SD Stockgrowers host speaker Leo McDonnell at BH Stock Show

[rancher]

Sandbag: "OK, SH, if being "untrue" is the same as lying, who was lying when NCBA said the Japanese closing to us cost us all $175/head and Agman said it was not that much. Both of them can't be right, one of them had to make an untrue statement. Who is lying, SH, who is lying?"

Bring me the exact NCBA quote of $175 WITHIN CONTEXT.

Let's start there.

Do you honestly think this dog is gonna hunt any better than the rest of the shelter muts you have turned out??? LOL!

You're such an annoying little circle fly!



~SH~

NCBA has four goals in addressing these trade issues:
. Ensure trade is resumed in a manner that prevents economic harm to cattle producers.
. Regain the loss in value of exports to our producers that occurred after the occurrence of BSE on December 23, 2003($175 per fed animal), through normalization of trade and create a foundation for growth in our export markets.
. Protect the health of our cattle herd.
. Maintain consumer confidence in the safety and quality of U.S. beef.

Below are the member-directed action steps NCBA is immediately initiating to give producers the facts they need to evaluate this rule. A decision by NCBA members on whether to delay or move forward on implementation of the rule will occur at the Cattle Industry Annual Convention, February 2-5, in San Antonio. NCBA feels very strongly that our members concerns be addressed and all the information be gathered in time for discussion and debate in San Antonio.

 

[Tam]

Thank you so much, Tam.

Was your maiden name Huber?

Gee Sandhusker you keep bugging to get an answer to your who lied question but all I get is a Thank you. Where are the answers to the questions I have?
1. How can you maintain something if you don't have it to maintain?
2 If the US firewalls can protect the US consumers from US BSE cattle why can 't they protect from imported cattle?
3. Who has put more spin to the BSE issue than R-CALF ?
4. Why if R-CALFs fight is with the USDA are they telling lies about the Canadian beef industry?
5. If beef from Canada it tainted and unsafe after just one case why is it not tainted and unsafe after one case in the US?
6. If the US has the highest standards in the world why are they now asking to mimic those Canada has?
Answers PLEASE

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandbag: "OK, SH, if being "untrue" is the same as lying, who was lying when NCBA said the Japanese closing to us cost us all $175/head and Agman said it was not that much. Both of them can't be right, one of them had to make an untrue statement. Who is lying, SH, who is lying?"

Bring me the exact NCBA quote of $175 WITHIN CONTEXT.

Let's start there.

Do you honestly think this dog is gonna hunt any better than the rest of the shelter muts you have turned out??? LOL!

You're such an annoying little circle fly!


~SH~

Now you need exact quotes? :roll: :lol: What a clown you are, SH. Really pegging the credibility meter today. Here's one of you own quotes, " NCBA claims the industry losses are $175 per head." You seemed to know enough about their claims to quote them then, but you need a reminder now?

So who lied, SH? They both can't be correct, so one of them had to of lied by your standards. Why not just answer the question? Better yet, show a grain of intelligence and retract your statement that Callicrate lied. Common sense dicates that being "untrue" is not a synonym with "lie". Show a little common sense or we can drag this comedy routine further.

I'm offering you a hand out of your idiot box.

 

[Sandhusker]

Thank you so much, Tam.

Was your maiden name Huber?

Gee Sandhusker you keep bugging to get an answer to your who lied question but all I get is a Thank you. Where are the answers to the questions I have?
1. How can you maintain something if you don't have it to maintain?
2 If the US firewalls can protect the US consumers from US BSE cattle why can 't they protect from imported cattle?
3. Who has put more spin to the BSE issue than R-CALF ?
4. Why if R-CALFs fight is with the USDA are they telling lies about the Canadian beef industry?
5. If beef from Canada it tainted and unsafe after just one case why is it not tainted and unsafe after one case in the US?
6. If the US has the highest standards in the world why are they now asking to mimic those Canada has?
Answers PLEASE

Tam, all you want to do is fight, you don't want to understand what was said. The answers to your questions are in the statements. Read 'em.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "So now you are going to say that cattle markets follow labor costs and not boxed beef?"

