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

Missed YOU SH.

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
SH: "As long as Conman keeps lying and deceiving, he will be addressed accordingly and I'd gladly say it to his face. I have no time for liars or deceivers and that intolerance will continue to be reflected in my posts. If you don't like it DON'T READ IT!"

Name the lies and deceit, SH.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
SH, "As long as Sandbag keeps spining and diverting, he'll be addressed accordingly."

This coming from the board master of spinning and diverting! :lol: :lol: :lol:

How does spinning and diverting translate into a Sandbag? Every Sandbag I see just sits there. :roll: :lol: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
For the record, I didn't miss either one of you pathetic ^[email protected]%*[email protected]#^.

The only reason I'm here is to correct your relentless lies and deception.


Sandbag: "This coming from the board master of spinning and diverting!"

More Sandbag cheap talk with nothing to support it. Same-O "factually void" Sandbag!


Conman: "Name the lies and deceit, SH."

You're lies and deceit have been addressed repeatedly and I'm not going to play your little "ILLUSION" games of listing them all again.

I get sick and tired of your "circus chicken" act of dancing around the truth. You are an example of the worst aspects of the human race.

Just to entertain you, you said that Judge Strom was influenced by "back door meetings".

That was a lie.

Prove otherwise you two bit phony! Bring the proof of these "back door meetings".

Watch the "ILLUSION" folks...............


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
For the record, I didn't miss either one of you pathetic ^[email protected]%*[email protected]#^.

The only reason I'm here is to correct your relentless lies and deception.


Sandbag: "This coming from the board master of spinning and diverting!"

More Sandbag cheap talk with nothing to support it. Same-O "factually void" Sandbag!


Conman: "Name the lies and deceit, SH."

You're lies and deceit have been addressed repeatedly and I'm not going to play your little "ILLUSION" games of listing them all again.

I get sick and tired of your "circus chicken" act of dancing around the truth. You are an example of the worst aspects of the human race.

Just to entertain you, you said that Judge Strom was influenced by "back door meetings".

That was a lie.

Prove otherwise you two bit phony! Bring the proof of these "back door meetings".

Watch the "ILLUSION" folks...............


~SH~

We sure missed your pleasant and mature posts. :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
SH: "Just to entertain you, you said that Judge Strom was influenced by "back door meetings".

That was a lie. "

SH, can you prove that Judge Strom did not talk to anyone about the case outside of the court room setting?

If not, you can not prove it was a lie.

My point was not about Strom, if you go back and read my posts carefully, but about the 11th circuit court. Why are you diverting to Judge Strom on this one? Did you think I was going to forget what I said just because you did?
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
Sandhusker said:
~SH~ said:
For the record, I didn't miss either one of you pathetic ^[email protected]%*[email protected]#^.

The only reason I'm here is to correct your relentless lies and deception.


Sandbag: "This coming from the board master of spinning and diverting!"

More Sandbag cheap talk with nothing to support it. Same-O "factually void" Sandbag!


Conman: "Name the lies and deceit, SH."

You're lies and deceit have been addressed repeatedly and I'm not going to play your little "ILLUSION" games of listing them all again.

I get sick and tired of your "circus chicken" act of dancing around the truth. You are an example of the worst aspects of the human race.

Just to entertain you, you said that Judge Strom was influenced by "back door meetings".

That was a lie.

Prove otherwise you two bit phony! Bring the proof of these "back door meetings".

Watch the "ILLUSION" folks...............


~SH~

We sure missed your pleasant and mature posts. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Yes, they are like a good steak----rare.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Oh but you packer blamers keep coming back for more hoping to find validity in at least one of your empty arguments.

Illusionists like Sandbag believe that if they can legitimately discredit one of the positions of the fact providers, they can call all of their positions into question without having to back their own position with supporting facts. That's exactly how illusionists like Sandbag operate.


SH, can you prove that Judge Strom did not talk to anyone about the case outside of the court room setting?

If not, you can not prove it was a lie.

The burden of proof falls on the accuser, not the accused. It's not Judge Strom's position to prove he didn't have back door meetings, it's your responsibility to prove he did because you told the lie.

If you can't prove back door meetings, you lied. It's that simple.


My point was not about Strom, if you go back and read my posts carefully, but about the 11th circuit court. Why are you diverting to Judge Strom on this one? Did you think I was going to forget what I said just because you did?

Your point was absolutely about Judge Strom. To suggest it was not is another of your damn lies.

You just covered one lie with another lie and you have the nerve to request proof of your lies and deception?????

What a complete phony!



~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
Oh but you packer blamers keep coming back for more hoping to find validity in at least one of your empty arguments.

Illusionists like Sandbag believe that if they can legitimately discredit one of the positions of the fact providers, they can call all of their positions into question without having to back their own position with supporting facts. That's exactly how illusionists like Sandbag operate.


SH, can you prove that Judge Strom did not talk to anyone about the case outside of the court room setting?

If not, you can not prove it was a lie.

