Econ. 101: "It is sad that Tyson would rather cause innocent ranchers real money just so they could go to the bank in the pork and chicken business subsets. And all you have to say is "Tyson couldn't have robbed all those cattlemen, they don't have all that much money on them from beef.""
Another statement unsupported by facts.
Econ. 101: "I have told you repeatedly that you are looking in the wrong pocket for the stolen money yet you bring up the same excuse time and again."
Another statement unsupported by facts.
You are the epitomy of "factually void".
Econ. 101: "All you do is scream and shout on this board. Everyone has heard you. Everyone has seen how "credible" your arguments. You try to win on intimidation and volume, not quality."
Typical discrediting statement to avoid having to present the facts to back your position.
Those who you can't bring anything to the table always resort to talking about the shape of the table.
No facts to support your position just meaningless discrediting statements time after time after time.
If the volume of the capital letters gets too loud for you you can always turn them down.
My credibility is rock solid until such point where you can contradict what I have stated with facts to the contrary. Up to this point you have not contradicted anything I have stated so it's understandable why you would reach the typical desperate discrediting level you have.
Same-O, Same-O for the "factually void".
Econ. 101: "Do you really work in the chicken business for them? Most bullies, I have found, are chickens."
Another discrediting statement void of supporting facts!
I am a life time cattle producer who has no bias other than truth based on factual information. Unlike you and the R-CULTers, I am not driven by packer blame or conspiracy theories. I believe the free enterprise system is self governing unless PROVEN otherwise and I believe in the "presumption of innocense".
It's always the same. Whenever I point out some packer blamers inability to back their position this is where the discussion always ends up. I swear they must send all you packer blamers to the same debate school.
DENY, DISCREDIT, DECEIVE, DIVERT!
It's always the same!
Econ. 101: "You are right, the courts should, as a matter of law, give the plaintiffs a judgement of the amount of damages calculated. If you look at the Sherman Act, that amount would be tripled. Do you see how the Sherman Act fits in here?"
Creating an illusion again?
Tyson's is a publicly owned company. The profit information in their beef division is readily available. These profits are reported to GIPSA. Their profits were part of the court proceedings.
According to court testimony, during the Pickett era of "ALLEGED" market manipulation, ibp's per head profits were $26 per head. Take that times their slaughter figures and tell me where Taylor's or the Jury's damages fit in. It's more proof of the ignorance of the plaintiffs and their case.
Since you can't begin to explain how the Plaintiff's came up with their damage figures, BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFF'S COULDN'T EITHER, you make up some stupid conspiracy theory about Tyson hiding profitability information. Yet another conspiracy to cover a conspiracy.
You have presented absolutely nothing to back your position here. Not even smart enough to understand that last week's cash price is not this week's cash price. Notice you diverted that too.
Unless you can bring something relevant to the table, quit wasting my time.
The plaintiff's case was a violation of the PSA. I'm still waiting for you to present the evidence that supported this claims.
I'm quite sure I'll be waiting forever.
~SH~