God only knows where you derived at that conclusion from anything I stated.

Labor costs are relatively stable. Boxed beef prices fluctuate weekly. There is no comparison.

Conman: "When are you going to make me stop laughing?"

I doubt I can help you much with that problem. Most insane people laugh continually.

Conman: "Cattle prices are a function of supply and demand. Nothing else."

I thought prices couldn't go up unless the supply comes down? Now you say that demand is a factor too? Why didn't you mention that before. Demand can be independent of supplies. Demand is driven by labor costs and boxed beef prices.

Conman: "Packers have a lot of tools (some illegal) to push the equilibrium. Pickett showed they did it."

Pickett proved that packers lowered their prices in the cash market to reflect their purchases in the formula market but that is not market manipulation when these pricing arrangements require willing buyers and sellers.


~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

Rancher...

Quote: "Regain the loss in value of exports to our producers that occurred after the occurrence of BSE on December 23, 2003($175 per fed animal), through normalization of trade and create a foundation for growth in our export markets."

I would ask NCBA to defend that statement. $175 per animal attributed to the value of our COMBINED export markets to Japan, South Korea and Mexico still seems high to me. That's all I can say.

Whoever made the statement will have to defend it with supporting facts. If that statement was made WITH THE INTENT TO MISLEAD, like Mike's statements are, then it's a lie.

Sandbag: "Better yet, show a grain of intelligence and retract your statement that Callicrate lied. Common sense dicates that being "untrue" is not a synonym with "lie". Show a little common sense or we can drag this comedy routine further."

Mike Callicrate said that ibp stepped out of the cash market for 8 weeks. This was proven to be a lie by ibp's actual cattle procurement records.

Mike Callicrate said that Tyson dismissed jurors because they were black. That was a bold faced lie.

Mike Callicrate said that packers and retailers were making $400 per head. That was a lie.

Mike lied in Pickett and changed his story UNDER OATH. That is why Judge Strom instructed the jurors to disregard his testimony.

Mike Callicrate is a compulsive liar and the lies you just read are proof.

Just because Mike was not brought up on perjury charges does not mean he didn't lie under oath which is perjury by definition.


You got nothing here either Sandbag. Even steers can try!



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Rancher...

Quote: "Regain the loss in value of exports to our producers that occurred after the occurrence of BSE on December 23, 2003($175 per fed animal), through normalization of trade and create a foundation for growth in our export markets."

I would ask NCBA to defend that statement. $175 per animal attributed to the value of our COMBINED export markets to Japan, South Korea and Mexico still seems high to me. That's all I can say.

Whoever made the statement will have to defend it with supporting facts. If that statement was made WITH THE INTENT TO MISLEAD, like Mike's statements are, then it's a lie.

Sandbag: "Better yet, show a grain of intelligence and retract your statement that Callicrate lied. Common sense dicates that being "untrue" is not a synonym with "lie". Show a little common sense or we can drag this comedy routine further."

Mike Callicrate said that ibp stepped out of the cash market for 8 weeks. This was proven to be a lie by ibp's actual cattle procurement records.

Mike Callicrate said that Tyson dismissed jurors because they were black. That was a bold faced lie.

Mike Callicrate said that packers and retailers were making $400 per head. That was a lie.

Mike lied in Pickett and changed his story UNDER OATH. That is why Judge Strom instructed the jurors to disregard his testimony.

Mike Callicrate is a compulsive liar and the lies you just read are proof.

Just because Mike was not brought up on perjury charges does not mean he didn't lie under oath which is perjury by definition.


You got nothing here either Sandbag. Even steers can try!



~SH~

Now NCBA needs to defend the statement - AFTER you used it to try to make a point? Aren't you a little late in fact finding?

Callicrate being a liar is your opinion, nothing more. Nobody proved he lied under oath - nobody even persued it. Perjury is for the courts to decide after a hearing, not by a hyper-biased gopher trapper. You claim truth is your only bias? Geeeeeeeeeeze.

If you're stating your opinion as fact in an attempt to mislead, then you're the liar.

