convicting someone for "fraud" for an act like this.
I don't think so, jAZ. A lack of effective vetting doesn't give participants free reign to be as dishonest as they want to be. If that were the case, fraud would almost never be fraud.
Garcia Bronco
12-26-2008, 12:48 PM
At least I am familiar enough with the law to understand not to say something this silly without recognizing that when the the Feds dropped their normal vetting procedures, they abandoned any hope of convicting someone for "fraud" for an act like this.
You really live in your own special little world don't you?
I don't think so, jAZ. A lack of effective vetting doesn't give participants free reign to be as dishonest as they want to be. If that were the case, fraud would almost never be fraud.
Strawman. I didn't say "free reign to be as dishonest as they want to be".
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-fraud.htm
The element of fraud which tends to stymie successful prosecution is the obligation to investigate. It falls on potential investors or customers to fully investigate a proposal before any money exchanges hands. Failure to take appropriate measures at the time of the proposal can seriously weaken a fraud case in court later. The accused can claim that the alleged victim had every opportunity to discover the potential for fraud and failed to investigate the matter thoroughly. Once a party enters into a legally binding contract, remorse over the terms of the deal is not the same as fraud.
Mr. Flopnuts
12-26-2008, 01:43 PM
I don't know who you have in mind, but most of what goes by the name of "deregulation" in Washington DC is really just a change in the approach to regulation not an actual elimination of regulation. That said, I applaud the fact that Republicans tend to be less in favor of the type of heavy-handed, oppressive, commerce-damaging, freedom-stripping regulation that democrats seem to like.
I was so with you and the other conservatives on this issue until the whole bailout, economy thing came down. Now, personally I'm all for regulating EVERYTHING. I'll reevaluate my stance on that as soon as we come out of the mess we're in. Right now though, to me, greed rules the day and we're so fragile we can't take the risks that come with the freedoms. It's sad, but it's true IMO.
patteeu
12-26-2008, 02:32 PM
Strawman. I didn't say "free reign to be as dishonest as they want to be".
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-fraud.htm
The element of fraud which tends to stymie successful prosecution is the obligation to investigate. It falls on potential investors or customers to fully investigate a proposal before any money exchanges hands. Failure to take appropriate measures at the time of the proposal can seriously weaken a fraud case in court later. The accused can claim that the alleged victim had every opportunity to discover the potential for fraud and failed to investigate the matter thoroughly. Once a party enters into a legally binding contract, remorse over the terms of the deal is not the same as fraud.
Your exact words were "they abandoned any hope of convicting someone for "fraud" for an act like this". I think you take a reasonable legal concept and extrapolate it well beyond it's reasonable application. This isn't a case of "remorse over the terms of a deal". This is a case of a bidder bidding up the price of an auction item without any intention of actually paying for the things he bid on.
patteeu
12-26-2008, 02:35 PM
I was so with you and the other conservatives on this issue until the whole bailout, economy thing came down. Now, personally I'm all for regulating EVERYTHING. I'll reevaluate my stance on that as soon as we come out of the mess we're in. Right now though, to me, greed rules the day and we're so fragile we can't take the risks that come with the freedoms. It's sad, but it's true IMO.
You used to be right. :D
Your exact words were "they abandoned any hope of convicting someone for "fraud" for an act like this". I think you take a reasonable legal concept and extrapolate it well beyond it's reasonable application. This isn't a case of "remorse over the terms of a deal". This is a case of a bidder bidding up the price of an auction item without any intention of actually paying for the things he bid on.
That's this case, this situation, these facts. That's nothing like "free reign to be as dishonest as they want to be". That there was an extensive system in place to prevent this... and it was deliberately removed... there's no way a court will find that fraud exists here.
This is a case of "Why did you stop screening your bidders, you dumbshit!?!"
patteeu
12-27-2008, 06:28 AM
That's this case, this situation, these facts. That's nothing like "free reign to be as dishonest as they want to be". That there was an extensive system in place to prevent this... and it was deliberately removed... there's no way a court will find that fraud exists here.
This is a case of "Why did you stop screening your bidders, you dumbshit!?!"
I don't know whether this guy will be prosecuted or not, much less convicted, but your assurance that there is no hope of convicting him on the basis of the government's vetting process is far from accurate, IMO. More importantly, regardless of whether or not the guy can or will be convicted, his action was just as dishonest and reprehensible as a person who somehow slipped through a more comprehensive vetting process to do the same thing. His actions add up to fraud regardless of how intensive the vetting process was.
Your attempts to shift the blame away from this blameworthy individual and on to the Bush administration are disappointing but not all that surprising I guess. Apparently, when GWBush is involved, politics trump right and wrong for you.
His actions add up to fraud regardless of how intensive the vetting process was.
