Tap,
You are dead on when you say that R-CALF is the equivelant of the Democratic party of the cattle industry.
Emotion over fact. More government mandates. Large corporations are all evil and out to screw the little guy. I'm going to sue. Blame!
You nailed it!
SDCA - Farm Bureau - NCBA - Thune/Busch
SDSGA - Farmers Union - R-CALF - Johnson/Daschle
It's as clear as a bell ringing in the morning isn't it?
I was told that Leo McDonnell had considered running for public office in Montana under the Democratic ticket. Is that a surprise?
Kathleen Kelly is a Democrat
Herman and Johnny were both supporting Daschle in the last election.
A tiger can't change it's stripes.
KF: "If we follow your line of thinking, dictated by the packers, the cattle industry will follow the way of the chicken and pork industries to complete vertical integration. I for one am opposed to vertical integration."
That follow up statement in itself is wrong.
Where do you get this idea that I support anything dictated by the packers? That's nothing more than a "catch phrase". Where's the explanation? Where's the proof?
It's just a statement with nothing to support it.
To the contrary, I support producers having more of a controlling interest in this industry. If you want to call it "vertical integration", let's call it what it is, "bottom up vertical integration" like USPB where producers own the product from pasture to plate. Pretty hard to be dictated to by the packers when you are the packer.
Let's look at the facts on this "chickenization of the beef industry" fear mongering.
Recent history - ibp sold to Tyson and Monfort sold to Swift & Co.
Isn't that interesting?
I thought successful packing companies that were making these huge $400 per head profits reported by Callicrate would be expanding, not selling.
What happened to Future Beef? Future Beef, which was also a producer driven packing venture, ended up belly up. Why? Primarily because they paid too much for yearlings and couldn't move the meat at a profitable level. Contrary to Austin's spin, Future Beef admitted to this being a primary factor in their demise.
As Tap correctly pointed out, isn't it interesting that those same LMA "industry saviors" who are telling us that there is no competition in the packing industry are also the same ones telling us that smaller packer companies cannot compete??? Now think about that. NO COMPETITION - CAN'T COMPETE????? How can smaller packing companies not compete if there's no competition? That doesn't make any sense. Neither does most of what the Livestock Marketing Police tell us while giving their market reports.
Unfortunately, the Livestock Marketing Police are never challenged for the facts that support their statements until they get in a courtroom and we all know how dismal their record in court is.
Doesn't it bother you that Judge Strom instructed the jurors in Pickett vs. IBP to disregard Mike's testimony because he found it to be untrue? Doesn't it bother you that Mike was telling everyone that ibp was raping producers to the tune of $400 per head only to find out that ibp's per head profits ended up being $26 per head IN THEIR MOST PROFITABLE YEARS via Pickett? Doesn't it bother you that Mike was telling you that "ibp stepped out of the cash market for 8 weeks" only to find that ibp had never been out of the cash market for even a week with actual procurement records subpoenoed into court? Doesn't it bother you that Mike said the ibp had contractual arrangements with Excel and Swift?
WHEN DOES THE TRUTH MATTER?????
Those were bold faced lies. Who benefits from lies?
No Kenny, had I stayed on as a director, things would have gotten ugly and I saw the "blaming road" that SDSGA was heading down and I wanted no part of it. Jim Houck and Scott Jones had the bigger picture. Although, I have to admit, had I not been concerned with the political ramifcations at the time, the debates would have been enjoyable to say the least. I love to challenge R-CALF followers for the facts that back their statements. Most just get mad.
Herman Schumacher, at his testimony in Washington D.C. stated that
"there is no greater proof of market manipulation than the retail to fat cattle price spread".
How ironic that USDA did a report on the falacies of people like Herman taking USDA's data and misinterpretting it. I guess Herman thinks he knows more about USDA's data than USDA. PAR FOR THE BLAMER'S COURSE!
