Ag issues breed discontent in heart of Bush country

[Mike]

Are you sure none of the plaintiffs forward contracted cattle Sandhusker?

The appeals court DOES acknowledge Pickett as a "Cash Market" man but
SH has at least a thousand posts referring to the plaintiffs as having "Willingly Entered" these contracts. Are you saying he has been lying the entire time? Are you?

Now you know that SH will have to prove they did because it's hard to prove a negative.

 

[Sandhusker]

Are you sure none of the plaintiffs forward contracted cattle Sandhusker?

The appeals court DOES acknowledge Pickett as a "Cash Market" man but
SH has at least a thousand posts referring to the plaintiffs as having "Willingly Entered" these contracts. Are you saying he has been lying the entire time? Are you?

Now you know that SH will have to prove they did because it's hard to prove a negative.

SH prove something? :lol: Mr. "I will back my statements only if it is convenient to me"? :lol: You've been hitting the jug today, I see. :wink: SH won't prove it because he can't. He's just flapping his lips per his custom. I won't call him a liar as I think that's a pretty big thing to call someone, but I have no reservations calling him full of road apples.

 

[Mike]

"Henry Lee Pickett is the owner of a cattle-producing farm located thirty-five miles south of Montgomery, Alabama. In this class action lawsuit he is the lead plaintiff representing a national class of cattle producers who sell their fed cattle-cows raised specifically for slaughter- to meat-packing plants "EXCLUSIVELY" (my emphasis) on the cash market"

Sandhusker, I have often wondered how the courts allowed the plaintiffs to sue Tyson for manipulating cattle prices through marketing agreements if they had also entered these agreements.

Someone on here even had Tam believing it:

Tam
Can any of you Pickett Supporters tell me if forward contracts are so bad why did the plaintiffs enter into them with Tyson? Why didn't they just take their cattle to the open market system and take what was bid? Could it be because like all business men they found some beneifit to their bottom line in doing so? I can't see how these guys could take Tyson to court and then sit on the witness stand and tell the court well yes we entered into the forward contacts with Tyson. If they felt Tyson was using the contracts to manipulate the price of cattle why did they sign them? Did someone have a gun to their heads or did they just see it as a beneifit to sell their cattle that way?

:???: :???: :???:

 

[Sandhusker]

That is a prime example of why I allow myself to get so tangled up with SH and his nonsense. I have no problem with his choice to be a fool, but he is taking others down with him and perpetuating the spread of misinformation.

SH is either passing bad information or he simply made it up. If SH's source of information is wrong, he should be vary wary of anything else he may get from there. If this came from SH himself, we all should afford anything else he says the same caution.

 

[mlsfarms]

Let's not get away from the topic: The Buschhhhhh Whacker is a "Paul Harvey" politician---- sell out to the highest offer. Not to mention a very lame duck president.

 

[fedup2]

Misfarms writes:"Let's not get away from the topic: The Buschhhhhh Whacker is a "Paul Harvey" politician---- sell out to the highest offer. Not to mention a very lame duck president"

Here is a little story that was on another forum. Sounds like you can relate to it! LOL!
What part of ND are you from? I am in the western part.

The Pope is visiting DC and President Bush takes him out for an afternoon on the Potomac...sailing on the presidential yacht. They're admiring the sights when, all of a sudden, the Pope's hat (zucchetto) blows off his head and out into the water. Secret service guys start to launch a boat, but Bush waves them off, saying "Wait, wait. I'll take care of this. Don't worry."

Bush then steps off the yacht onto the surface of the water and walks out to the Holy Father's little hat, bends over and picks it up, then walks back to the yacht and climbs aboard. He hands the hat to the Pope amid stunned silence.

The next morning, the Washington Post carries a story, with front page photos, of the event. The banner headline is: "Bush Can't Swim."

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman: "I have no problem with his choice to be a fool, but he is taking others down with him and perpetuating the spread of misinformation."

Yeh talk is so cheap in Cody, NE.

It's so much easier for an R-CULT clone like Sandman to make his feeble attempts to discredit anyone that doesn't share in his packer victim mentality by "CLAIMING" that they are perpetuating the spread of misinformation, which is a lie, rather than bringing anything to the table to actually prove it.

Yup, you bet Sandman, "master illusionist".

DENY, DISCREDIT, DECEIVE, & DIVERT!

Same-O, Same-O!

Sandman: "He reminds me of that Iraqi Press Minister who was claiming that US soldiers would "Die at the gates of hell" etc... while we were decimating their forces. He sure wanted what he said to be true..."

Gee, where have I heard that before?

