• 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

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Sandbag: "If there was no proof, why the 90 days to get things cleaned up?"

Hahaha! Creating another illusion?

If GIPSA needed "cleaned up", then there must be evidence to prove it.

WHERE IS IT???? HMMMMM??????

What's wrong guys?

Can't come up with an example of how GIPSA failed to conduct an investigation on "ALLEGED" market manipulation or price fixing?

Can't come up with a reason why GIPSA couldn't find what Pickett failed to find?

MORE ILLUSIONS OF WRONG DOING???

BRING ME THE PROOF THAT GIPSA FAILED TO DO THEIR JOB!!!!

You packer blamers just can't accept the fact that you can't find a smoking gun so you sink your teeth into political statements that support your anti corporate packer blaming bias.

Conman, why are you always on the conspiracy side of every argument?

The "presumption of innocense" is not just a legal "concept", it's a basic rule for human conduct.

THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS AGAINST THY NEIGHBOR.

RING ANY BELLS?????

I didn't think so!


~SH~

Under your definition of "conspiracy" maybe. It is your overused term, not mine. Businesses "conspire" to make a profit. When they break the laws of the land, they should be held accountable, not have judges make up new hurdles after the court case is finished, as in the London Case, to prevent producers from collecting on their jury win.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
You don't just go around convincing people of market manipulation without the facts to back that allegation Conman. YOU NEED PROOF! YOU NEED EVIDENCE! YOU HAVE NONE! All you have is a need to blame.


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
You don't just go around convincing people of market manipulation without the facts to back that allegation Conman. YOU NEED PROOF! YOU NEED EVIDENCE! YOU HAVE NONE! All you have is a need to blame.


~SH~

In both the London and the Pickett case, the jury verdict was overthrown with new requirements after the cases were completely over. That says something to most people. Maybe not coyote trapper packer backers such as yourself.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
In the Pickett case, there was no proof of any PSA violation. NONE! Ibp dropping their bids in the cash market to reflect their purchases in the formula market is not market manipulation. Rather it is a normal market reaction of supply and demand. You can chase this market manipulation conspiracy theory ghost of yours and keep claiming "corruption in the system" until the end of time but at some point you are going to have to bring the proof of manipulation and the proof of corruption. Not an "illusion of manipulation" and not an "illusion of corruption" simply because you are a packer blamer that needs someone or something to blame.


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
In the Pickett case, there was no proof of any PSA violation. NONE! Ibp dropping their bids in the cash market to reflect their purchases in the formula market is not market manipulation. Rather it is a normal market reaction of supply and demand. You can chase this market manipulation conspiracy theory ghost of yours and keep claiming "corruption in the system" until the end of time but at some point you are going to have to bring the proof of manipulation and the proof of corruption. Not an "illusion of manipulation" and not an "illusion of corruption" simply because you are a packer blamer that needs someone or something to blame.


~SH~

So 24 jurors had it wrong and you and your packer backers are right?

I think we all see the problem here, SH, although you may not.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
No, I believe that a jury of 12 in Pickett could easily be convinced that ibp dropping their price in the cash market to reflect their purchases in the formula market by a bunch of packer blamers, was market manipulation. Fortunately, they couldn't convince Judge Strom, the 11thc circuit, or the Supreme Court.

You can't claim guilt, YOU HAVE TO PROVE IT!

You think you, WHO ADMITS TO NEVER READING THE TESTIMONY, know more about the Pickett case than Judge Strom, the 11th circuit, and the Supreme Court?????


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
No, I believe that a jury of 12 in Pickett could easily be convinced that ibp dropping their price in the cash market to reflect their purchases in the formula market by a bunch of packer blamers, was market manipulation. Fortunately, they couldn't convince Judge Strom, the 11thc circuit, or the Supreme Court.

You can't claim guilt, YOU HAVE TO PROVE IT!

You think you, WHO ADMITS TO NEVER READING THE TESTIMONY, know more about the Pickett case than Judge Strom, the 11th circuit, and the Supreme Court?????