Heck, I could have tore Herman's statement to shreds. The USDA "all choice" retail beef price reporting did not even include the prices paid for "select" beef or "no roll" or "standard". Gosh, on any given day, there is almost as many "select" cattle as there is "choice".
Even if the USDA "all choice retail beef price reporting had included "choice", "select", "standard", and "no roll", it would still tell you nothing about retail beef profits. What happens when beef is nearing expiration date and has not been sold? Retailers "sell it or they smell it". That's when you see beef sell at "featured prices" which, at the time of Herman's statement, were not included in the USDA all choice retail beef price reporting. Then if it doesn't sell at the featured sale price, it's discarded. What do you think that costs retailers?
No Kenny, one of the biggest problems facing producers is not the big bad evil corporate packer, it's the lack of understanding how the packing and retail beef industries operate and how that relates to live cattle prices.
When you guys were hoisting your beers because you temporarily stopped Canadian imports, ibp's Boise, ID and Pasco, Washington plants were shut down to 30% of capacity while still paying their labor force for a 32 hour work week. US plants had too few cattle, and Canadian plants had too many. Canadian producers were screwed even further because the Canadian packers had the leverage, due to a surplus of Canadian cattle that were not heading south, and losses in the US plants had to be compensated for, to some degree, by buying surplus cattle cheaper in Canada.
As far as "vertical integration", had I not held out for Northern Plains Premium Beef, I would have invested in US Premium Beef. How can a producer be dictated to by the packer when he is the packer? Producers own National Beef, and it is now called US Premium Beef. So tell me, where is this "chickenization" of the beef industry occuring? Can you provide an example?
Sorry, I don't buy the "chickenization of the beef industry" fear mongering any more than I buy anything that comes from the blaming camp. If you take the equity that is tied up in land, livestock, and machinery on the producer end and compare it to the equity on the packing end, it isn't hard to see who swings the big club. That's why you see producers investing in packing companies rather than packers investing in land, livestock, and machinery.
This victim mentality is a cancer that is destroying this industry. I've said it before and I'll say it again, not one more dime will come into this industry unless it comes from the consumer.
Sandman: "Maybe we should have a poll here and ask only let those who have read your posts for at least 6 months to vote and we'll see how many believe you are telling the truth with that statement."
Talk is cheap isn't it Austin?
Why do you always rely on creating "ILLUSIONS" with your phony polls of your packer blaming support group as opposed to bringing the facts to contradict what I have stated?
Because it's easier to make statements and create "ILLUSIONS" than it is to back your position with supporting facts isn't it? A time honored tradition with the R-CALF crowd.
Sandman: "These lawsuits were brought because the packers are using their power to limit money to the producers."
That was the allegation. That allegation was not proven and that's precisely why the packer blamers lost their court case. When you get into a court room, cheap talk is not going to earn you a verdict. You either provide the proof to back the allegation or you go home with your tail tucked between your legs. Does that sound like a statement that backs packers? Of course it would to a packer blamer but what it is is a statement that backs the "PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENSE" a concept which is foreign to most R-CALF supporters.
The latest lawsuit holding the packers responsible for USDA's mistake was just as factually void. I'm still waiting for the proof that Tyson, Excel, and Swift knew that USDA's numbers were flawed while National didn't.
The appeal will be interesting.
This has never been about pro producer vs. pro packer as you would like to spin it. This is about facts vs. baseless unsupported allegations.
You are still challenged to bring the facts that prove that ibp manipulated the markets with formula cattle. All you guys ever brought to the table was the fact that ibp lowered their prices in the cash market due to their purchases in the formula market which nothing more than a normal supply and demand relation. Just like the order buyer in the sale barn dropping the price he is willing to pay for calves due to the number of cattle he bought on Superior Livestock. Same thing!
Sandman: "This version of M-COOL is not what R-CALF wanted, You know that. It was the best they could get and a start so it was accepted."
