A
Anonymous
Guest
Only in your dreams. You haven't proven anything, EVER!
That's total bullsh*t!
~SH~
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Agman and/or SH
- Thread starter Sandhusker
- Start date
Help Support Ranchers.net:
Only in your dreams. You haven't proven anything, EVER!
That's total bullsh*t!
~SH~
~SH~ said:Conman: "SH, I have done it many times."
Only in your dreams. You haven't proven anything, EVER!
Conman: "The benefits to Swift, and Tyson for swinging the cattle markets via the price manipulation Pickett proved to the jury is found in the additional profitability that the substitutes bring in when the supply of cattle gets tight. The substitutes follow beef up in price on the upswing of the prices. Go look at the data. It is pretty clear."
That's total bullsh*t!
~SH~
Prove me where this is not the case. I have posted where it is.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Pickett vs. IBP proved that it was not the case. Judge Strom stated no violation of the PSA and the 11th circuit upheld his decision.
~SH~
~SH~
~SH~ said:Pickett vs. IBP proved that it was not the case. Judge Strom stated no violation of the PSA and the 11th circuit upheld his decision.
~SH~
It wasn't even brought up in that case. The new standard that the 11th circuit brought up was after both trials were over. It was as if they had to say.."Yeah, but we meant you have to do this also to win your case" after it was already over and everyone went home.
What a scam.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Conman: "It wasn't even brought up in that case."
ANOTHER LIE!
You admitted yourself that you haven't read the court proceedings yet you know what was brought up in the case? You are such a phony!
The whole case centered around market manipulation as a violation of the PSA. Where have you been? Good grief!
Judge Strom stated in his ruling that he found no violation of the PSA. The 11th circuit upheld Judge Strom's ruling.
Conman: "The new standard that the 11th circuit brought up was after both trials were over. It was as if they had to say.."Yeah, but we meant you have to do this also to win your case" after it was already over and everyone went home."
Oh bullsh*t! You packer blamers couldn't prove your conspiracy theories and now you're sucking your thumb because you lost and had to pay court costs. Go tell it to Oprah!
~SH~
~SH~ said:Conman: "It wasn't even brought up in that case."
ANOTHER LIE!
You admitted yourself that you haven't read the court proceedings yet you know what was brought up in the case? You are such a phony!
The whole case centered around market manipulation as a violation of the PSA. Where have you been? Good grief!
Judge Strom stated in his ruling that he found no violation of the PSA. The 11th circuit upheld Judge Strom's ruling.
Conman: "The new standard that the 11th circuit brought up was after both trials were over. It was as if they had to say.."Yeah, but we meant you have to do this also to win your case" after it was already over and everyone went home."
Oh bullsh*t! You packer blamers couldn't prove your conspiracy theories and now you're sucking your thumb because you lost and had to pay court costs. Go tell it to Oprah!
~SH~
The "harm to competition" was what was made up, SH. Where is your head? Maybe you should ask the wizard of oz for a super dandy brain instead of just an ordinary one. You might need the extra power.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Conman: "The "harm to competition" was what was made up, SH."
The whole case dealt with anti competitive pricing of cattle. If that isn't "harm to competition" WHAT THE HELL IS????
It's one thing to be continually wrong. It's quite another to be a phony that doesn't know anything and pretends to know everything.
Oh, wait, let me guess. In your desperation to discredit the case you interpreted "harm to competition" to mean "harm to their competition (other packers)" rather than "harm to competitive pricing"???
Typical of your slippery slimy deceptive ways.
~SH~
~SH~ said:Conman: "The "harm to competition" was what was made up, SH."
The whole case dealt with anti competitive pricing of cattle. If that isn't "harm to competition" WHAT THE HELL IS????
It's one thing to be continually wrong. It's quite another to be a phony that doesn't know anything and pretends to know everything.
Oh, wait, let me guess. In your desperation to discredit the case you interpreted "harm to competition" to mean "harm to their competition (other packers)" rather than "harm to competitive pricing"???
Typical of your slippery slimy deceptive ways.
~SH~
You are getting closer.
A
Anonymous
Guest
SH (previous): "Oh, wait, let me guess. In your desperation to discredit the case you interpreted "harm to competition" to mean "harm to their competition (other packers)" rather than "harm to competitive pricing"???"
Conman (in response): "You are getting closer."
You proud of being deceptive and dishonest?
~SH~
~SH~ said:SH (previous): "Oh, wait, let me guess. In your desperation to discredit the case you interpreted "harm to competition" to mean "harm to their competition (other packers)" rather than "harm to competitive pricing"???"
Conman (in response): "You are getting closer."
You proud of being deceptive and dishonest?
~SH~
Colder.
You proud of being deceptive and dishonest?
A
Anonymous
Guest
Conman: "You proud of being deceptive and dishonest?"
Can't come up with anything original?
You really are a follower aren't you?
~SH~