 

[Econ101]

SH, since you have taken me out of context many times, and both you and Jason totally made up paraphrases attributed to me, I would like you to you have a little more credibility in your accusations. Can you post Mike C.'s exact quote and in context (not like the "prices can not go up until supply....." quote of me)?

I will warn you for instance, if Mike C. said that Tyson got out of the cash market for 8 weeks and he meant that they were not heavily bidding during an eight week time period or that they were no bidding in a particular geographical location for that period of time, you will have a hard time convincing me that Mike C. lied. It might be entirely more credible to say that you are misleading.

 

[Tam]

Thank you so much, Tam.

Was your maiden name Huber?

Gee Sandhusker you keep bugging to get an answer to your who lied question but all I get is a Thank you. Where are the answers to the questions I have?
1. How can you maintain something if you don't have it to maintain?
2 If the US firewalls can protect the US consumers from US BSE cattle why can 't they protect from imported cattle?
3. Who has put more spin to the BSE issue than R-CALF ?
4. Why if R-CALFs fight is with the USDA are they telling lies about the Canadian beef industry?
5. If beef from Canada it tainted and unsafe after just one case why is it not tainted and unsafe after one case in the US?
6. If the US has the highest standards in the world why are they now asking to mimic those Canada has?
Answers PLEASE

Tam, all you want to do is fight, you don't want to understand what was said. The answers to your questions are in the statements. Read 'em.

The only fight I'm having is the one to get you to answer my question and admit you and Leo were and are playing BIG word games so the consumers don't really know what you are saying.
If Leo was saying WE NEED Them then why didn't he say that instead of "we are going to MAINTAIN some of the Highest standards in the world." Maintaining and needing are to completely different things in everyones eyes but yours.
Why does he say "don't worry we have had these firewalls in place for years, the only country prior to having a case of BSE to have these firewalls in place for so many years." If what he meant was Well we have these firewalls but unlike those that Canada has, ours have loopholes that need to be fixed so we can protect the US consumer and herd from the spread of BSE already within our borders whether it be imported or domestic.
Why does he assure them that the US put these firewalls in place so many years ago so that if BSE was ever found it would be a NON ISSUE? It wasn't a NON ISSUE in Canada after our first case so why is it a NON ISSUE if YOU NEED TO WORK ON YOUR FIREWALLS to get them up to speed with those in a country that R-CALF has made a BIG ISSUE out of?
Sandhusker if Leo really wants to keep consumer confidence in Beef tell him to shut his contradicting mouth and stop confussing people with his word games. :wink:

 

[Sandhusker]

Tam, you can pick fly specs out of the pepper on any comment by anybody on any topic if you want. Leo's comments are simple, easily understood, and straight forward. Make something out of nothing if you must, but it tips your hand.

 

[Tam]

Tam, you can pick fly specs out of the pepper on any comment by anybody on any topic if you want. Leo's comments are simple, easily understood, and straight forward. Make something out of nothing if you must, but it tips your hand.

If they are so simple why can't you explain to all of us non believers how Leo's firewalls in the US can protect the US consumers from US cattle now that you HAVE BSE but not imported cattle?
The only thing simple about these comments is the man that made them and the men that defend him. And you should be thanking God that the US consumers understood that he is not a good source of information backed up by facts or the US beef consumption would have died when BSE was found in the US NATIVE HERD. And as for straight forward Leo has flip flopped so many times he has no idea which direction he is headed :roll: Talk about making something out of NOTHING you should get an award you made Leo into your leader which isn't much but it is something if he can get a group of ranchers to believe his lies and pay him money in support of them. :roll:

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "Now NCBA needs to defend the statement - AFTER you used it to try to make a point? Aren't you a little late in fact finding?"

Why the hell not? They were the ones who said it didn't they?

I questioned the $175 the first time I heard it unlike the blind follower you are. Regardless, I saw nobody prove that figure wrong. If you have something to prove NCBA wrong on the value of our export markets, BRING IT. If not, YOU CAN ONLY CREATE ANOTHER "ILLUSION" OF NCBA BEING WRONG.