Leo McDonnell said that "M"COOL was a good law as it was written. It was R-CALF that kept saying over and over, "don't consumers have a right to know where their beef comes from" and once it became painfully obvious that tracking beef was going to require tracking cattle, R-CALF went to work watering down their own law because their producers "didn't want to be burdened with a traceback system". R-CALF took a position against "M"ID and removed the only means of enforcing this flawed law.
When R-CALF was parroting, "don't consumers have a right to know where their beef comes from", they didn't mean EXACTLY where it came from, just what country 5% of the beef was from??
WOW, REAL CATERING TO CONSUMER NEEDS THERE HUH? R-CALF eliminated exactly what consumers did want and were willing to pay for and that was source verification. More of the same from R-CALF!
Then they said it was just like the school lunch program which was absolutely untrue. The requirements for the school lunch program are not the same as the requirements for "M"COOL.
No, you get full credit for this flawed piece of legislation which was once again driven by emotion and not fact.
The "food service exemption" was an absolute "no brainer" because it became painfully obvious that it would have been a logistic nightmare to label the beef on every Taco John taco, every Big Mac, every Ball Park Hot Dog, every Dominos hamburger Pizza, etc. etc.
All based on the ignorance of where our cattle end up.
AND FOR WHAT?????
Consumers were never asking for it, it was driven by isolationists that actually believe the country of origin labeling is more important to the consumer than a valid traceback system. Meanwhile, the parking lots are filled with foreign cars.
Sandman: "But yet you support the USDA prohibiting packers the ability to BSE test for export markets per their customer's requests. That is limited government involvement?"
Creekstone admitted their bse tests would not reveal bse prions in cattle under 24 months of age when Fielding said, "BSE tested does not mean BSE free". WELL, WHY TEST THEN??? I'll tell you why, to create an "ILLUSION of safety". Creekstone was advocating consumer fraud for financial gain and none of you Creekstone advocates have provided a stitch of proof that the Japanese government would have accepted BSE tested beef. Nothing but a statement. More "ILLUSIONS". Yeh, I would expect USDA to take a stand on creating an "ILLUSION" of safety.
To take your silly argument to the next step you would say that the FDA is standing in the way of the free market by not allowing private companies to approve drugs.
You are an advocate of consumer fraud, I'm not.
Sandman: "Of course they would say that. That is the truth from THEIR ANGLE. There are less expenses (and more profit) dealing in commodity beef. R-CALF is taking the angle PRODUCERS. There is more profit if somebody sells beef from YOUR cattle than somebody elses. To not understand this is to not understand basic business."
No, it was just a fact. "M"COOL would require records of origin on every animal coming into the plant and would require that those same animals be tracked to the 300 individual packages of beef they become. AND FOR WHAT AGAIN???? CONSUMERS WEREN'T ASKING FOR IT! Adding this expenes to the industry only to label a 5% sliver of imported beef MAKING IT A RARE NOVELTY ITEM at the cost of labeling all beef???
Make no mistake, R-CALF is advocating the segregation of 5% of our beef at the cost of labeling all beef, based on ignorance of consumer purchases, which would have resulted in lower cattle prices to pay for something that consumers were not asking for.
ALL FOAM AND NO BEER!
If consumers want country of origin labeling they can buy source verified branded beef and know exactly where it came from.
"M"COOL was an absolute emotionally driven "please government save us from ourselves again" joke.
Sandman: "MPR is wrecking havoc?"
That's what the whole case in Aberdeen was based on. The government's inability to report prices WITHOUT VALUE INFORMATION, which resulted in lower cattle prices.
Thank you R-CALF and anyone else that supported MPR ("please government, save us from ourselves again")!
Sandman: "R-CALF is not suddenly concerned, they always have been. Your comment shows how little you know about what R-CALF is about. I've posted many releases from them on FTA's with Korea and other countries. Maybe you missed them?"
You can't spin Bill Bullard's statement Austin, he said flat out, "You don't need an export market to distribute your production". How do you take that statement out of context?