~SH~

Judges in the 11th circuit overturned 2 jury verdicts to save Tyson's skin.

They are being protected just as much as dollar bill protected them with a pardon.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman: "Judges in the 11th circuit overturned 2 jury verdicts to save Tyson's skin.

They are being protected just as much as dollar bill protected them with a pardon."

You just can't accept the facts can you?

You'll just drum up one conspiracy after another to justify your inability to prove your case in a court of law won't you?

Anti - corporate packer blamers like you couldn't back their case with cold hard facts SO YOU LOST. If the 11th circuit was corrupt the Supreme Court should have heard your case.

No cattlemen will ever regulate or sue their way to prosperity. One lawsuit happy packer blamer's gain will be another cattle feeder's loss. It's that simple. If you think packers are making so much money, PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS AND INVEST IN A PACKING COMPANY. Packers don't owe producers a living.

The only thing that will bring new money to this industry is increased consumer demand for beef, CERTAINLY NOT PACKER BLAMING LAWSUITS AND MORE BACKWARDS REGULATIONS.

If the packing industry is not competitive, that will pave the way for new companies to create competition. A free market economy works and it works well which is why we are the envy of the world.

This industry will not move forward by lawsuits against packers and we damn sure don't need more government regulations.


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Conman: "Judges in the 11th circuit overturned 2 jury verdicts to save Tyson's skin.

They are being protected just as much as dollar bill protected them with a pardon."

You just can't accept the facts can you?

You'll just drum up one conspiracy after another to justify your inability to prove your case in a court of law won't you?

Anti - corporate packer blamers like you couldn't back their case with cold hard facts SO YOU LOST. If the 11th circuit was corrupt the Supreme Court should have heard your case.

No cattlemen will ever regulate or sue their way to prosperity. One lawsuit happy packer blamer's gain will be another cattle feeder's loss. It's that simple. If you think packers are making so much money, PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS AND INVEST IN A PACKING COMPANY. Packers don't owe producers a living.

The only thing that will bring new money to this industry is increased consumer demand for beef, CERTAINLY NOT PACKER BLAMING LAWSUITS AND MORE BACKWARDS REGULATIONS.

If the packing industry is not competitive, that will pave the way for new companies to create competition. A free market economy works and it works well which is why we are the envy of the world.

This industry will not move forward by lawsuits against packers and we damn sure don't need more government regulations.


~SH~

The packers are playing the concentration game. Low returns are the loss leader for increased market concentration.

The legal system has turned a blind eye on justice in its efforts to protect Tyson foods in its illegal market games. The judges are either too stupid to understand the laws (as evidenced by the Robinson Patman example in the appellate decision) or are corrupt. Take your pick

I will never expect a packer backer like you to concede the facts, SH, but they are there for all to see.

There is a reason that the polls are so poor for this president, and it isn't all the war in Iraq. It is the domestic front where he and his political supporters are helping themselves to the wealth of the country at everyone else's expense. People are just starting to realize it.

You can't win in "just" wars overseas with injustice in the homeland.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman: "The packers are playing the concentration game. Low returns are the loss leader for increased market concentration."

More empty statements unsupported by fact!


Conman: "The legal system has turned a blind eye on justice in its efforts to protect Tyson foods in its illegal market games."

The packer blamers have failed to bring anything to the table to back their allegations.


Conman: "The judges are either too stupid to understand the laws (as evidenced by the Robinson Patman example in the appellate decision) or are corrupt. Take your pick"

No, packer blamers like you are simply too in need of someone or something to blame to accept the truth or accept the fact that the law does not prosecute someone without proof.


Conman: "I will never expect a packer backer like you to concede the facts, SH, but they are there for all to see."

Opinions cannot change to facts just because you need someone or something to blame. If you packer blamers had the facts to back your allegations, you would win your case in court. You don't so you find all sorts of conspiracy theories to justify your losses.