Why do you believe Agman when he says he questioned the figure when he also said his data supported my position that Pasco and Boise lost more money than Lakeside made while the Canadian border was closed? Why do you pick and chose when you are going to question Agman and when you will take him at his word?? What a phony you are. Just like your lying buddy Conman.

Sandbag: "Leo's comments are simple, easily understood, and straight forward."

That doesn't mean there's any truth to them or that they don't contradict what he said before. It only means he told packer and import blamers like you what they wanted to hear.

Sandbag: "Callicrate being a liar is your opinion, nothing more. Nobody proved he lied under oath - nobody even persued it. Perjury is for the courts to decide after a hearing, not by a hyper-biased gopher trapper."

Perjury is lying under oath. The definition won't change for a simple minded packer blaming banker from Cody, NE.

Mike also lied in Pierre when he said ibp had contractual arrangements with the other packers. Total bullsh*t but the packer blaming head nodders like you liked what they heard.

Sandbag: "If you're stating your opinion as fact in an attempt to mislead, then you're the liar."

The day you prove me wrong is the day you'll have something. Until then, all you have is cheap talk just like most packer blamers.

Conman: "SH, since you have taken me out of context many times, and both you and Jason totally made up paraphrases attributed to me, I would like you to you have a little more credibility in your accusations."

PROVE IT you damn liar!

BRING THE QUOTE that was taken out of context you cheap talker!

All you ever have is cheap talk you pathetic %@!&*!@%^@!!

Conman: "Can you post Mike C.'s exact quote and in context (not like the "prices can not go up until supply....." quote of me)?"

When I asked you if you said, "prices can't go up unless the supply comes down" you admitted to saying it. Now you claim I took that statement out of context. True to your lying deceptive ways.

When you bring the proof that Pickett provided to prove market manipulation, then you can ask me for information. Until then, you can KMA!

Conman: "I will warn you for instance, if Mike C. said that Tyson got out of the cash market for 8 weeks and he meant that they were not heavily bidding during an eight week time period or that they were no bidding in a particular geographical location for that period of time, you will have a hard time convincing me that Mike C. lied."

Mike Callicrate said, "ibp stepped out of the cash market for 8 weeks".

It was a bold faced lie! Not a stitch of truth to it. Proven to be a lie with actual cattle procurement records.

If you want to know the lie Callicrate told in Pickett, I would suggest you read the court proceedings.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

:
Sandbag: "Now NCBA needs to defend the statement - AFTER you used it to try to make a point? Aren't you a little late in fact finding?"


SH, "Why the hell not? They were the ones who said it didn't they? I questioned the $175 the first time I heard it unlike the blind follower you are. Regardless, I saw nobody prove that figure wrong. If you have something to prove NCBA wrong on the value of our export markets, BRING IT. If not, YOU CAN ONLY CREATE ANOTHER "ILLUSION" OF NCBA BEING WRONG."

You sure didn't question it very long before you quoted them, did you? Who's the blind follower? :lol:

SH, "Why do you believe Agman when he says he questioned the figure when he also said his data supported my position that Pasco and Boise lost more money than Lakeside made while the Canadian border was closed? Why do you pick and chose when you are going to question Agman and when you will take him at his word?? What a phony you are. Just like your lying buddy Conman. "

Who said I took him at his word? I simply said that he said NCBA was wrong, and by your definition of "incorrect" being the same a "lie", either he or NCBA had to be lying. You keep dancing and refusing to answer me on who it was that lied.

Secondly, I don't think Agman has any data that shows Pasco and Boise lost more than Lakeside made. If he had it, he would of PMed it to you and you would of presented it instead of trying to confuse the issue with slaughter numbers and other BS. Neither one of you can fill in the blanks, Agman just has the sense not to claim he can. You're attempting to mislead - a pretty poor attempt - but attempting to mislead none the less.


Quote:
Sandbag: "Leo's comments are simple, easily understood, and straight forward."


SH, "That doesn't mean there's any truth to them or that they don't contradict what he said before. It only means he told packer and import blamers like you what they wanted to hear. "

Whatever


Quote:
Sandbag: "Callicrate being a liar is your opinion, nothing more. Nobody proved he lied under oath - nobody even persued it. Perjury is for the courts to decide after a hearing, not by a hyper-biased gopher trapper."