Leo McDonnell on the other hand, had said that he felt we should be using checkoff dollars to expand our export markets.
Isn't that interesting? Leo wants to expand our export markets and Bullard thinks we'd be better off without any trade. WILL THE REAL R-CALF PLEASE STEP FORWARD! This is the typical, "take a position as it fits the situation" R-CALF approach to conducting business.
I'd love to see a vote on R-CALF's members on whether or not they oppose foreign trade. That might be as revealing to you as their position on traceback which slam dunked your idea that R-CALF was not opposed to "M"ID.
Sandman: "And he is incorrect how?"
Haha! As always, rather than proving him correct, you ask how he's incorrect. LOL! How you of you!
He's incorrect by the fact that prior to BSE we had a 7 year average $1.3 "BILLION" dollar trade surplus in the trade of beef, live cattle, beef variety meats and hides. That's how he's wrong. Leo McDonnell's previous position on expanding foreign trade was right. Bullards is wrong. Who knows what R-CALF's official position on trade is. By keeping the resolutions to a minimum, it allows more flexibility in changing your position to fit the situation. LOL!
Sandman: "Here's some of the "truth" USDA has told the media; "For a bovine to contract the disease, it must essentially eat material contaminated with the disease. The 1997 FDA feed ban prevents this." - Don't we have the same feed ban as Canada - a country that now has 3 POST-BAN cases?"
You tell me Austin! Bring the proof that contradicts what USDA stated instead of creating your relentless "ILLUSIONS" again. Your questioning USDA does not prove them wrong. PROVE THEM WRONG AUSTIN! BRING IT! Talk is cheap!
Sandman: (qouting USDA): "Using existing testing methods, BSE is not detectable until shortly before a cow develops symptoms." - Is this the truth, SH?"
If it's not, step up to the plate and prove them wrong. Talk is cheap Austin and so are your "ILLUSIONS" of USDA being wrong simply by questioning them.
If USDA is wrong, prove it!
In comparison, when R-CALF stated that "USDA does not care about food safety" and that "Canadian beef is contaminated and high risk", those were BOLD FACED LIES!
Nice diversion from having to defend R-CALF's lies to the media.
Sandman: " This is why no country in the world tests 100 percent of its animals". - Is that the truth, SH?"
Again, if USDA is wrong, PROVE THEM WRONG!
Sandman: "I think it is better to increase demand for those chucks by not substituting with product from some other country - product from US producer's competitors. The more uses you have for a product, the more the demand is. Using Aussie lean in place of US chucks decreases demand for those chucks."
The problem is, you don't understand what constitutes "DEMAND". Demand is a PRICE/QUANTITY RELATIONSHIP. We've been through this and you didn't get it last time so I don't expect you to get it this time. There is an extremely limited demand for a 50% fat hamburger. That demand is basically dogfood value. We have a ton of 50/50 trim produced from all those "choice" Yield Grade 3 carcasses. The only way to increase the value of that 50/50 trim is to lean it down to at least 30% fat before anyone wants it. At that point you have a product that is worth much less than 90/10 trim. Don't believe me, take a walk through Walmart and look at how 90/10, 80/20, and 70/30 is priced. You might not even find 70/30. Now keep in mind that 50% of all our beef is sold at "food service", not just Walmart and Safeway.
Ok, so if you agree that we can increase the value of 50/50 trim by leaning it down to 70/30 to top a Domino's pizza, then how do you go about doing that?
You have one of two choices, you either devalue the chucks and rounds by grinding them up so you can wave your "US PRODUCT" flag and lower cattle prices because you think it's better for US produced chucks and rounds to be ground up rather than go into value added products, or you import CHEAP lean trimmings from Australian grass fed and New Zealand grass fed beef and add value to the trim.
You say "the more uses you have for a product, the more demand is", there is only so many uses for 70/30 lean ground beef and there is virtually no use for 50/50. If you try to sell 70/30 at a higher price due to having more money tied up into grinding domestic chucks and rounds, CONSUMERS HAVE OTHER PROTEIN CHOICES.