You miss the point entirely. The "obligation to investigate" is part of the requirement for fraud to exist. They have that obligation and didn't exercise it at all.
patteeu
12-27-2008, 10:45 AM
You miss the point entirely. The "obligation to investigate" is part of the requirement for fraud to exist. They have that obligation and didn't exercise it at all.
No, you miss the point entirely. I'm talking about his moral wrong here not whether or not he can easily be prosecuted for his malicious intent.
Like I said, your absolute statement about his technical legal innocence is wrong to begin with, but more importantly, it's just your way of ignoring his condemnable behavior so you can take a parting pot shot at the Bush administration.
No, you miss the point entirely. I'm talking about his moral wrong here not whether or not he can easily be prosecuted for his malicious intent.
Like I said, your absolute statement about his technical legal innocence is wrong to begin with, but more importantly, it's just your way of ignoring his condemnable behavior so you can take a parting pot shot at the Bush administration.
This isn't a topic you want to fight on moral grounds. It's a bigger loser for you from that POV. The person used a legal and technical loophole to stage a protest publicity stunt. In the process, he exposed the fraud taking place on the public by rushing an auction and thus exposed the larger moral question at play.
On moral grounds, he's on higher ground than on legal grounds.
patteeu
12-27-2008, 03:09 PM
This isn't a topic you want to fight on moral grounds. It's a bigger loser for you from that POV. The person used a legal and technical loophole to stage a protest publicity stunt. In the process, he exposed the fraud taking place on the public by rushing an auction and thus exposed the larger moral question at play.
On moral grounds, he's on higher ground than on legal grounds.
In your morally bankrupt world, maybe. In the real world, not at all.
And he didn't use a legal loophole despite what you continue to mistakenly believe. We'll just have to wait and see if he ends up facing any repercussions, either in terms of criminal liability or civil liability, but he certainly deserves to be held accountable for his actions.
In your morally bankrupt world, maybe. In the real world, not at all.
You are the last person on this message board who's moral compass is in any way relevant to any discussion with anyone at all. You've spent the last 7 years rationalizing endless immoral behavior by trying to find one loophole or another and dismissing the moral standard.
Like I said, you trying to play the morality card in this discussion is a major loser. Keep it up, though.
clemensol
12-27-2008, 03:52 PM
Good for this guy. In all likelihood the real fraud thats going on here is from the oil companies. BLM should be absolutely furious that they are not receiving market value for the land, but apparently they are more upset that their incompetence was revealed.
patteeu
12-27-2008, 04:09 PM
You are the last person on this message board who's moral compass is in any way relevant to any discussion with anyone at all. You've spent the last 7 years rationalizing endless immoral behavior by trying to find one loophole or another and dismissing the moral standard.
Like I said, you trying to play the morality card in this discussion is a major loser. Keep it up, though.
I think my moral compass stacks up pretty well against the guy defending this kind of behavior.
I think my moral compass stacks up pretty well against the guy defending this kind of behavior.
Good, keep bringing it up in future discussions.
patteeu
12-27-2008, 05:37 PM
Good, keep bringing it up in future discussions.
:spock: Why would I?
Velvet_Jones
12-28-2008, 08:35 AM
I'm sure they will, and should if the guy broke the law. But I would find it worthwhile to find a way to replicate this legally.
There doesn't seem to me to be anything wrong with using such a method to find a buyer's point of maximum valuation of the item. There are lots of practices out there that are designed to do just that. Why is this one somehow bad?
This is why you are an idiot. This is exactly why you are a Obama supporter. Controlling market value using forces outside the market is why our economy is fucked. This is exactly what happened to the housing market.
Now go make yourself useful and suck Barney Frank's chubby little penis.
Oh - and the guy is 27 and still in college.
Velvet_Jones
12-28-2008, 08:39 AM
You are the last person on this message board who's moral compass is in any way relevant to any discussion with anyone at all. You've spent the last 7 years rationalizing endless immoral behavior by trying to find one loophole or another and dismissing the moral standard.
Like I said, you trying to play the morality card in this discussion is a major loser. Keep it up, though.
Yes - and you have continuely lied and when called on it you run away. Your moral compass is not a compass at all. Its 'the ends justify the means'.
You of all people should not be lecturing on morals you fucking lying POS.
:spock: Why would I?
Who knows, but I'm counting on more good stuff like this.
This is why you are an idiot. This is exactly why you are a Obama supporter. Controlling market value using forces outside the market is why our economy is ****ed. This is exactly what happened to the housing market.
Now go make yourself useful and suck Barney Frank's chubby little penis.
Oh - and the guy is 27 and still in college.
I find you amusing.
You have zero substance to contribute. Ever.
You only ever show up to play, rather badly, the role of court jester and turd hurler. But what that means is that you spend the rest of your time crapping into your own hand and trying on funny hats.
What sort of life is that?
