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

Pig Wrestling, part 1

Sandhusker

Well-known member
A comment to SH, "I understand GIPSA did all they could to NOT to investigate. So does Tom Harkin, Joan Waterford, Saxby Chambliss, etc... You commented that nothing was wrong there."

SH's accusation, "You liar! I commented that nothing had been PROVEN wrong there. A political allegation that makes packer blamers happy is not proof. I want to hear GIPSA's side of the argument rather than being a packer blaming lemming."

My followup, "Here's a reminder of what you said, SH, on 2/9/06, "There is nothing wrong with how GIPSA is being run."

I think you owe me an apology, SH. I don't see the word "proven" anywhere in your comment of 2/9/06. You called me a liar - it rather looks like you're just flapping your lips with your usual nonsense again.

A penny for your thoughts? (take it, it's a nickel more than they're worth). :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Apology my ass!

Until you show me proof of market manipulation that was reported and not investigated, YOU GOT NOTHING! GIPSA is innocent until proven guilty.

Don't you want to hear what GIPSA has to say????

Are you that entrenched in your need to blame packers that GIPSA does not deserve to be heard????

This is your typical "PRESUMPTION OF GUILT" packer victim mentality again.

Show me cold hard proof that GIPSA was not doing their job RATHER THAN SOMEONE'S POLITICAL OPINION that GIPSA was not doing their job.

Have you ever read a GIPSA report? The last report I read showed that of 50 investigations that were solicited within a given year AND INVESTIGATED, only 1 was found to have any validity to it and required a letter to the offending party to gain compliance. That's a 98% BOGUS BULLSH*T ALLEGATION RATING!

Bring me the proof that GIPSA is not doing their job. A political statement to make packer blamers happy is not proof, BRING ME THE EVIDENCE!

Watch the dance folks.

When I said "GIPSA is doing nothing wrong", I meant that I have seen no evidence to prove that GIPSA is doing nothing wrong. GIPSA is presumed innocent. Pickett proved that there is nothing out there but baseless packer blaming allegations unsupported by fact.

"PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENSE" is a legal stone pillar that is absolutely foreign to the packer blaming fraternity.

Another empty tree! Another illusion! More of the same from the factually void little ankle biter from Cody, NE.



~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Apology my ass!

Until you show me proof of market manipulation that was reported and not investigated, YOU GOT NOTHING! GIPSA is innocent until proven guilty.

Don't you want to hear what GIPSA has to say????

Are you that entrenched in your need to blame packers that GIPSA does not deserve to be heard????

This is your typical "PRESUMPTION OF GUILT" packer victim mentality again.

Show me cold hard proof that GIPSA was not doing their job RATHER THAN SOMEONE'S POLITICAL OPINION that GIPSA was not doing their job.

Have you ever read a GIPSA report? The last report I read showed that of 50 investigations that were solicited within a given year AND INVESTIGATED, only 1 was found to have any validity to it and required a letter to the offending party to gain compliance. That's a 98% BOGUS BULLSH*T ALLEGATION RATING!

Bring me the proof that GIPSA is not doing their job. A political statement to make packer blamers happy is not proof, BRING ME THE EVIDENCE!

Watch the dance folks.

When I said "GIPSA is doing nothing wrong", I meant that I have seen no evidence to prove that GIPSA is doing nothing wrong. GIPSA is presumed innocent. Pickett proved that there is nothing out there but baseless packer blaming allegations unsupported by fact.

"PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENSE" is a legal stone pillar that is absolutely foreign to the packer blaming fraternity.

Another empty tree! Another illusion! More of the same from the factually void little ankle biter from Cody, NE.



~SH~

The OIG report clearly showed that GIPSA was not doing its job. GIPSA clearly has the view that the packers are innocent until proven guilty and will not even investigate to try to see if they are guilty. They are not doing their job. They are trying to reinvent themselves into not enforcing the law as written. JoAnn didn't leave for no reason, SH.

That is what the OIG report said, SH.

Are you going to lie about it again or are you going to read the report first?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman: "The OIG report clearly showed that GIPSA was not doing its job."

Give me the specifics that back the allegations. Not cheap talk! Not political statements to make packer blamers happy.

BRING ME THE SMOKING GUN!


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
You divert and spin, SH. This thread is not about GIPSA, it's about what you said and then claimed to say. They're different, but you called me the liar. Are you man enough to apologize or is hurling insults and calling others names from behind your momma's skirt more your style?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
In SH's delusional dictionary anyone who disagrees with him or disputes him is a "liar". It has no relationship to the common terminology we all understand as part of english communication.

Sometimes I wonder if he thinks it is opposite day when he does such nonsense. It is what my 5 year old does sometimes. I think my 5 year old knows the difference while SH remains delusional.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
When you stated, "I understand GIPSA did all they could to NOT to investigate", that is a lie becuase there is no proof that GIPSA did all they could to not investigate. The OIG report is a political statement until you can bring me the smoking gun. If you made that statement without a smoking gun, you lied. You repeated what you heard and wanted to believe like the little packer blaming follower you are.

If you bring me HARD PROOF, that GIPSA did everything they could to avoid investigations, then I will apologize to you. There is no way you could know the details of GIPSA's affairs unless the allegations had been investigated and proven.



~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
When you stated, "I understand GIPSA did all they could to NOT to investigate", that is a lie becuase there is no proof that GIPSA did all they could to not investigate. The OIG report is a political statement until you can bring me the smoking gun. If you made that statement without a smoking gun, you lied. You repeated what you heard and wanted to believe like the little packer blaming follower you are.