Don't believe me, ask one of the smaller packers that blend 50/50 trim with imported lean trimmings how long they would be in the business if they had to buy chucks and rounds for grinding since there is only so many cull cows available. Ask them what happens if they pay too much for cull cows and try to charge accordingly for their 70/30 ground beef. ASK THEM! Then ask them what they would be willing to pay for 50/50 trim if it's only value was dogfood.
You just can't see past the word "IMPORT" can you?
Sandman: "R-CALF knows US producers don't make a dime when their competitor's product is substituted for theirs. Basic business once again."
No, that's what R-CALF "BELIEVES", the fact remains that if producers are adding value to their chucks and rounds rather than grinding them and producers 50/50 trim is worth more money due to the fact that it can be blended with CHEAP imported lean trimmings, producers receive more money for their cattle.
You only have three choices with the 50/50 trim.
1. You sell it as dogfood while you sell chucks and rounds as a value added product.
2. You devalue the chucks and rounds and grind them to blend with the trim creating lower cattle prices due to the fact that chucks and rounds now have less value.
3. You import cheap lean trimmings, blend it with the 50/50 trim, and add value to the chucks and rounds.
Only a business idiot would choose option one or option two over option three.
To the contrary, in this case, when imported beef is substituted for ours, it ends up creating more value for our cattle. Never mind, I know you can't get past the word "IMPORT" can you?
Sandman: "Intent or not, that is exactly what has happened."
Doesn't matter Austin! 95% of the beef at the retail counter IS US BEEF and the benefits from segregating the other 5% as "imported product" will not cover the costs.
It's just one more of those empty "packer blamer" arguments.
Sandman: "I submit your own words, "How ironic that we just came off the highest cattle prices ever recorded with the same level of packer concentration and virtually the same level of captive supplies" Do you honestly believe captive supplies are the only factor affecting our markets??? Seriously, DO YOU?????"
Ask your R-CALF brethren that question Austin, not me. I know how many factors affect live cattle prices. Nobody brings more of that information to this forum than Agman. You certainly don't!
Sandman: "In a tight margin business such as ranching and feeding, those are big numbers. Basic business once again."
But the fact remains, trade is not a one way street. Banning Canadian live cattle and beef imports due to an inability to see past the word "IMPORT" does not remove those cattle or that beef from the world market. What we would gain by stopping imports we lose in reduced exports.
I'm not afraid to trade, you are.
The other thing you "isolationists" fail to understand is that beef is not the only thing we are getting from Canada. Should we shut off their water, power, and oil too?
All you can see is the little picture in your mind of a Canadian truck hauling cattle to the feedlots in the United States but where's the complaints about the Beef that we historically shipped to Mexico?
US cattlemen are best served with our historic $1.3 "BILLION" dollar trade surplus, not building a fence around the United States because a hand full of "isolationists" are afraid to trade. I want more money for cattle, not less. The trade picture is bigger than simpy seeing Canadian trucks running down the road.
Sandman: "Name one that you can actually prove. Rumors don't cut it."
Lloyd Debrucker (sp?)
Why did Leo defend R-CALF members buying Canadian cattle if it never happened Sandbag? How do you defend that? Yeh, that's what I thought!
Sandman: " The man is expanding his business. What does that tell you?"
What should it tell me Austin?
Yet another "illusion"?
Then perhaps it's time for R-CALF to do a follow up article on whether or not he's making those "HUGE" $400 per head profits that he's been telling everyone about.
I don't believe much that he says but I have a hard time believing he would say his company had yet to realize a profit and that it was suffering from "consumer apathy" unless that was true. Why would he lie about his own company which is in direct conflict with those "HUGE PROFITS" he told us about.
You bet! Packers are screwing us to the tune of $400 per head but Mike's only paying a premium of $50 per head for better cattle and charging consumers 10% to 20% more for the beef. You bet Austin! Those numbers really add up don't they? Keep defending him. The man who had his testimony thrown out in Pickett.