Conman: "There is a reason that the polls are so poor for this president, and it isn't all the war in Iraq."

Spoken like a true liberal!


Conman: "It is the domestic front where he and his political supporters are helping themselves to the wealth of the country at everyone else's expense. People are just starting to realize it."

More empty statements unsupported by fact.


Conman: "You can't win in "just" wars overseas with injustice in the homeland."

You anti-corporate blamers are like a cancer!

PUNISH ACHIEVEMENT, REGULATE PROSPERITY! That's the blamer's battle cry!


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Conman: "The packers are playing the concentration game. Low returns are the loss leader for increased market concentration."

More empty statements unsupported by fact!

Econ: You are not able to see it?

Conman: "The legal system has turned a blind eye on justice in its efforts to protect Tyson foods in its illegal market games."

The packer blamers have failed to bring anything to the table to back their allegations.

Econ: Was Archie Schaffer's pardon just a dream? Bill pawned off the integrity of the white house and with the incompetence in this one and his buddies in oversight committies, the office is at an all time low.

Conman: "The judges are either too stupid to understand the laws (as evidenced by the Robinson Patman example in the appellate decision) or are corrupt. Take your pick"

No, packer blamers like you are simply too in need of someone or something to blame to accept the truth or accept the fact that the law does not prosecute someone without proof.

Econ: The jury agreed. You never will. Then again, you were not on the jury and neither was Strom. We have a system of trial by jury, not trial by judges, no matter what is currently happening in our country. This too shall pass.

Conman: "I will never expect a packer backer like you to concede the facts, SH, but they are there for all to see."

Opinions cannot change to facts just because you need someone or something to blame. If you packer blamers had the facts to back your allegations, you would win your case in court. You don't so you find all sorts of conspiracy theories to justify your losses.

Econ: I guess the judges did just that. Have the trial transcripts been released?


Conman: "There is a reason that the polls are so poor for this president, and it isn't all the war in Iraq."

Spoken like a true liberal!

Econ: You can't bring a conservative like me on a name only band wagon. I need to see the actions, not just the words. I have seen too many charlatons in my life.

Conman: "It is the domestic front where he and his political supporters are helping themselves to the wealth of the country at everyone else's expense. People are just starting to realize it."

More empty statements unsupported by fact.

Econ: Again, I don't think you will ever see the truth.

Conman: "You can't win in "just" wars overseas with injustice in the homeland."

You anti-corporate blamers are like a cancer!

PUNISH ACHIEVEMENT, REGULATE PROSPERITY! That's the blamer's battle cry!

Econ: Punish crime, prosperity for everyone, not just those on the good old boys team.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman: "You are not able to see it"

You are not able to prove it!


Conman: "Was Archie Schaffer's pardon just a dream? Bill pawned off the integrity of the white house and with the incompetence in this one and his buddies in oversight committies, the office is at an all time low."

Whatever the hell that's supposed to mean?


Conman: "The jury agreed. You never will. Then again, you were not on the jury and neither was Strom. We have a system of trial by jury, not trial by judges, no matter what is currently happening in our country. This too shall pass."

The plaintiffs lost, get over it! Sometimes juries get it wrong. That is why you have judges. Sometimes judges get it wrong. That is why you have an appeals process. Sometimes the appeals process gets it wrong. That is why you have a Supreme Court.

You lost on all levels.


Conman: "I guess the judges did just that."

Another empty statement!


Conman: "Have the trial transcripts been released?"

Don't know. Doubt you'd understand them anyway.


Conman: " You can't bring a conservative like me on a name only band wagon. I need to see the actions, not just the words. I have seen too many charlatons in my life."

Conservative my ass!

You're a liberal and a liar!


Conman: "Again, I don't think you will ever see the truth."

Illusions are not truth, illusions are illusions.


Conman: " Punish crime, prosperity for everyone, not just those on the good old boys team."

Prove crime, prosperity for those who work at it rather than suing others who are prosperous.


~SH~
 

Latest posts

Top