SH, "Perjury is lying under oath. The definition won't change for a simple minded packer blaming banker from Cody, NE. Mike also lied in Pierre when he said ibp had contractual arrangements with the other packers. Total bullsh*t but the packer blaming head nodders like you liked what they heard. "

What Judge said he lied, SH? Who other then you says he lied?


Quote:
Sandbag: "If you're stating your opinion as fact in an attempt to mislead, then you're the liar."


SH, "The day you prove me wrong is the day you'll have something. Until then, all you have is cheap talk just like most packer blamers."

You can't be proven wrong, SH. You won't accept it. Your credibilty on this board, as evidenced by more than one poll, should tell you something. I don't think you have the common sense to figure it out.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "You sure didn't question it very long before you quoted them, did you?"

Bring the quote where I stated the $175 figure as being fact. Bring it Sandbag!

Sandbag: "You keep dancing and refusing to answer me on who it was that lied."

The person who changed their story rather than admitting they were wrong would be considered the liar. A lie is defined as stating something that is untrue WITH THE INTENT TO MISLEAD which is what Mike Callicrate does all the time.

Unless you know that Agman and NCBA are comparing apples to apples here, you got nothing AGAIN. I have not seen where NCBA came up with their $175 dollar figure NOR HAVE YOU. NOR HAVE YOU REFUTED IT WITH A DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT WAS DIFFERENT.

Nah, you resort to your typical picking and chosing what you want to believe to fit your NCBA blaming agenda. FACTS BE DAMNED!

Sandbag: "Secondly, I don't think Agman has any data that shows Pasco and Boise lost more than Lakeside made."

Hahaha!

You did somersaults and filled your pants when Agman stated that his data proved me wrong on calendar year 2004 then you thanked him for his honesty PROVING THAT YOU PICK AND CHOOSE WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE. Never questioning anything that supports your bias and questioning everything that doesn't like the true parasite you are.

Your only victory over me had to come from Agman's and my own research and my willingness to admit to being wrong but you'll take what little you can get. To this day you have not provided one stitch of proof to prove me wrong on my original statement and you never will because I was right.

Yeh I know, I know, "fill in the blanks, fill in the blanks" because you're too ignorant to understand Tyson's financial report that states that Lakeside actually lost money during the first quarter of calendar year 2005 and you're too ignorant to understand the economics of two plants with a combined slaughter capacity equal to Lakesides running at 35% of capacity while paying their laborers for a 32 hour work week. Nah, that's not enough for someone like you who is too arrogant to admit when you are dead wrong.

Sandbag: "What Judge said he lied, SH? Who other then you says he lied?"

I don't need a second opinion to identify a liar. A liar changes his story rather than admits to being wrong.

1. Callicrate lied under oath in Pickett.
2. Callicrate lied when he said that ibp stepped out of the cash market for 8 weeks. That was proven to be a lie with ibp's actual cattle procurement records.
3. Callicrate lied when he said that ibp had contractual arrangements with the other packers. Bob Peterson offered $1000 to anyone that would prove Mike's statement.
4. Callicrate lied about $400 packer and retailer profits off the backs of producers.
5. Callicrate lied when he said that Tyson dismissed jurors in Pickett because they were black.
6. Callicrate lied when he told me he would answer my questions if I revealed my identity. I DID, HE DIDN'T! He ducked and ran.
7. Callicrate lied about the impact of his lawsuit on cattle markets.
8. Callicrate lied about ibp having mafia ties.


The list of lies goes on and on and on but he tells anti corporate packer blamers like you what they want to hear so you'll justify it somehow.

Sandbag: "You can't be proven wrong, SH. You won't accept it. Your credibilty on this board, as evidenced by more than one poll, should tell you something. I don't think you have the common sense to figure it out."

That's a damn lie!

Did I admit to being wrong about the EU fur ban?

Yes or no?

Did I willingly admit that I was wrong on calendar year 2004 and pay up on a bet AFTER PROVING MYSELF WRONG while you contributed absolutely nothing to that bet?

