• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Jury Duty!!!

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Does the preponderance of evidence prove SH is a liar with respect to Sandhusker's bet?

  • yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • no

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
  • Poll closed .
A

Anonymous

Guest
~SH~ said:
Mike Callicrate lied under oath. Lying under oath is perjury by definition. Judge Strom instructed the jurors to disregard a portion or all of his testimony because he found it to be untrue. Why he was not brought up on perjury charges is a good question.



~SH~

Possibly because it could not be PROVEN that he lied--You do remember that PROOF thing :???:

Just because one Judge says it is untrue or in his opinion thinks it is untrue does not make it so.......
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Oldtimer said:
~SH~ said:
Mike Callicrate lied under oath. Lying under oath is perjury by definition. Judge Strom instructed the jurors to disregard a portion or all of his testimony because he found it to be untrue. Why he was not brought up on perjury charges is a good question.



~SH~

Possibly because it could not be PROVEN that he lied--You do remember that PROOF thing :???:

Just because one Judge says it is untrue or in his opinion thinks it is untrue does not make it so.......


In these judgement cases we have 12 jurors who have to agree. They determine what the facts are after hearing both side's proof. The appellate court and judge Strom brought no "evidence to the contrary" as you like to say, SH.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
OT: "Possibly because it could not be PROVEN that he lied--You do remember that PROOF thing"

Mike Callicrate changed his story and started backpeddling when he got caught. As if lying is something new for Mike Callicrate. LOL! This is the same guy that was telling anyone foolish enough to listen about the $400 per head profits that packers and retailers were making off the backs of producers who has yet to realize a profit in his own company, he's the same guy who told us how ibp stepped out of the cash market for 30 days, how ibp had contractual arrangements with the other packers, how Tyson dismissed jurors because they were black. I don't think Mike Callicrate has ever told the truth but as long as he blames packers, you packer blamers will keep bowing your turbins to him. Allah Callicrate!



~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Kindergarten: "The appellate court and judge Strom brought no "evidence to the contrary" as you like to say, SH."

IT IS NOT THE DEFENSE'S RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVE THEIR INNOCENSE, IT IS THE PROSECUTIONS RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVE THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT YOU FLIPPIN' IDIOT!!!!!!

HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU HAVE TO HEAR THAT BEFORE IT SINKS IN?????



THE PLAINTIFFS NEVER PROVED IBP'S GUILT!!!!



~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
Kindergarten: "The appellate court and judge Strom brought no "evidence to the contrary" as you like to say, SH."

IT IS NOT THE DEFENSE'S RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVE THEIR INNOCENSE, IT IS THE PROSECUTIONS RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVE THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT YOU FLIPPIN' IDIOT!!!!!!

HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU HAVE TO HEAR THAT BEFORE IT SINKS IN?????



THE PLAINTIFFS NEVER PROVED IBP'S GUILT!!!!



~SH~

They did to the jury. That is what is supposed to count. If you were not on the jury you just have an opinion. The appellate judges have just an opinion, but they are not the jury. In overturning the jury's verdict, they better have a good reason. They proved they could not even reason.

One day you will have one judge.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
2
Location
Montgomery, Al
THE PLAINTIFFS NEVER PROVED IBP'S GUILT!!!!

You are correct in that the jury never proclaimed IBP "GUILTY" in the Pickett trial.

But the $1.28 BILLION dollar award by the jury to the Plaintiffs didn't say "INNOCENT" either. :???: :???:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Kindergarten: "In overturning the jury's verdict, they better have a good reason."

Judge Strom and the 11th circuit had a darn good reason for overturning the verdict. There was no proof of market manipulation. The jurors couldn't explain how they derived at the damages. The jurors ouldn't identify the class members who were "supposedly" damaged. The jurors claimed IBP lacked a legitimate business reason for using captive supplies when everyone testified to the contrary. Dropping your price as your needs are met is not price manipulation. There was no PSA violation and that's why Judge Strom stepped in and the 11th circuit upheld that decision. You can't accept the judge's reasons because you are a packer blamer and someday you will have to justify your "PRESUMPTION OF GUILT" mentality and your baseless speculation and theories to the final judge.



