Kindergarten: "Sandhusker could have said "the truth is not in you" and there would be a lot of people that would totally agree with that statement."
Of course they would totally agree with that statement because the facts are not what blamers want to hear. They don't want to know the truth, they want to blame. Their minds are already made up. Facts and truth mean nothing to a blamer when it doesn't support what they want to believe.
The above statement is typical of the garbage that you spew. You haven't corrected me on a single thing I have stated yet. To the contrary, I have corrected your empty statements repeatedly. To save face you feel no option but to make your feeble attempts to discredit me with this type of statement.
Anyone who is open minded and has waded through your empty posts can see that you have nothing to back your position.
You support R-CULT and R-CULT gets their head handed to them every time they enter a court room yet their faithful lemmings continue to blindly follow them because R-CULT tells blamers what they want to hear.
Kindergarten: "Nobody needs to prove anything on this forum if the don't want to; they need to say what they think and why they think it. They might post where they got the basis of an opinion if they want to."
TRANSLATION: DON'T ASK ME TO BACK MY POSITION WHEN I CAN'T!
That's right Kindergarten, as long as you stay in your safety zone of never having to back your position with supporting facts, you can continue to believe that your baseless opinions actually have merit.
Once you get in a courtroom, your theories will get dismantled just like the blaming organization you support.
Judge Strom and the 11th circuit court's decision doesn't fit your anti corporate packer blaming agenda so of course you wouldn't support it.
Sandman: "I'm just trying to get him to shut up - like telling a pain-in-the-ash kid what they want to hear so they'll get off your back. Is he a liar or not? I have no idea and don't really care. That would depend of if he actually beleives the crap he spews. I used to think he just felt the need to be contrary due to some sort of inferiority complex, now I question his sanity. How could a sane grown man act the way he does? If he actually believes half the nonsense he's presented, then he's simply a fool. If he is just being contrary, then he is a liar."
Hahaha! Listen to the little parasite.
Has anyone seen where Sandhusker has ever taken a statement I have made and provided facts to the contrary to prove me wrong? NEITHER HAVE I because it never happens. All he can offer is this type of typical little ankle biting statement to discredit what he doesn't want to believe.
Sandman contributed nothing to the $100 bet beyond his baseless allegation that I lied so I would have to prove that I didn't lie. First he says I lied, then he makes an empty half assed apology for saying I lied, then he says I am factually void and wrong , now he says he doesn't know whether I lied or not. HAHAHAHA! God only knows what diversion he will come up with next. He creates the illusion that the $100 means he's right yet apologizes for saying I lied.
Sandman is nothing more than a parasite that gets others to do his work for him by challenging them. He accuses others of lying and making stuff up then turns around and says Creekstone doesn't buy any of their cattle in the cash market. When proven wrong, "Well, I guess you got me there". Sandman is a complete phony. His only purpose here is to determine the weaknesses in someone else's position so he can create the illusion of having strength in what he wants to believe.
Sandman has never proven me wrong on anything ever. NOT ONCE! He just challenges what he doesn't want to believe than creates an illusion that they are wrong. HE NEVER BACKS NOTHING OR PROVES NOTHING. Facts mean nothing to him. That's why he supports the blamer's organization. All he has is empty discrediting rhetoric supported by nothing.
Sandman: "My issue was that he was full of crap and could not possibly back his statement."
When Agman said that I was wrong within calendar year 2004, you thanked him for his honesty. Agman also stated that his data showed that I was right with my original statement that you called a lie. Agman's data backs up what I presented and it backs what the Tyson representative told me. So which way is it Sandman? Is Agman honest or not? I suppose his honesty only goes as far as calendar year 2004 huh? Imagine that!
All it would take is a phone call to Tyson to confirm what I stated but you would rather create the "ILLUSION" of being right because you are empty to support your view.
Sandman: "His $100 in R-CALF's treasury proves me right."
Bullsh*t!
My $100 proves that I was wrong within calendar year 2004 ONLY. You proved me wrong on nothing regarding my original statement. You contributed nothing to the bet. You relied on my research and my honesty to prove myself wrong on calendar year 2004. You've already agreed that I was right with my original statement when you thanked Agman for his honesty but now you change your story again to save face. You are so pathetic.
Sandman: "He was either lying or simply blowing hot air - you tell me."
All it would take is a phone call but you don't want to know the truth so you can go on believing that you were right.
Sandman: "His year 2004 whine is is just that - a whine. If he knew enough about the topic to make the statement in the first place, and then to even propose a bet, don't you think he should be able to provide a shred of proof? After all, what led him to make the statement and the bold bet proposal? He had nothing. I ask you again, was he lying or simply full of it. Either way, why to you choose this side?"
You didn't prove a damn thing Sandman. You didn't have anything to back your position EVER. You bet that I couldn't back my position and when I did, you couldn't accept it.
2004 whine?? If the bet was not for calendar year 2004 just say so and I'll be on my way to Cody to get my $100 back.
You were betting that I couldn't provide the proof. When I did you wouldn't accept it. All it would take was a phone call to confirm either way but being the deceptive pathetic individual you are, you'd rather create the "ILLUSION" of being right than find out the truth. Par for you pathetic ways.
Sandman: "I'm tired of this topic and I'm tired of him."
Of course you are because you have a guilty conscience for accusing me of lying just to get me to do your homework for you then taking $100 for a bet you contributed nothing to which was based on my mistake for agreeing to calendar year 2004 instead of the entire period of time that the border was closed, WHICH YOU ADMITTED LATER WAS WHAT THE BET WAS BASED ON. I should have sunk my teeth into that statement and kept my $100 but I have a lot more integrity than a parasite like you.
If calendar year 2004 is just "a whine" and not the basis for the bet, just say so and we will end this.
~SH~
:lol: :lol: That's about as funny as him trapping himself. Good grief, Tam, I know you don't like me because I am a R-CALF member, but you couldn't pick a better fight than siding with SH?