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

Just for you gunslinger

Help Support Ranchers.net:

~SH~ said:
T: "Scott are you telling us that if it had not been for R-CALF the border would have been open to live cattle under thirty months before March 7, 2005?"

Yes!

T: "If you are saying that provide the proof to back your statement."

You already provided it Tommy:

On November 4, 2003 USDA published a proposed rule seeking to designate Canada as a 'minimal-risk' country for BSE and seeking to permit the importation of fed and feeder cattle less than 30 months of age, as well as beef products from animals of all ages under certain conditions.


How can it be any clearer?


Tommy,

Why didn't you answer the following questions regarding the information you didn't provide?

1. When did R-CALF make their FIRST appearance in court to stop Canadian live cattle imports Tommy? When was it?
2. R-CULT claims they were responsible for keeping the Canadian border closed for as long as they did? Are you saying that R-CULT lied about that TOO?

Answer the questions please.



~SH~

Tommy is busy,probably dont have time to play your silly games,so if you dont mind prarie dawg,I will say,R CALF made their "First apperance" in court to stop live canadian cattle imports when it was obvious the usda was owned by the packing industry and was not doing their job,to protect the cattle industry..............good luck
 
Hayboy: "R CALF made their "First apperance" in court to stop live canadian cattle imports when it was obvious the usda was owned by the packing industry and was not doing their job,to protect the cattle industry..............good luck"


What was the date Hayboy?


~SH~
 
~SH~ said:
Hayboy: "R CALF made their "First apperance" in court to stop live canadian cattle imports when it was obvious the usda was owned by the packing industry and was not doing their job,to protect the cattle industry..............good luck"


What was the date Hayboy?


~SH~

Why don't you provide the date, scarecrow?
 
~SH~ said:
Who asked you compulsive liar?


~SH~

You can dish it out but you can't take it, eh, scarecrow? The yellow brick road is waiting for you.
 
What is your agenda anyway Conman?

What do producers possibly have to gain by listening to your unproven conspiracy theories and outright lies?

You do a great disservice to this industry by lying to it's producers.


~SH~
 
~SH~ wrote:
Quote:
T: "Scott are you telling us that if it had not been for R-CALF the border would have been open to live cattle under thirty months before March 7, 2005?"


Yes!

Quote:
T: "If you are saying that provide the proof to back your statement."


You already provided it Tommy:

Quote:
On November 4, 2003 USDA published a proposed rule seeking to designate Canada as a 'minimal-risk' country for BSE and seeking to permit the importation of fed and feeder cattle less than 30 months of age, as well as beef products from animals of all ages under certain conditions.



How can it be any clearer?


Tommy,

Why didn't you answer the following questions regarding the information you didn't provide?

Quote:
1. When did R-CALF make their FIRST appearance in court to stop Canadian live cattle imports Tommy? When was it?

2. R-CULT claims they were responsible for keeping the Canadian border closed for as long as they did? Are you saying that R-CULT lied about that TOO?

Answer the questions please.



~SH~

Scott from what I can find R-CALF made their first appearance in court to stop Canadian live cattle imports on December 9, 2004. Their previous appearances was about boneless beef and processed beef imports from Canada.

As far as keeping the border closed as long as they did. Are you asking about live cattle or boneless boxed beef and live cattle under thirty months?
They kept the border closed from Mar. 7, 2005 untill mid July 2005 to live cattle under thirty months from Canada with the injunction they filed.

I have been busy as HayMaker said, but have answered all your questions. Now you answer the rest of mine.
Do you understand what the word proposed means? Hint...it does not mean final.

The USDA proposed the rule in Dec. 2003 the final rule did not come about untill Dec.2004 and was to take affect Mar. 7 2005.
 
~SH~ said:
Hayboy: "R CALF made their "First apperance" in court to stop live canadian cattle imports when it was obvious the usda was owned by the packing industry and was not doing their job,to protect the cattle industry..............good luck"


What was the date Hayboy?


~SH~

May 2003,so what ?.....................good luck
 
Econ101 said:
~SH~ said:
Who asked you compulsive liar?


~SH~

Name one thing I have lied about. Be sure to bring your "proof".

SH, while you're providing proof and all the truth you embrace, how about filling in those blanks on Tyson's plant profits/losses. After all, you KNOW..... :roll:
 
T: "Scott from what I can find R-CALF made their first appearance in court to stop Canadian live cattle imports on December 9, 2004."

I rest my case! Thank you Tommy! R-CULT's legal actions stalled the Canadian border opening to live cattle. You know it, I know it, and everyone else knows it except Randy the packer blamer Kaiser.


Conman: "Name one thing I have lied about."

OH GIVE ME A FRICKIN' BREAK!!!

Who do you think your fooling by acting like you never lie?

I don't think there is an once of truth in you.

You said "prices can't go up unless supplies come down". That's a lie. PROVE ME WRONG!