~SH~
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
2
Location
Montgomery, Al
The jurors couldn't explain how they derived at the damages. The jurors couldn't identify the class members who were "supposedly" damaged.

Where in the court documents were the jurors asked to explain how they derived at the damages?


It is NOT the juries responsibility to determine class members in a class action case. That is done in pre-trial.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
Kindergarten: "In overturning the jury's verdict, they better have a good reason."

Judge Strom and the 11th circuit had a darn good reason for overturning the verdict. There was no proof of market manipulation. The jurors couldn't explain how they derived at the damages. The jurors ouldn't identify the class members who were "supposedly" damaged. The jurors claimed IBP lacked a legitimate business reason for using captive supplies when everyone testified to the contrary. Dropping your price as your needs are met is not price manipulation. There was no PSA violation and that's why Judge Strom stepped in and the 11th circuit upheld that decision. You can't accept the judge's reasons because you are a packer blamer and someday you will have to justify your "PRESUMPTION OF GUILT" mentality and your baseless speculation and theories to the final judge.



~SH~

Blaa Blaaa Blaa Blaaaa. The JURY was to decide those questions, not the judge. They had evidence presented and it was enough for them to come back with a huge verdict. There was no evidence that presented that was pertinent enough to have them believe otherwise. The appellate court got the economics behind the RPA wrong and then passed judgement on an expert witness on economics. Just because judges don't understand something doesn't mean it is not true or that, in Agman's words, they know more about the law than the jury. They proved they knew little about economics in their brief. There was no "presumption of guilt" there was just evidence that substantiated the plaintiff's claim. Tyson did not refute that evidence in the jury's eyes and neither did the appellate court.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Econ101 said:
Tam said:
katrina said:
SH, Bless your heart. It's okay to believe in what you believe in. But you said that you and agman couldn't fine whatever you were looking for. (This is going on for sooooo long.) So you yourself said. Anyway you lost the bet, you paid up now lets all give it a rest. It is an honorable thing to stand up for what you believe in, right or wrong... The point I was making was that in losing the bet, ANY BET, you have to eat humble pie.... So suck it up.......no whining. We all know how passionate you are, lets have a group hug and work together towards something positive... We still love ya....

But Katrina What was the bet? Sandhusker says it was the calender year 2004 and the next time it is the duration of the border closure. The answer to one bet is not the answer to the other. When the bet was confined to 2004 Agman confirmed SH was wrong and Sandhusker thanked him for his honesty and SH admitted to the lose of the bet as of 2004 and paid. BUT now the bet is not what SH admitted he was wrong on. During the time of the border closure was the original statement and Agman confirmed SH was right to the original, but when this is pointed out to Sandhusker, he asks for proof. What happen to the honesty that Sandhusker thanked Agman for. His honesty didn't come into question when it backed Sandhuskers side? And Katrina did SH lie if the information SH was able to get proves he was right to the original statement? Through all of this did Sandhusker prove SH was a liar? To prove his original Statement that SH is a liar, wouldn't Sandhusker have to bring numbers or statements to prove him wrong? DID he bring anything, other than his OPINION that SH lied, to the board. NO. I'm sorry but if Sandhusker claims SH was lieing I want to see his proof. Numbers, statements from credible sourses something. Lets put Sandhusker on the same level as he puts other PROVE WHAT HE SAYS.

Tam, the bet doesn't even matter. SH is so full of name calling it is pathetic. He can not prove any of it either. This is argument is similar to the Mike C. perjury charge SH brought up. Just diverticuli.

But unless Sandhusker can prove SH lied how are we to know which one is lieing? I read the information too, I think SH was telling the truth. So unless Sandhusker can bring the numbers to prove otherwise his claim in my eye makes him the liar. I ask you if Agmans word was honest when it backed Sandhuskers 2004 bet, why isn't it honest enough to back the original statement? You know the one that Sandhusker claims in this thread was the bet the full duration of the border closure.