Try coming up with something original for once.

Sandman: "Just what did my post have to do with the futures market? Talk about someone not knowing what they are talking about... "

Oh, I'm sorry, I almost forgot the level of ignorance I was dealing with here. I assumed you realized that forward contracts were tied to the futures market.

I keep forgetting how ignorant you are.

Sandman: "The fact is, NONE if the plaintiffs forward contracted cattle."

That is a damn lie!



~SH~

 

[Mike]

SH:

That is a damn lie!

It is a fact SH. All plaintiffs were removed from the case three years ago if they had entered into marketing agreements with Tyson.

All the plaintiffs on trial were exclusively cash marketing sellers to Tyson.

SH:

"PLEASE JUDGE STROM, I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT I WAS DOING WHEN I ENTERED THOSE FORWARD CONTRACTS".

All this crap you've been spewing for the last 3 years has been a lie all this time.

What really chirps my butt is you almost had ME convinced it was true and I know you had several others convinced.

Man of facts? BULL$HIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Sandhusker]

Boy, SH, you sure get testy when you're up a tree. You allergic to tree sap?

SH, "Yeh talk is so cheap in Cody, NE. It's so much easier for an R-CULT clone like Sandman to make his feeble attempts to discredit anyone that doesn't share in his packer victim mentality by "CLAIMING" that they are perpetuating the spread of misinformation, which is a lie, rather than bringing anything to the table to actually prove it. Yup, you bet Sandman, "master illusionist". DENY, DISCREDIT, DECEIVE, & DIVERT!
Same-O, Same-O!

It seems your above rant is trying to discredit me and divert from whether or not the Pickett plaintiff used the cash markets exclusively or not. :lol: I had the proof in my pocket, Mike presented what I had waiting in the wings first. Lucky for you because I had plans to set you up real good. :lol: I mentioned to ocm just the other day that you are the most guilty of what you accuse others of. You proved me right once again. :lol:

Quote:
Sandman: "Just what did my post have to do with the futures market? Talk about someone not knowing what they are talking about... "

SH, "Oh, I'm sorry, I almost forgot the level of ignorance I was dealing with here. I assumed you realized that forward contracts were tied to the futures market. I keep forgetting how ignorant you are."

Your reading comprehension still is terrible, SH. If you would look again, you will notice I was talking about marketing agreements. I didn't even mention forward contracts. Also, forward contracts don't have to be tied to the futures market. They can be tied to the cash markets or whatever is agreed upon. But, I guess I'm the ignorant one........ :roll: :lol: :lol:

Quote:
Sandman: "The fact is, NONE if the plaintiffs forward contracted cattle."

SH, "That is a damn lie!"

Really? Do you have any proof that they did? For whatever reason, the court is convinced that they kept to the cash markets. Is the court lying? I can understand how you could see them inept via their ruling, but there is a disagreement between you and them. You want to straighten that out for us, buddy?
:wink:

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman: "The fact is, NONE if the plaintiffs forward contracted cattle."

SH (in response): "That is a damn lie!"

Mike (in response): "It is a fact SH. All plaintiffs were removed from the case three years ago if they had entered into marketing agreements with Tyson."

Mike You can not change what I have stated in the past or what Sandman said in your desperation to peg something on me. You know damn well the issue here is whether or not the plaintiffs ever entered into a forward contract with a major packer not whether they entered into a forward contract WITH TYSON.

The hypocrisy is in claiming "forward contracts" as market manipulation after having utilized forward contracts with a major packer yourself. That is the issue here.

Now would you like to make a wager of say $100 on whether or not one or more of the Pickett plaintiffs ever entered into a forward contract with a major packer????

If I am going to provide the truth to bury you, it better be worth my time.


How about you ankle biter?

I see you are doing somersaults thinking you finally have something on me when you aren't even within sight of a tree. What this shows everyone is just how desperate you really are in your feeble attempt to finally peg something on me. Mike says what you want to hear so you sink your teeth into it like a rabid dog without giving it a second thought because it's what you wanted to hear. Talk about a lemming.

$100 says that one or more of the plaintiffs in Pickett has entered into a forward contract with a major packer.

Feel lucky ankle biter?

Sandman: "It seems your above rant is trying to discredit me and divert from whether or not the Pickett plaintiff used the cash markets exclusively or not."

The issue here is whether or not one or more of the plaintiffs in Pickett ever entered into a forward contract with a major packer.

You can't redefine the issue here so why do you even attempt to pull that deceptive crap with me?

This isn't an R-CALF situation where you don't have to be reminded tomorrow of what you said today.