Sandbag: "SH, while you're providing proof and all the truth you embrace, how about filling in those blanks on Tyson's plant profits/losses. After all, you KNOW..... "

I provided the information that backed my statement. You would not accept it. Now the burden is on you to back your allegation that I lied. $500 to anyone who can provide the proof that I lied.


~SH~
 
SH:
You said "prices can't go up unless supplies come down". That's a lie. PROVE ME WRONG!

I have challenged you many, many times to post the whole paragraph. That sentence belongs in context. Sometimes that is a correct statement. Do you believe that sentence is always incorrect or just under certain circumstances?

Bring forth the "proof", SH. I am waiting. I am waiting.
 
I even asked you if you said "prices can't go up unless the supply comes down" knowing I could pin your ass to the wall if you denied it. YOU SAID YES. Why would you deny it now after you said it then agreed to saying it?

Do you honestly think that anyone believes a word you say anymore?

Nobody has been proven wrong more times at this site than you have.

Your statement was not taken out of context and you admitted to saying it. Now you want to deny it. Are you John Kerry in disguise?

You're too ignorant to know that prices can go up due to increased demand (consumers paying more for beef) without supplies going down.

You were wrong and your simply too arrogant to admit it.

An easier question would be, when have you told the truth?


Bring forth the proof? I DON'T NEED TO BRING FORTH THE PROOF THAT CONSUMERS CAN PAY MORE WITHOUT SUPPLIES DECREASING. Any idiot who knows anything about economics knows that. Anyone can ask any retailer if consumers can pay more for beef without a change in supplies.


~SH~
 
SH, "provided the information that backed my statement. You would not accept it. Now the burden is on you to back your allegation that I lied. $500 to anyone who can provide the proof that I lied."

That is a lie, SH. If you provided the proof, you would be able to fill in the blanks. The truth is your only bias?

You're a dandy.
 
I don't need to fill in your stupid blanks to have provided the proof. I already provided the proof and you offered nothing to the contrary.

If you don't accept what I provided, where is your proof to the contrary?

It doesn't exist.


~SH~
 
~SH~ said:
I don't need to fill in your stupid blanks to have provided the proof. I already provided the proof and you offered nothing to the contrary.

If you don't accept what I provided, where is your proof to the contrary?

It doesn't exist.


~SH~

You could of made $100 if you could fill in the blanks. If you proved anything, you could fill in the blanks. You're lying like a rug when you say you provided proof.

You're a dandy.
 
You provided nothing to contradict my statement. The offer of $500 to anyone who can prove me wrong on my original statement still stands. There won't be any takers. You don't have any dogs that will hunt.


~SH~
 
~SH~ said:
You provided nothing to contradict my statement. The offer of $500 to anyone who can prove me wrong on my original statement still stands. There won't be any takers. You don't have any dogs that will hunt.


~SH~

Dumbass, I've posted half a dozen times that the information to prove your statement either way doesn't exist. Do you think I've somehow forgotten my position? You're really sticking your neck out and being a man with your $500 offer. :lol: Stand tall, SH.

You can't fill in the blanks, but you've offered proof. Liar, Liar, Liar :p :lol: :lol:
 
~SH~ said:
I even asked you if you said "prices can't go up unless the supply comes down" knowing I could pin your ass to the wall if you denied it. YOU SAID YES. Why would you deny it now after you said it then agreed to saying it?

Do you honestly think that anyone believes a word you say anymore?

Nobody has been proven wrong more times at this site than you have.

Your statement was not taken out of context and you admitted to saying it. Now you want to deny it. Are you John Kerry in disguise?

You're too ignorant to know that prices can go up due to increased demand (consumers paying more for beef) without supplies going down.

You were wrong and your simply too arrogant to admit it.

An easier question would be, when have you told the truth?


Bring forth the proof? I DON'T NEED TO BRING FORTH THE PROOF THAT CONSUMERS CAN PAY MORE WITHOUT SUPPLIES DECREASING. Any idiot who knows anything about economics knows that. Anyone can ask any retailer if consumers can pay more for beef without a change in supplies.


~SH~

Yes, SH, I probably said that. Now put it into context. Words or thoughts do not mean a whole lot as quotes unless they are quoted in context. Why do you stoop to such a low tactic in your arguing? Could it be you have no good arguments? I could lay out another scenario and say something else that holds only in that scenario. Will you take it out of context and argue again this same argument?

Like I said, you may need to ask the wizard for more than the average share just to catch up.
 
SH...I rest my case! Thank you Tommy! R-CULT's legal actions stalled the Canadian border opening to live cattle. You know it, I know it, and everyone else knows it except Randy the packer blamer Kaiser.

You rest your case?? You stated that live cattle would have been coming in simultaniously with boxed beef if it had not been for R-CALF. Mar. 2005 is a long way from being simultanious with Sept.2003. Talk about trying to decieve. We all know that the injunction kept the border closed for four months, you are the one who is saying that R-CALF kept it closed longer.

By the way you didn't answer my question. What does the word proposed mean??
 

Latest posts

Top