I'm not to crazy about the name calling either but if that is all it took to get you to side against SH then you would have to side against half the guys on Ranchers including Sandhusker.
Katrina s
Anyway you lost the bet, you paid up now lets all give it a rest.
What I find funny is how Sandhusker just want to forget this whole thing but who is it that keeps posting on here about the bet, Sandhusker and his support team. Why don't you tell Sandhusker to stop too Katrina :roll:
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
Gotta like these results hey. Pretty darn close to 50/50. Isn't democracy a wonderful thing. If one side was to win this thing by 1 point, the other side would be ignorant, idiotic, commi, bwamer, packer lover, kindergarten, thumbsuckers.

Ranchers.net ROCKS.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Tam, Since rkaiser brought up the payments to Cargill and Tyson from Canadian taxpayers (I did not know about this little omission) and the payments were made to those companies, those dollars should be included in the figures also.

The issue really doesn't matter, however. I don't enjoy calling SH names and no one else deserves it either. If someone asserts something on this forum it just might be someone having an original thought that was not engineered by some high paid corporate economist and sold by the propaganda machines in this industry. They should not be criticized for it. We will never really know what goes on behind closed doors unless we have a mole. We can however, look at events and interpret them without the spin. I have always advocated interpreting events and not spin. Many of the things you see in the industry are thought out way before you have knowledge of them and yes I have access to some moles that I am not willing to discuss.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Kindergarten economics: "If someone asserts something on this forum it just might be someone having an original thought that was not engineered by some high paid corporate economist and sold by the propaganda machines in this industry."

Hahaha! Kindergarten economics lecturing on original thoughts? Now that is truly funny. All you can do is keep arguing how the jury got it right and how Judge Strom and the 11th circuit got it wrong when by your own admission, you hadn't even read the testimony. You couldn't present the evidence that swayed the jury. You didn't read the judges's ruling that was upheld by the 11th circuit. YOU WANT TO LECTURE ON ORIGINAL THOUGHTS????? Bwahahahahaha! I doubt you've ever had an original thought. You are carried by your arrogance only, not your knowledge.

We have judges to make sure the jurors understand the evidence. Guys like you convince yourselves that the jurors know more about the law than the judges. If the Pickett plaintiffs had any evidence to support their claims, they would have won the case. Instead, they find some phychobabble economist who throws theories out that the packer blamers don't even understand but it supports their bias so they pretend it makes sense.

Nobody is going to earn a conviction based on "theories" and "opinions". Convictions are earned by facts. The plaintiffs had none.

Since you have graced us with your ignorance Kindergarten, you have made many claims and never backed any of them with supporting facts. You've basically wasted a lot of time and energy because opinions that are not supported by facts are basically worthless.



~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
Kindergarten economics: "If someone asserts something on this forum it just might be someone having an original thought that was not engineered by some high paid corporate economist and sold by the propaganda machines in this industry."

Hahaha! Kindergarten economics lecturing on original thoughts? Now that is truly funny. All you can do is keep arguing how the jury got it right and how Judge Strom and the 11th circuit got it wrong when by your own admission, you hadn't even read the testimony. You couldn't present the evidence that swayed the jury. You didn't read the judges's ruling that was upheld by the 11th circuit. YOU WANT TO LECTURE ON ORIGINAL THOUGHTS????? Bwahahahahaha! I doubt you've ever had an original thought. You are carried by your arrogance only, not your knowledge.

We have judges to make sure the jurors understand the evidence. Guys like you convince yourselves that the jurors know more about the law than the judges. If the Pickett plaintiffs had any evidence to support their claims, they would have won the case. Instead, they find some phychobabble economist who throws theories out that the packer blamers don't even understand but it supports their bias so they pretend it makes sense.