Sandman: "I mentioned to ocm just the other day that you are the most guilty of what you accuse others of."

PROVE IT!!!!!!!

TAKE MY BET!

All you ever have is cheap talk Sandman and you'll talk your way out of this too.

You blamers are all the same. As long as someone says what you want to believe then that's the way it is. You don't feel you should have to support any of your beliefs. That's how the conspiring blaming mind works.

I'm glad you blamers have your little support groups (Mike, OCM, and Ankle biter) but when it comes time to back up your allegations, YOU'RE EMPTY HANDED.

That's precisely why R-CULT loses in court too. Facts mean nothing to a conspiracy driven blaming organization.

Sandman: "If you would look again, you will notice I was talking about marketing agreements. I didn't even mention forward contracts. Also, forward contracts don't have to be tied to the futures market. They can be tied to the cash markets or whatever is agreed upon."

The issue here is CAPTIVE SUPPLIES and their affect on the cattle markets. Captive supplies are those cattle owned or otherwise controlled by packers for more than 14 days prior to slaughter. We are not discussing "marketing agreements" in general which includes formula and grid cattle, most of which are sold a week in advance of delivery date and are not considered captive supply cattle because they are not owned or otherwise controlled by packers for more than 14 days prior to slaughter.

Don't try to your redirection bullsh*t with me.

75% OF CAPTIVE SUPPLY CATTLE ARE FORWARD CONTRACT CATTLE.

Most of those forward contracts are tied to the futures market.


Now if you think you can correct any of this information with facts NOT STATEMENTS to the contrary, your welcome to give it your usual "steer's try".

Sandman: "Really? Do you have any proof that they did? For whatever reason, the court is convinced that they kept to the cash markets. Is the court lying? I can understand how you could see them inept via their ruling, but there is a disagreement between you and them. You want to straighten that out for us, buddy?"

Let's get something straight. I am not your buddy. I do not associate with those in this industry that outwardly, knowingly support lies and deception. You have been privy to the debate and still you chose to support the lies and deception of R-CULT.

Do you feel confident enough to take my bet or do you want to conduct your little sand dance again?

I'm flattered by your desperation to prove me wrong.

Someday maybe you'll have more than "fools gold" in your bag.


~SH~

 

[Mike]

You got you're head up your ass again SH. The plaintiffs were suing TYSON not the other major packers. That will be another day.

Yea, you can try to weasel out of it. You almost had me convinced too. That's what perturbs me more than anything.

You've been snorting this crap so long you believed it yourself.

The issue is whether the plaintiffs had engaged in marketing contracts/agreements with Tyson and you damn well it is. I've been back over your posts and your attempts at swaying this board is well documented.

I wouldn't bet you the sun is gonna come up in the morning cause you wouldn't admit it if it did!

 

[Anonymous]

Mike: "You got you're head up your ass again SH."

Hahaha!

What's wrong Mikey?

Thought you had a tiger by the tail and now your pouting because you ended up with a hand full of regular old "cat sh*t"??????

Hahaha! Too funny!


Send Sandy a PM, I'm sure he'll give you moral support.


If I have my head up my ass, prove it by taking the bet you "big talkin' little boy". LOL!


Who did you think you were going to fool by changing my words to what you wanted them to say????

Besides Sandman! That's a given!

Mike: "The issue is whether the plaintiffs had engaged in marketing contracts/agreements with Tyson and you damn well it is.'

BULLSH*T!

The issue has always been whether or not the plaintiffs entered into forward contracts with a major packer, PERIOD. That is where the hypocrisy issue lies.

It doesn't matter WHO the plaintiffs entered into forward contracts with, the hypocrisy is still there to sue someone for an action that you willingly participated in.

If a forward contract can be used to manipulate markets, it doesn't matter which major packer that forward contract is with. Either forward contracts are used to manipulate markets or they are not.

To willingly enter into a foward contract captive supply arrangement with a major packer, then sue a major packer for market manipulation based on those forward contracts is the epitomy of R-CULT/OCM hypocrisy.

Mike: "I've been back over your posts and your attempts at swaying this board is well documented."

Do a search on "entered into forward contracts with Tyson" and see what you come up with Mike.

If you can show me where I stated "forward contracts with Tyson", you'd have something. Knock yourself out.

You guys have simply been down the packer blaming road for so long that you can't even accept truth or facts so you change things to fit what you want them to be.

You two are so pathetic but more faithful than a blue heeler pup and just as predictable. LOL!