If you bring me HARD PROOF, that GIPSA did everything they could to avoid investigations, then I will apologize to you. There is no way you could know the details of GIPSA's affairs unless the allegations had been investigated and proven.



~SH~

Phyllis Fong's definitive investigation is enough evidence for me, SH. Maybe you should consult your delusional definition of "hard proof" to see if people other than packer backers agree with you.

I don't think anyone can convince you of siding with producers. Heck--I think you would sell out your own neighbor if you thought you could get away with it.

Used car salesman.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
You continue to spin and divert. Once again, this is not about GIPSA - it is about what you said and you calling me a liar.

A refresher;

Me: "You commented that nothing was wrong there."

SH's accusation, "You liar! I commented that nothing had been PROVEN wrong there."

What you actually said, "There is nothing wrong with how GIPSA is being run."

The word "proven" is nowhere to be found in your original comment, SH. Perhaps you wrote it in lemon juice?

Are you man enough to apologize? How long will this juvinile denial persisit? Some people think you have some credibility here, don't let them down. Did I actually lie as you accused me?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
You continue to spin and divert. Once again, this is not about GIPSA - it is about what you said and you calling me a liar.

A refresher;

Me: "You commented that nothing was wrong there."

SH's accusation, "You liar! I commented that nothing had been PROVEN wrong there."

What you actually said, "There is nothing wrong with how GIPSA is being run."

The word "proven" is nowhere to be found in your original comment, SH. Perhaps you wrote it in lemon juice?

Are you man enough to apologize? How long will this juvinile denial persisit? Some people think you have some credibility here, don't let them down. Did I actually lie as you accused me?

Maybe it was opposite day and he forgot to tell you. :wink: :wink: :wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman: "I don't think anyone can convince you of siding with producers. Heck--I think you would sell out your own neighbor if you thought you could get away with it."

Listen to you again..............

I side with the truth!
I side with the facts!
I side with the PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENSE!

You will not prove otherwise!

I will not share in your "PRESUMPTION OF GUILT" mentality no matter if I am the last man standing on the "bring me the facts" side of the isle.


Sandbag, How many times do I have to explain my statement? The reference to liar was in regards to your statement that "GIPSA did all they could not to investigate". If you can prove that GIPSA did all they could not to investigate, I'll apologize for calling you a liar. If you can't, you are a liar!

I understand why you tied my "liar" statement to my explanation for my "there is nothing wrong with how GIPSA is being run. I know what I said and I know how I meant it.

You are not going to spin the intent of my statement to your advantage. This will be the last time I explain it. If you insist on spinning the intent of my statement, it will only show your level of desperation.

Typical of your usual deceptive, "illusionist" MO!


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
SH, "The reference to liar was in regards to your statement that "GIPSA did all they could not to investigate"

You're getting yourself deeper and deeper, SH. It's very easy to see what topic your "liar" comment was on. Who do you think you're fooling?

Once again, your "liar" comment, "You liar! I commented that nothing had been PROVEN wrong there"

It's obvious you were talking about your comment, notice your words, "I commented". This is all about what you said and what you claimed to say while calling me a liar.

And you all me the deceiver, twister, spinner, etc...? :roll: Yep, you've got credibility. :lol: :lol:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Conman: "I don't think anyone can convince you of siding with producers. Heck--I think you would sell out your own neighbor if you thought you could get away with it."

Listen to you again..............

I side with the truth!
I side with the facts!
I side with the PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENSE!

You will not prove otherwise!

I will not share in your "PRESUMPTION OF GUILT" mentality no matter if I am the last man standing on the "bring me the facts" side of the isle.


Sandbag, How many times do I have to explain my statement? The reference to liar was in regards to your statement that "GIPSA did all they could not to investigate". If you can prove that GIPSA did all they could not to investigate, I'll apologize for calling you a liar. If you can't, you are a liar!

I understand why you tied my "liar" statement to my explanation for my "there is nothing wrong with how GIPSA is being run. I know what I said and I know how I meant it.

You are not going to spin the intent of my statement to your advantage. This will be the last time I explain it. If you insist on spinning the intent of my statement, it will only show your level of desperation.

Typical of your usual deceptive, "illusionist" MO!


~SH~

The problem isn't that you have a presumption of innocense, it is that the presumption remains long after it is proven false.
 

ocm

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
SH, "The reference to liar was in regards to your statement that "GIPSA did all they could not to investigate"

You're getting yourself deeper and deeper, SH. It's very easy to see what topic your "liar" comment was on. Who do you think you're fooling?

Once again, your "liar" comment, "You liar! I commented that nothing had been PROVEN wrong there"

It's obvious you were talking about your comment, notice your words, "I commented". This is all about what you said and what you claimed to say while calling me a liar.

And you all me the deceiver, twister, spinner, etc...? :roll: Yep, you've got credibility. :lol: :lol:


And the winner is...........


Sandhusker!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

With hard and fast, black and white proof.

~SH~ quoted HIMSELF inaccurately.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Bullhauler said:
the chief said:
Sandhusker, you might as well give it up. In South Dakota, they never admit that they are wr..wr..wr..wrong.
:lol:
Hey don't judge all South Dakotans on one person!!!!!!!!!

Most of us realize there is only one Super Hero-- and we are glad South Dakota has him...You have our upmost sympathies :wink: :lol:
 
Top