Nobody is going to earn a conviction based on "theories" and "opinions". Convictions are earned by facts. The plaintiffs had none.

Since you have graced us with your ignorance Kindergarten, you have made many claims and never backed any of them with supporting facts. You've basically wasted a lot of time and energy because opinions that are not supported by facts are basically worthless.



~SH~

I understand the concept of making laws against the use of market power. I understand that the appellate decision was economically illiterate. I understand you want to discredit a law that makes companies be have because you are a company advocate. I understand that you make baseless claims that you are obviously not willing to defend. I understand that you are willing to argue against an economic law without even knowing the historical context, the economic concepts, and the right of business to ignore them when it is convenient and not pay the price for breakining the law.

I understand that you got almost ALL of the arguments of the Pickett case wrong and that you might even believe the nonsense you spout out and therefore I have not called you a liar. I have courteously pointed out your numerous mistakes, none of which required any trial testimony.

You have declined to argue these points, instead you resort to name calling. You claim that the beef industry is special and therefore does not fall under the same economic rules of the free market. You have made an assertion that examples of economic theories do not apply to the beef industry, not citing or arguing why, but using your potty mouth and name calling to claim you are right. I have tried to engage you on an intellectual level without all of the extra b.s. and my attempts have failed. Maybe it is not possible.

For your propaganda, you get an A, for your intellectual astuteness, objectivity, and economic intepretation of an economic law and its application, you get an F. Go collect your paycheck or keep being the fool you play for free whichever it is. Collect the non-thinkers of the world ready to follow your lead. Either way fall right in line with the fascist elements in this country. Joseph Goebbles is smiling at you.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I understand the concept of making laws against the use of market power.

You don't understand the concept of providing evidence that proves that markets were manipulated.


I understand that the appellate decision was economically illiterate.

Another of your many unsupported "cheap talk" opinions. You don't understand anything about this industry let alone have enough knowledge to understand the appellate decision.


I understand you want to discredit a law that makes companies be have because you are a company advocate.

Another lie from you. I don't have any ties to Tyson but I do agree with "due process" and the "presumption of innocense". Just because I don't support your packer blaming bias does not mean that I am a company advocate. I believe in truth and facts, not a compelling need to blame large corporate packers like you do.


I understand that you make baseless claims that you are obviously not willing to defend.

I understand that you refuse to answer questions yet expect others to and I understand that claiming "baseless" is easier than proving it.


I understand that you are willing to argue against an economic law without even knowing the historical context, the economic concepts, and the right of business to ignore them when it is convenient and not pay the price for breakining the law.

You don't understand nothing. You make crap up as you go. If you knew what you were talking about you could take a statement I have made and prove me wrong with the facts to the contrary. You don't have any facts to support anything so you resort to your empty meaningless little discrediting statements like this that impress you.

There was no proof that any law was broke. You are so overcome with packer blame that you have convinced yourself that it happened YET CANNOT PROVIDE THE PROOF TO BACK THAT POSITION.


I understand that you got almost ALL of the arguments of the Pickett case wrong and that you might even believe the nonsense you spout out and therefore I have not called you a liar. I have courteously pointed out your numerous mistakes, none of which required any trial testimony.

You haven't corrected me on anything. All you can offer is your cheap talk little statements like this. You could't be more factually void to defend your position. If it wasn't for cheap talk, you wouldn't exist.


You have declined to argue these points, instead you resort to name calling.

Until you start answering my questions, don't expect me to answer yours. This isn't your classroom to deceive.


You claim that the beef industry is special and therefore does not fall under the same economic rules of the free market.

Another damn lie!

Show everyone where I made that claim!

Watch the dance folks.................


You have made an assertion that examples of economic theories do not apply to the beef industry,.........

Make it up as you go. Must really impress yourself huh?


I have tried to engage you on an intellectual level without all of the extra b.s. and my attempts have failed. Maybe it is not possible.

You don't have any intellect when it comes to arguing your case. Your opinions and theories are only as good as the facts that support them. From the standpoint of supporting facts, you couldn't be more "WITHOUT".