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Mike, do you feel like any more pig wrestling or Kadoka water torture? :wink: :lol:

SH, you've been exposed again. I'm not going to play your Clinton lawyer games. I'm comfortable resting my case and letting the board decide if you have been truthful and knowledgeable or not.

Ladies and gentlemen of the Bullroom, my case against SH has been presented. You've seen what all involved have said. The decision is yours.

 

[Mike]

Posted by SH on Tuesday March 29, 2005 2:56 P.M.

WILLINGLY ENTERING INTO FORWARD CONTRACTS WITH IBP SO IBP NEEDED LESS CATTLE!!!!!!!!!!!
WHY DID THE PICKETT PLAINTIFFS FORWARD CONTRACT CATTLE KNOWING THIS?????

Posted by SH on Monday March 28, 2005 8:24 P.M.

Of course! Because the plaintiffs themselves had sold ibp forward contract cattle, they had less cattle to buy???

So I guess you're gonna say IBP and Tyson are NOT one and the same?

 

[ocm]

if you can show me where I stated "forward contracts with Tyson", you'd have something. Knock yourself out.

Looks like he has something!

You lied?

Tsk, Tsk, Tsk.

Deceiver, diverter, hypocrite?

Oh, wait, let me guess. Tyson and IBP are not the same thing.

 

[Sandhusker]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Tommy]

OCM...Oh, wait, let me guess. Tyson and IBP are not the same thing.


Yeah he didn't say Tyson did he? :roll:

 

[ocm]

Why do we all think he might say that? You'd think we've all watched him argue before.

 

[Mike]

I honestly don't know whether to laugh or cry.

I've been reading SH's posts for a couple of years now and scratching my head wondering why the courts would allow someone would to sue Tyson for practices that they themselves had engaged in. :???: :???:

I guess it goes back to the saying.............."if you tell a lie long enough, you start believing it yourself".

Scott, I'm wondering this now. Do you really think you were gonna get by with passing this off as the plaintiffs engaging with "OTHER" packers in marketing agreements.

This is sad. Real sad.

 

[Anonymous]

Mike: "I've been reading SH's posts for a couple of years now and scratching my head wondering why the courts would allow someone would to sue Tyson for practices that they themselves had engaged in."

You should be wondering that because that is exactly how insane this lawsuit really is.

If you are so convinced that the plaintiffs did not sue Tyson for a practice that they themselves had willingly engaged in (ie forward contracts), why haven't you taken my bet Mike?

Afraid of embarrassment?

If you are so convinced that the plaintiffs never willingly entered into a forward contract, when that is the action they sued against, TAKE MY BET.

You throw up an UNPROVEN "red herring" that supposedly the plaintiffs that had entered into forward contracts with Tyson were dismissed AS IF THAT SOMEHOW MAKES ENTERING INTO A FORWARD CONTRACT WITH ANOTHER MAJOR PACKER LESS HYPOCRITICAL. Hahaha!

It's absolutely amazing to me what you packer blamers can justify in your conspiring minds with a little imagination. What's even more pathetic is that you are actually serious about it.

This is so typical of how most packer blamers operate. If someone says what you WANT TO BELIEVE, it becomes fact without question.

Explain to me how it is ok to enter into a forward contract with Monfort or Cargill when you are suing Tyson for "alleged" market manipulation due to forward contracts. I'd love to hear one of your packer blamers try to justify that position. Talk about a classic "RED HERRING" to divert the hypocrisy issue.

The threatened lawsuits against Monfort and Cargill are based on that exact same premise which defeats your argument on the relevance of whether or not the plaintiffs entered into a forward contract with ibp/tyson or one of the other major packers.

To anyone with any lick of common sense, if lawsuits against Cargill and Monfort are forthcoming based on the same captive supply market manipulation conspiracy theory, whether or not the plaintiffs entered into forward contracts with Tyson, Cargill, or Monfort is irrelevant. WHAT IS RELEVANT IS THE FACT THAT THEY ENTERED INTO FORWARD CONTRACTS WITH A MAJOR PACKER THEN SUED FOR THAT EXACT PRACTICE.

If you don't believe it happened, put your money where your mouth is and TAKE MY BET!

Either one or more of the plaintiffs entered into forward contracts with a major packer or they didn't. If they didn't, you win a clear $100. What could be easier than that?

This site has been so revealing to me regarding the lengths that packer blamers like Mike, OCM and Sandman will go to in order to blame packers. It's almost beyond belief. You guys will pick something totally irrelevant to argue about as if that will change the facts.

I'm so glad it's all here for the objective viewer to see firsthand. The moral support you blamers need from eachother also says so much more than I ever could about your level of desperation to have someone or something to blame.



~SH~