Sandman: Making $26 on an animal you own for two weeks is far better than a producer making $100 on a the calf of a cow they own for a year. Basic business."
Doesn't change the fact that ibp only made $26 per head IN THEIR BEST YEARS and that is how it affects individual producers. Basic business.
Sandman: "If packing is not a profitable business, why the expansion and the consolidation. Businesses don't try to get deeper in unprofitable industries."
Nobody said the packing industry was not profitable. The packing industry is simply not as profitable as the packer blamers would lead others to believe as was proven in Pickett.
If the packing industry was SO PROFITABLE, why did ibp sell to Tyson instead of expanding? Why did Monfort sell to Swift instead of expanding? Why did National sell to USPB instead of expanding?
Why did Armour, Wilson, Swift, Cudahey and Morris become ibp, Excel, Monfort, National?
Why did Future Beef go broke?
Sometimes the obvious is simply too obvious for someone who runs on emotion rather than fact.
Sandman: "There is a multitude of reasons any company can go broke. You chide Kenny for focusing on one possibility for increasing cattle prices, but then you do the same with Future Beef."
Future Beef listed the prices they paid for yearlings in relation to the price of boxed beef being one of the primary nails in the coffin. Never said it was the ONLY reason.
Another "illusion".
Sandman: "First off, R-CALF is not advocating isolationism. Secondly, your NCBA said losing Japan cost us $175 per head. We have now seen that Japan was asking for tested beef, but the USDA (with your vocal support) banned testing. $28 - $175 - who is willing to give up money?"
Oh cut the "ILLUSIONIST" crap! Show me an official Japanese government statement claiming that Japan would have been willing to accept BSE tested beef from cattle less than 24 months of age WITH TESTS THAT WOULD NOT REVEAL BSE PRIONS EVEN IF THEY WERE THERE.
The reason we lost the Japanese market was BECAUSE WE HAD BSE, not because we wouldn't deceive their consumers with a fraudulent test.
BSE TESTED does not mean BSE FREE! USDA stood on prinicple here that deceiving Japanese consumers was not the route to go. Guess what, we regained that market without testing. Now how the hell did we gain the Japenese market without testing IF THEY WERE DEMANDING TESTING???
Does that even make sense to you???
The only reason we aren't exporting there today is because a SMALL packing company failed to abide by our agreement with Japan to not send any bone-in beef.
Here Japan has already accepted untested BSE beef and you want to continue to support duping their consumers with BSE tested beef THAT WOULD NOT REVEAL BSE PRIONS EVEN IF THEY WERE THERE.
That's just par for your deceptive nature.
Sandman: "As I've said before, you must of missed my many postings on R-CALF supporting trade. They're still here for you to go back in the archives. I suggest you educate yourself."
Haha! Listen to you! Gosh you have just brought so many facts to the table to bury me haven't you? LOL! If it wasn't for "empty statements", "questions", and creating "illusions", you wouldn't bring anything to the table.
I'd suggest you educate yourself but your need to blame overwhelms your ability to learn.
Sandman: "I suggest you compare the number of years the checkoff has been operational and how many of those same years beef demand increased/decreased."
After lecturing me on singling out a single factor to blame or credit cattle markets on, you throw that at me? Hahaha! Too funny!
Your deception and spinning ability will certainly earn you a position with R-CALF someday. No doubt about it!
Sandman: "You make this comment after calling Callicrate a purjorer, when he has not even been charged with purjory."
Mike Callicrate lied under oath. That is perjury by definition. Having to be brought up on perjury charges to have committed perjury is just one more of your many deceptive spin jobs. You don't change your story on the stand unless you are lying and Mike's history of lying is well documented in court.
Tyson dismissed jurors because they were black, YOU BET!
Sandman: "And nobody will ever prosper in if they are being cheated and runover by those with abusive market power."