The burden of proof falls on the accuser, not the accused. It's not Judge Strom's position to prove he didn't have back door meetings, it's your responsibility to prove he did because you told the lie.

If you can't prove back door meetings, you lied. It's that simple.


My point was not about Strom, if you go back and read my posts carefully, but about the 11th circuit court. Why are you diverting to Judge Strom on this one? Did you think I was going to forget what I said just because you did?

Your point was absolutely about Judge Strom. To suggest it was not is another of your damn lies.

You just covered one lie with another lie and you have the nerve to request proof of your lies and deception?????

What a complete phony!



~SH~

Where is the lie, SH? Can you prove it? The burden of proof is on the accuser.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
If you can't prove the behind door meetings, WHICH YOU CAN'T, then you lied.

The burden of proof falls on you to prove your allegation.

Where is your proof of these behind door meetings you damn phony?



~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
If you can't prove the behind door meetings, WHICH YOU CAN'T, then you lied.

The burden of proof falls on you to prove your allegation.

Where is your proof of these behind door meetings you damn phony?



~SH~

Where is your proof that Mike Calicrate is a purjurer?
 

Tommy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
755
Reaction score
0
Location
South East Kansas
SH...The burden of proof falls on you to prove your allegation.

Scott you always say that it is the accuser who must prove not the accused. Is there a different standard when it is you that is the accuser?

Not saying Econ is right or wrong, but it is up to you to prove him wrong.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
If you can't prove the behind door meetings, WHICH YOU CAN'T, then you lied.

The burden of proof falls on you to prove your allegation.

Where is your proof of these behind door meetings you damn phony?



~SH~

Have you asked the appellate court members or are you just stating your opinion?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag: "Where is your proof that Mike Calicrate is a purjurer?"

He changed his story, he lies continually, and Judge Strom instructed the jurors to disregard his testimony because he found his testimony to be untrue!

Liars change their stories when they get caught lying. Too bad Judge Strom did not bring him up on perjury charges.

You got nothing here either Sandbag. Another empty tree for you to bark up. Callicrates lies are well documented. You defend liars like Mike and Conman because they are both singing your packer blaming song.

You're as big a phony as they are.


Tommy: "Scott you always say that it is the accuser who must prove not the accused. Is there a different standard when it is you that is the accuser?"

This is a perfect example of what I am talking about. Here Conman says that ibp has had "behind closed door meetings" with the Judges in the Pickett case WITHOUT OFFERING ANY PROOF FOR THE ALLEGATION. Did Tommy question him? OF COURSE NOT! Why? BECAUSE IT SUPPORTS TOMMY'S BIAS.

Conman, asks me for proof that he lied? Tommy then jumps onto Conman's bandwagon also demanding proof that he lied.

WHERE THE HELL IS YOUR REQUEST FOR HIS PROOF OF THE BEHIND DOOR MEETINGS TOMMY???

I know Conman is lying because he never offered any proof to back the allegation and he lies continually.

See what a hypocrite you are Tommy?

If it supports what you want to believe, you don't question it. If it doesn't support what you want to believe, then you question it.


It is not up to me to prove that Conman lied, it is up to him to back his allegation of these "SUPPOSED" behind closed door meetings.

He won't bring the proof because it doesn't exist and he knows it or he would have sunk his teeth into it like a rabid dog!

If you want to expound on your hypocrisy some more Tommy, let me feed you some more rope.



~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
Sandbag: "Where is your proof that Mike Calicrate is a purjurer?"

He changed his story, he lies continually, and Judge Strom instructed the jurors to disregard his testimony because he found his testimony to be untrue!

Liars change their stories when they get caught lying. Too bad Judge Strom did not bring him up on perjury charges.

You got nothing here either Sandbag. Another empty tree for you to bark up. Callicrates lies are well documented. You defend liars like Mike and Conman because they are both singing your packer blaming song.

You're as big a phony as they are.


Tommy: "Scott you always say that it is the accuser who must prove not the accused. Is there a different standard when it is you that is the accuser?"

This is a perfect example of what I am talking about. Here Conman says that ibp has had "behind closed door meetings" with the Judges in the Pickett case WITHOUT OFFERING ANY PROOF FOR THE ALLEGATION. Did Tommy question him? OF COURSE NOT! Why? BECAUSE IT SUPPORTS TOMMY'S BIAS.

Conman, asks me for proof that he lied? Tommy then jumps onto Conman's bandwagon also demanding proof that he lied.

WHERE THE HELL IS YOUR REQUEST FOR HIS PROOF OF THE BEHIND DOOR MEETINGS TOMMY???

I know Conman is lying because he never offered any proof to back the allegation and he lies continually.

See what a hypocrite you are Tommy?

If it supports what you want to believe, you don't question it. If it doesn't support what you want to believe, then you question it.


It is not up to me to prove that Conman lied, it is up to him to back his allegation of these "SUPPOSED" behind closed door meetings.

He won't bring the proof because it doesn't exist and he knows it or he would have sunk his teeth into it like a rabid dog!

If you want to expound on your hypocrisy some more Tommy, let me feed you some more rope.