For your propaganda, you get an A, for your intellectual astuteness, objectivity, and economic intepretation of an economic law and its application, you get an F.

You aren't qualified to teach kindergarten let alone lecture on the economic factors in the cattle industry.

Nobody has been corrected on more false information here than you have.


Go collect your paycheck or keep being the fool you play for free whichever it is.

More cheap talk! ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!



Collect the non-thinkers of the world ready to follow your lead.

You'd know all about following wouldn't you?

Absorbing an insult from you is not unlike being run over by a baby buggy.



~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
I understand the concept of making laws against the use of market power.

You don't understand the concept of providing evidence that proves that markets were manipulated.


I understand that the appellate decision was economically illiterate.

Another of your many unsupported "cheap talk" opinions. You don't understand anything about this industry let alone have enough knowledge to understand the appellate decision.


I understand you want to discredit a law that makes companies be have because you are a company advocate.

Another lie from you. I don't have any ties to Tyson but I do agree with "due process" and the "presumption of innocense". Just because I don't support your packer blaming bias does not mean that I am a company advocate. I believe in truth and facts, not a compelling need to blame large corporate packers like you do.


I understand that you make baseless claims that you are obviously not willing to defend.

I understand that you refuse to answer questions yet expect others to and I understand that claiming "baseless" is easier than proving it.


I understand that you are willing to argue against an economic law without even knowing the historical context, the economic concepts, and the right of business to ignore them when it is convenient and not pay the price for breakining the law.

You don't understand nothing. You make crap up as you go. If you knew what you were talking about you could take a statement I have made and prove me wrong with the facts to the contrary. You don't have any facts to support anything so you resort to your empty meaningless little discrediting statements like this that impress you.

There was no proof that any law was broke. You are so overcome with packer blame that you have convinced yourself that it happened YET CANNOT PROVIDE THE PROOF TO BACK THAT POSITION.


I understand that you got almost ALL of the arguments of the Pickett case wrong and that you might even believe the nonsense you spout out and therefore I have not called you a liar. I have courteously pointed out your numerous mistakes, none of which required any trial testimony.

You haven't corrected me on anything. All you can offer is your cheap talk little statements like this. You could't be more factually void to defend your position. If it wasn't for cheap talk, you wouldn't exist.


You have declined to argue these points, instead you resort to name calling.

Until you start answering my questions, don't expect me to answer yours. This isn't your classroom to deceive.


You claim that the beef industry is special and therefore does not fall under the same economic rules of the free market.

Another damn lie!

Show everyone where I made that claim!

Watch the dance folks.................


You have made an assertion that examples of economic theories do not apply to the beef industry,.........

Make it up as you go. Must really impress yourself huh?


I have tried to engage you on an intellectual level without all of the extra b.s. and my attempts have failed. Maybe it is not possible.

You don't have any intellect when it comes to arguing your case. Your opinions and theories are only as good as the facts that support them. From the standpoint of supporting facts, you couldn't be more "WITHOUT".


For your propaganda, you get an A, for your intellectual astuteness, objectivity, and economic intepretation of an economic law and its application, you get an F.

You aren't qualified to teach kindergarten let alone lecture on the economic factors in the cattle industry.

Nobody has been corrected on more false information here than you have.


Go collect your paycheck or keep being the fool you play for free whichever it is.

More cheap talk! ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!



Collect the non-thinkers of the world ready to follow your lead.

You'd know all about following wouldn't you?

Absorbing an insult from you is not unlike being run over by a baby buggy.



~SH~

Would you like to debate any of these individually without your name calling insults?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
One thing SH is right on, "Those who can not debate discredit". If you can't debate, you try to discredit you opponents with name calling. The strategy works well in elementary school...
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Econ101 said:
~SH~ said:
Kindergarten economics: "If someone asserts something on this forum it just might be someone having an original thought that was not engineered by some high paid corporate economist and sold by the propaganda machines in this industry."