Yes or no?

You'll divert both questions which, if answered honestly, would expose you for the phony you are.

We all know who has credibility problems. The one who dances, diverts, denies, deceives, and discredits to avoid answering questions like these simple yes or no questions which would expose you for the parasite you are.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Quote:
Sandbag: "You sure didn't question it very long before you quoted them, did you?"


SH, "Bring the quote where I stated the $175 figure as being fact. Bring it Sandbag!"

Good morning, Sunshine! I suppose you are demanding I find a quote from you with the words "$175", "NCBA", and "fact" together? I doubt if I could, SH. However, I know I could come up with plenty of quotes where you were using NCBA's figure in your "points". Want to bet $100 on that? :wink: If you are questioning NCBA's statement as fact now, I wonder why you were using in in the past? Are you finally admitting to using non-factual information in your posts? :lol:


Quote:
Sandbag: "You keep dancing and refusing to answer me on who it was that lied."

SH, "Unless you know that Agman and NCBA are comparing apples to apples here, you got nothing AGAIN. I have not seen where NCBA came up with their $175 dollar figure NOR HAVE YOU. NOR HAVE YOU REFUTED IT WITH A DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT WAS DIFFERENT. Nah, you resort to your typical picking and chosing what you want to believe to fit your NCBA blaming agenda. FACTS BE DAMNED! "

I didn't say NCBA was wrong, SH. I just pointed out that Agman didn't agree with them, that one of them had to be incorrect (or possibly both), and by the same standards you apply to Callicrate, one of them has to be lying. I just want to know which one. Why won't you answer me, SH? It's a simple question with only two choices.


Quote:
Sandbag: "Secondly, I don't think Agman has any data that shows Pasco and Boise lost more than Lakeside made."


SH, "Hahaha! You did somersaults and filled your pants when Agman stated that his data proved me wrong on calendar year 2004 then you thanked him for his honesty PROVING THAT YOU PICK AND CHOOSE WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE. Never questioning anything that supports your bias and questioning everything that doesn't like the true parasite you are. Your only victory over me had to come from Agman's and my own research and my willingness to admit to being wrong but you'll take what little you can get. To this day you have not provided one stitch of proof to prove me wrong on my original statement and you never will because I was right. Yeh I know, I know, "fill in the blanks, fill in the blanks" because you're too ignorant to understand Tyson's financial report that states that Lakeside actually lost money during the first quarter of calendar year 2005 and you're too ignorant to understand the economics of two plants with a combined slaughter capacity equal to Lakesides running at 35% of capacity while paying their laborers for a 32 hour work week. Nah, that's not enough for someone like you who is too arrogant to admit when you are dead wrong. "

SH, with the possible exception of Tam and MRJ, NOBODY BELIEVES YOU PROVED ANYTHING! We already had a poll about that, remember? If you have proved anybody made anymore than anybody else, it only stands to reason that you could fill in the blanks - otherwise, how do you know? What is your definition of lying again?


Quote:
Sandbag: "What Judge said he lied, SH? Who other then you says he lied?"


SH, "I don't need a second opinion to identify a liar. A liar changes his story rather than admits to being wrong."

Oh, I see, you're judge and jury! You have the capability of convicting a man of purjury all the way from a gopher mound in South Dakota! You don't need the usual due process as under the Constitution, you don't even need a second opinion! How did you get this gift to peer into men's souls? Were you born with it, were you hit by a falling star, did a pixie give you a magic potion? :lol: :lol: That's funny!



Quote:
Sandbag: "You can't be proven wrong, SH. You won't accept it. Your credibilty on this board, as evidenced by more than one poll, should tell you something. I don't think you have the common sense to figure it out."


SH, "That's a damn lie! Did I admit to being wrong about the EU fur ban? Yes or no?"

To your credit, after I dug around on the internet for 5 minutes to find the proof, you did admit you were wrong. I do wonder why you still claim "I have never been refuted".