~SH~
SH:

This is a perfect example of what I am talking about. Here Conman says that ibp has had "behind closed door meetings" with the Judges in the Pickett case WITHOUT OFFERING ANY PROOF FOR THE ALLEGATION. Did Tommy question him? OF COURSE NOT! Why? BECAUSE IT SUPPORTS TOMMY'S BIAS.

Oh, is that what I said, SH? Better get your story straight. Maybe you just dreamed I said it was ibp who had the meetings with the judges.

As for your request for "proof", I have already asked you to go get the trial transcripts and all calculations released. You have not done it yet. Why won't you do it?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Quote:
Sandbag: "Where is your proof that Mike Calicrate is a purjurer?"


Sh, "He changed his story, he lies continually, and Judge Strom instructed the jurors to disregard his testimony because he found his testimony to be untrue! Liars change their stories when they get caught lying. Too bad Judge Strom did not bring him up on perjury charges."

You say he is a jurjuror, but then say "too bad Judge Strom did not bring him up on perjury charges" :lol: :lol: :lol: How the heck can be be guilty of purjory if he wasn't even brought up on charges? :lol: :lol:
Are you just providing the "ILLUSION" of purjory? :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Perjury, by definition, is LYING UNDER OATH. Perjury, by definition, is not BEING CONVICTED OF PERJURY.

Mike doesn't have to be CONVICTED OF PERJURY to have lied under oath you "ILLUSIONIST". That's your deceptive spin job.

I said Mike committed perjury, I did not say he was convicted of perjury.

Keep creating your "ILLUSIONS" Sandbag. Same-O deceptive you!

It was obvious that Mike lied when he changed his story. For whatever reason, Judge Strom chose not to bring him up on charges but rather had the jury dismiss his testimony.

What more proof that Mile lied does anyone need than the Judge ordering the jury to disregard Mike's testimony?

Can't dance around that fact Sandbag but everyone knows you can dance. Nobody dances around the truth better than you.


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
Perjury, by definition, is LYING UNDER OATH. Perjury, by definition, is not BEING CONVICTED OF PERJURY.

Mike doesn't have to be CONVICTED OF PERJURY to have lied under oath you "ILLUSIONIST". That's your deceptive spin job.

I said Mike committed perjury, I did not say he was convicted of perjury.

Keep creating your "ILLUSIONS" Sandbag. Same-O deceptive you!

It was obvious that Mike lied when he changed his story. For whatever reason, Judge Strom chose not to bring him up on charges but rather had the jury dismiss his testimony.

What more proof that Mile lied does anyone need than the Judge ordering the jury to disregard Mike's testimony?

Can't dance around that fact Sandbag but everyone knows you can dance. Nobody dances around the truth better than you.


~SH~

So you get to determine guilt in the United States, SH? When was that power bestowed upon you? I thought we still had a jury system for proving guilt. Oh, now it isn't even judges, it is plain old gopher trappers who get to determine guilt.

Did you ask the judges to release the trial transcripts yet?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
Perjury, by definition, is LYING UNDER OATH. Perjury, by definition, is not BEING CONVICTED OF PERJURY.

Mike doesn't have to be CONVICTED OF PERJURY to have lied under oath you "ILLUSIONIST". That's your deceptive spin job.

I said Mike committed perjury, I did not say he was convicted of perjury.

Keep creating your "ILLUSIONS" Sandbag. Same-O deceptive you!

It was obvious that Mike lied when he changed his story. For whatever reason, Judge Strom chose not to bring him up on charges but rather had the jury dismiss his testimony.

What more proof that Mile lied does anyone need than the Judge ordering the jury to disregard Mike's testimony?

Can't dance around that fact Sandbag but everyone knows you can dance. Nobody dances around the truth better than you.


~SH~

Fine, prove he lied under oath.

What is Judge Strom doing allowing a jurjorer to testify in his court?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman: "So you get to determine guilt in the United States, SH? When was that power bestowed upon you? I thought we still had a jury system for proving guilt. Oh, now it isn't even judges, it is plain old gopher trappers who get to determine guilt."

The judge told the jury to disregard his testimony because he found it to be untrue. Mike changed his story. That's all the proof I need. Mike made a claim that he could not prove then changed his story when his lie was discovered.


Conman: "Did you ask the judges to release the trial transcripts yet?"

Why would I?

The burden of proof is on you to prove that ibp manipulated the markets. You can't prove it. The proof doesn't exist. You packer blamers lost the case and you lost it on appeal.


Sandbag: "Fine, prove he lied under oath."

Changing your story now huh?

I already proved he lied. Mike changed his story and the judge responded by instructing the jurors to disregard his testimony.

Aside from that, he has been caught in numerous lies.

You got nothing here Sandbag!


Sandbag: "What is Judge Strom doing allowing a jurjorer to testify in his court?"

Where on earth did that come from?




~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Conman: "Did you ask the judges to release the trial transcripts yet?"


SH: Why would I?

Econ: So you can see the proof that was presented in the trial.
 

Latest posts

Top