Hahaha! Kindergarten economics lecturing on original thoughts? Now that is truly funny. All you can do is keep arguing how the jury got it right and how Judge Strom and the 11th circuit got it wrong when by your own admission, you hadn't even read the testimony. You couldn't present the evidence that swayed the jury. You didn't read the judges's ruling that was upheld by the 11th circuit. YOU WANT TO LECTURE ON ORIGINAL THOUGHTS????? Bwahahahahaha! I doubt you've ever had an original thought. You are carried by your arrogance only, not your knowledge.

We have judges to make sure the jurors understand the evidence. Guys like you convince yourselves that the jurors know more about the law than the judges. If the Pickett plaintiffs had any evidence to support their claims, they would have won the case. Instead, they find some phychobabble economist who throws theories out that the packer blamers don't even understand but it supports their bias so they pretend it makes sense.

Nobody is going to earn a conviction based on "theories" and "opinions". Convictions are earned by facts. The plaintiffs had none.

Since you have graced us with your ignorance Kindergarten, you have made many claims and never backed any of them with supporting facts. You've basically wasted a lot of time and energy because opinions that are not supported by facts are basically worthless.



~SH~

I understand the concept of making laws against the use of market power. I understand that the appellate decision was economically illiterate. I understand you want to discredit a law that makes companies be have because you are a company advocate. I understand that you make baseless claims that you are obviously not willing to defend. I understand that you are willing to argue against an economic law without even knowing the historical context, the economic concepts, and the right of business to ignore them when it is convenient and not pay the price for breakining the law.

I understand that you got almost ALL of the arguments of the Pickett case wrong and that you might even believe the nonsense you spout out and therefore I have not called you a liar. I have courteously pointed out your numerous mistakes, none of which required any trial testimony.

You have declined to argue these points, instead you resort to name calling. You claim that the beef industry is special and therefore does not fall under the same economic rules of the free market. You have made an assertion that examples of economic theories do not apply to the beef industry, not citing or arguing why, but using your potty mouth and name calling to claim you are right. I have tried to engage you on an intellectual level without all of the extra b.s. and my attempts have failed. Maybe it is not possible.

For your propaganda, you get an A, for your intellectual astuteness, objectivity, and economic intepretation of an economic law and its application, you get an F. Go collect your paycheck or keep being the fool you play for free whichever it is. Collect the non-thinkers of the world ready to follow your lead. Either way fall right in line with the fascist elements in this country. Joseph Goebbles is smiling at you.

Well, isn't it comforting to "learn" that Econ 101 has "moles" that give him the inside story on the "fascist elements in this country"! Does that term refer to ALL business, or just packers, Republicans, corporations, or exactly who? We really should know so that we may protect ourselves from them, don't you think? Or do you reserve that term for those who do not hate packers, but realize they are people with a business to run and for many, investors to answer to?

BTW, why do you imply that SH is being paid by packers? Did your "moles" tell you that, too? It is a fascinating idea. I didn't know that someone who attempts to point out the facts in the face of outright lies ($400.00 per head profits, for starters) about a general business (all packers) would receive payments for doing so. Where does one apply for that? I don't like lies to go unchallenged, and could always use a little more money for fuel these days!

MRJ
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Kindergarten: "Would you like to debate any of these individually without your name calling insults?"

If you think you can debate anything with facts to back your position as opposed to empty discrediting rheotorical statements, go for it.

When your empty meaningless discrediting rhetorical statements stop, the name's that fit you might cease as well.



~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
Kindergarten: "Would you like to debate any of these individually without your name calling insults?"

If you think you can debate anything with facts to back your position as opposed to empty discrediting rheotorical statements, go for it.

When your empty meaningless discrediting rhetorical statements stop, the name's that fit you might cease as well.



~SH~

You wouldn't understand evidence if it hit you in the face. Evidence is for trials and jurys, neither of which you seem to respect.
 

Latest posts

Top