SH, "Did I willingly admit that I was wrong on calendar year 2004 and pay up on a bet AFTER PROVING MYSELF WRONG while you contributed absolutely nothing to that bet? Yes or no? "

The only reason you admitted you were wrong was because Agman said you were wrong. You're not fooling me. You were wrong on your original statement, too. My offer of another $100 still stands on that. I contributed nothing because in the bet YOU offered, YOU said YOU would offer the proof. I've pointed that out at least a dozen times, but you still bring it up. Don't worry, SH, each time you say it, I'll always bring up "the rest of the story". :wink:

SH, "You'll divert both questions which, if answered honestly, would expose you for the phony you are. We all know who has credibility problems. The one who dances, diverts, denies, deceives, and discredits to avoid answering questions like these simple yes or no questions which would expose you for the parasite you are."

Want to take a credibilty poll?

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "I suppose you are demanding I find a quote from you with the words "$175", "NCBA", and "fact" together? I doubt if I could, SH. However, I know I could come up with plenty of quotes where you were using NCBA's figure in your "points". Want to bet $100 on that? If you are questioning NCBA's statement as fact now, I wonder why you were using in in the past? Are you finally admitting to using non-factual information in your posts?"

QUIT DANCING!

This is not about NCBA figures, THIS IS ABOUT A PARTICULAR NCBA FIGURE OF $175 depicting the value of our export markets.

You said I quoted the $175 NCBA figure.

BRING THE QUOTE WHERE I QUOTED THE NCBA FIGURE OF $175 OR SHUT UP!!!!

Sandbag: "I didn't say NCBA was wrong, SH. I just pointed out that Agman didn't agree with them, that one of them had to be incorrect (or possibly both), and by the same standards you apply to Callicrate, one of them has to be lying. I just want to know which one. Why won't you answer me, SH? It's a simple question with only two choices."

Unless you can prove that NCBA stated the $175 WITH THE INTENT TO MISLEAD, you have nothing, AGAIN!

In contrast, Mike's intent is to mislead. Why else would someone change his story or keep repeating the same lie after being corrected with the facts?

It's not the same standard!

Sandbag: "SH, with the possible exception of Tam and MRJ, NOBODY BELIEVES YOU PROVED ANYTHING! We already had a poll about that, remember? If you have proved anybody made anymore than anybody else, it only stands to reason that you could fill in the blanks - otherwise, how do you know? What is your definition of lying again?"

If the information I provided was not good enough to prove my original statement correct, then it was not good enough to prove it within calendar year 2004 and you can send me back my $100.

You can't have it both ways you damn hypocrite. If the data was good enough to prove me wrong on calendar year 2004, it was good enough to prove me right on my original statement.

Sandbag: "The only reason you admitted you were wrong was because Agman said you were wrong. You're not fooling me. You were wrong on your original statement, too."

No, the only reason why I admitted to being wrong on calendar year 2004 was because I saw the data that proved me wrong on calendar year 2004. The same data that proved me right on my original statement. You revealed your total hypocrisy by picking and chosing what fit your bias. Agman's data was good enough to prove me wrong on calendar year 2004 but not good enough to prove me right on my origal statement even after you thanked him for his honesty proving what a complete phony you are.

Sandbag: "To your credit, after I dug around on the internet for 5 minutes to find the proof, you did admit you were wrong."

So you just lied when you said, "You can't be proven wrong, SH. You won't accept it."

Here's your exact quote:

Sandbag: "You can't be proven wrong, SH. You won't accept it."

That was a lie because you knew I had admitted to being wrong.

In contrast, you are almost always wrong and I can only remember you admitting it once.

Sandbag: "Want to take a credibilty poll?"

You think your phony polls of packer victims who hate the truth as much as you have credibility? LOL!

You're a dandy!

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandbag: "I suppose you are demanding I find a quote from you with the words "$175", "NCBA", and "fact" together? I doubt if I could, SH. However, I know I could come up with plenty of quotes where you were using NCBA's figure in your "points". Want to bet $100 on that? If you are questioning NCBA's statement as fact now, I wonder why you were using in in the past? Are you finally admitting to using non-factual information in your posts?"