Where's the facts to back that canned R-CALF rally cry?
Pickett - LOST
Pickett on appeal - LOST
Pickett review at Supreme Court level - LOST
Talk is cheap!
Bring the proof of market power abuse Austin!
This wasn't Callicrate and Company's first defeat. They also lost the same case in Kansas.
At some point you have to have to "back the smack".
You packer blamers have wasted a lot of time and money chasing ghosts. Win or lose, R-CALF's lawyers get paid either way.
Sandman: "You tell us that, because of competition between the packers, prices just can not be lowered. Yet, you now say this is exactly what is going to happen. You contradict yourself. Either competition supports prices, or packers can simply lower their prices at will (such as when they have legal bills)."
There is no contradiction Austin! Another "illusion"!
The fines were levied to Tyson, Excel, and Swift equally removing equity from all of their plants equally. Had this fine only been leveled to Tyson, then Swift and Excel would have had a clear advantage but if this award stands, they will all be fined equally and will have that much less money to pay for cattle. Basic business!
Sandman: "Tyson is 1/3 of the fat market. Basic business tells you they have market power and their actions effect the markets even if unintentional. Can you name one order buyer that is anything close to Tyson's size? You can't because there is none. Thus, there is no market power there."
Basic business tells me that there is a 70% market outside of Tyson. There is only so many cattle out there. Slaughter capacity has been built to that level of cattle. If Tyson has most of their needs filled with formula cattle, there is that many less cattle for Swift, Excel, and USPB.
Market competition is not defined by more bidders, market competition is defined by who has the most money in their pocket to spend.
Tyson's market power allows them to pay more for cattle than their compeition OR THEY WOULDN'T GET THEM BOUGHT!
Basic business!
Sandman: "Then explain to us how they can lower their prices to pay their court fines"
Because the fines were leveled at all of them equally removing that level of buying power from the market. Peter will get robbed to pay Paul and the packer blamers will consider that a victory because they simply don't know any better.
Sandman: "That is in itself a lie. Being "incorrect" is not the same as lying."
Hahaha! Listen to you!
Bring me the proof that Tyson dismissed jurors BECAUSE they were black!
Bring me the proof that ibp (before Tyson) stepped out of the cash market for 8 weeks.
Bring me the proof of these "HUGE" $400 per head profits.
Bring me the proof that Mike never changed his story in Pickett!
Brine me the proof that Tyson had contractual arrangements with other packers.
MIKE HAD HIS WHOLE TESTIMONY THROWN OUT OF PICKETT and you want to defend him? Be my guest. All that says is how brainwashed you are to believe someone that says what you want to hear.
Your deceptive spin and diversion is absolutely repulsive. You don't even have the integrity to admit when one of your own can't tell the truth.
BURY ME AUSTIN! Bring me the proof to prove me wrong! All you have is "empty statements" and "illusions" backed by your need to find someone or something to blame. You never prove anything you say or disprove anything I say.
Sandman: "And the SDCA had Dittmer. Nothing else needs to be said"
Diversion! What have you brought to the table to prove Dittmer wrong? "ILLUSIONS" I presume!
Sandman: "Practice what you preach. Each of your childish names that you label so many here is a personal attack. How many banker jabs have you tossed my way."
I treat people the way they treat me or the way they deserve to be treated. You've thrown your share of jabs so spare me your "high moral ground" speach.
I find you repulsive because you are deceptive and dishonest.
Just once I would like to see you take a quote of mine and bring the facts that contradict it. If you were left with that as your only option of debate, you wouldn't be here.
You are so dishonest that you take Agman's calendar year 2004 data as fact to win a bet then question that same data when it doesn't agree with what you believe. Did you prove me wrong on my original statement that Boise and Pasco lost more money than Lakeside gained while the border was closed? NO WAY! ....and you never will.
You are without question one of the most deceptive individuals I have ever met in my life and knowing that you are lending people money just turns my stomach.
~SH~