Here's your chance to clean yourself up and act like an adult.
Yes - and you have continuely lied and when called on it you run away.
Go back in the archives, pull up one example of what you are thinking about and lets discuss. I pride myself on not doing that, but its possible it's happened in the past. It might not be impossible to find an example. So give it a shot. Let's see what you look like when you stop crapping yourself and start acting like an adult.
banyon
12-28-2008, 10:04 AM
Yes - and you have continuely lied and when called on it you run away. Your moral compass is not a compass at all. Its 'the ends justify the means'.
You of all people should not be lecturing on morals you ****ing lying POS.
Great post. :spock:
What conversations are you referring to where jAZ has "lied and run away", "continuely" (sic.)?
Velvet_Jones
12-28-2008, 01:48 PM
Great post. :spock:
What conversations are you referring to where jAZ has "lied and run away", "continuely" (sic.)?
Look back about 4 years and you will see. He has brought up more crazy ass bullshit that anyone can imagine. And then when called on it - silence.
You are either ignorant or just stupid. You pick.
Velvet_Jones
12-28-2008, 01:59 PM
I find you amusing.
You have zero substance to contribute. Ever.
You only ever show up to play, rather badly, the role of court jester and turd hurler. But what that means is that you spend the rest of your time crapping into your own hand and trying on funny hats.
What sort of life is that?
Here's your chance to clean yourself up and act like an adult.
Go back in the archives, pull up one example of what you are thinking about and lets discuss. I pride myself on not doing that, but its possible it's happened in the past. It might not be impossible to find an example. So give it a shot. Let's see what you look like when you stop crapping yourself and start acting like an adult.
Conspiracies on top of conspiracies. You remind me of a stupid ass lawyer – just keep piling on paperwork and bogus claims – eventually sane people give up arguing with you when they realize you are an idiot.
And lecturing me about being a grown-up. From what I have seen, you have no idea about what it takes to be a grown up. You remind me of my dope smoking brother. Living in an apartment, bitching how much injustice there is in the world.
Run a company – invent something – learn that the government is not the answer and then come back and talk to me.
Velvet_Jones
12-28-2008, 01:59 PM
Great post. :spock:
What conversations are you referring to where jAZ has "lied and run away", "continuely" (sic.)?
BTW - do your own research - b!tch.
banyon
12-28-2008, 02:16 PM
Look back about 4 years and you will see. He has brought up more crazy ass bullshit that anyone can imagine. And then when called on it - silence.
You are either ignorant or just stupid. You pick.
Wow. You posted this non-reply, then edited it twelve minutes later, then replied to it again. I want to be sure that this is as good a response as I'm going to get on this.
Look back about 4 years and you will see. He has brought up more crazy ass bullshit that anyone can imagine. And then when called on it - silence.
You are either ignorant or just stupid. You pick.
Conspiracies on top of conspiracies. You remind me of a stupid ass lawyer – just keep piling on paperwork and bogus claims – eventually sane people give up arguing with you when they realize you are an idiot.
And lecturing me about being a grown-up. From what I have seen, you have no idea about what it takes to be a grown up. You remind me of my dope smoking brother. Living in an apartment, bitching how much injustice there is in the world.
Run a company – invent something – learn that the government is not the answer and then come back and talk to me.
BTW - do your own research - b!tch.
I believe this is what you were talking about when you said "called on it" and "run away".
Feel free to back up your blather.
Velvet_Jones
12-28-2008, 11:51 PM
I believe this is what you were talking about when you said "called on it" and "run away".
Feel free to back up your blather.
I can't wait until Obama fucks up - which may be before he is even elected. You are going to be defending the same thing that you have been bitching about for 8 years.
Hehehehe - this is going to be good.
Velvet_Jones
12-28-2008, 11:54 PM
Wow. You posted this non-reply, then edited it twelve minutes later, then replied to it again. I want to be sure that this is as good a response as I'm going to get on this.
This is tipicle of a person like you. Kill the messanger not the message.
I got 2 words for you "Kyoto Protocal".
You are a lawyer in Dodge City - heheheh - good times. That kills me - lawyerin' in dodge city - lol!!!!!!
I can't wait until Obama ****s up - which may be before he is even elected. You are going to be defending the same thing that you have been bitching about for 8 years.
Hehehehe - this is going to be good.
If you can't even remember one single example of your lie and run accusation, I'm not sure how you are going to ever remember to call me out when something bad actually happens.
Good luck with all of that.
Bwana
12-29-2008, 05:49 PM
Something tells me the tree hugger won't do all the well in the pen.
Extra Point
12-30-2008, 05:06 PM
The humor in all this is that horizontal drilling will have to be used, to extract between shallow layers.
The guy needs to put up a website and take donations from Bill Gates, Steven Spielberg, et al.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.