SH, "QUIT DANCING! This is not about NCBA figures, THIS IS ABOUT A PARTICULAR NCBA FIGURE OF $175 depicting the value of our export markets. You said I quoted the $175 NCBA figure. BRING THE QUOTE WHERE I QUOTED THE NCBA FIGURE OF $175 OR SHUT UP!!!!"

How 'bout we put a little wager on it - I know you're a betting man. Your $100 to R-CALF against my $100 to NCBA that I can't find a post from you using the NCBA's $175 figure?

Sandbag: "I didn't say NCBA was wrong, SH. I just pointed out that Agman didn't agree with them, that one of them had to be incorrect (or possibly both), and by the same standards you apply to Callicrate, one of them has to be lying. I just want to know which one. Why won't you answer me, SH? It's a simple question with only two choices."

SH "Unless you can prove that NCBA stated the $175 WITH THE INTENT TO MISLEAD, you have nothing, AGAIN! In contrast, Mike's intent is to mislead. Why else would someone change his story or keep repeating the same lie after being corrected with the facts? It's not the same standard!"

I didn't say NCBA was intending to mislead. I just said Agman and NCBA can't both be correct. I said it more than once - you have a heck of a time with reading comprehension.

How do you know Mike's intent? Did he tell you or did you consult a ouija board?

Sandbag: "SH, with the possible exception of Tam and MRJ, NOBODY BELIEVES YOU PROVED ANYTHING! We already had a poll about that, remember? If you have proved anybody made anymore than anybody else, it only stands to reason that you could fill in the blanks - otherwise, how do you know? What is your definition of lying again?"

SH, "If the information I provided was not good enough to prove my original statement correct, then it was not good enough to prove it within calendar year 2004 and you can send me back my $100."

You haven't provided any proof for either statement. We even had a poll where the majority of folks agreed with me. Your BS is transparent.

SH, "You can't have it both ways you damn hypocrite. If the data was good enough to prove me wrong on calendar year 2004, it was good enough to prove me right on my original statement."

:lol: :lol: :lol: How the heck do you figure that? That's halarious!

Sandbag: "The only reason you admitted you were wrong was because Agman said you were wrong. You're not fooling me. You were wrong on your original statement, too."

SH, "No, the only reason why I admitted to being wrong on calendar year 2004 was because I saw the data that proved me wrong on calendar year 2004. The same data that proved me right on my original statement. You revealed your total hypocrisy by picking and chosing what fit your bias. Agman's data was good enough to prove me wrong on calendar year 2004 but not good enough to prove me right on my origal statement even after you thanked him for his honesty proving what a complete phony you are."

Fill in the blanks, wind bag. It's a simple deal.

Sandbag: "To your credit, after I dug around on the internet for 5 minutes to find the proof, you did admit you were wrong."

SH, "So you just lied when you said, "You can't be proven wrong, SH. You won't accept it." Here's your exact quote:

Sandbag: "You can't be proven wrong, SH. You won't accept it."

That was a lie because you knew I had admitted to being wrong. In contrast, you are almost always wrong and I can only remember you admitting it once."

OK, OK, you admitted it ONCE in the face of irrefutable proof. Pardon me. Being one for 3958 is not much to brag on. :lol:

Sandbag: "Want to take a credibilty poll?"

SH, "You think your phony polls of packer victims who hate the truth as much as you have credibility? LOL! You're a dandy!"

So the majority of folks on this board are packer victims who hate the truth? :roll: Nice job of alienating the very people you are trying to convince to your point of view. You should run for political office. :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "So the majority of folks on this board are packer victims who hate the truth?"

Nice spin!

Those who question my credibility by responding to your phony polls are packer blamers who hate the truth.

Sandbag: "You should run for political office."

I'd never get elected because I would tell people the truth, not what they wanted to hear.

I'm too honest and too candid to run for political office.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Sandbag: "So the majority of folks on this board are packer victims who hate the truth?"

Nice spin!

Those who question my credibility by responding to your phony polls are packer blamers who hate the truth.

Sandbag: "You should run for political office."

I'd never get elected because I would tell people the truth, not what they wanted to hear.

I'm too honest and too candid to run for political office.


~SH~

SH, maybe you are just too humble to run for office. :roll: