SH's big chance

[Sandhusker]

Bill Bullard will be speaking in Gregory on Sept. 21. Here's your chance to be a big hero and call him on his "lies" in public. Are you going to be a man and do it, or is hiding behind your computer and calling him names from the comfort of your home more your style?

What will be your excuse du jour this time?

 

[Tommy]

I do not know how close Gregory is to Scott, but I will make a bet he is no-show.

 

[SDSteve]

I think if Bullard came to Kadoka SH would be a no-show. Seems like he is a typical internet coward to me.

 

[Anonymous]

Where and what time Sandman?

Will it be a true debate or just another "question and statement" forum where the audience asks a question and Bullard makes a statement?

I have no desire to waste my time attending another question and statement forum as opposed to a debate of the issues. I have a lot more interest in a debate than a question and statement format.

I'd love to ask Bill Bullard when we can expect the bottom to drop out of the calf market now that the Canadian border is open but I wouldn't get an answer, I'd get an unrelated statement or some cheesy excuse.

SD Steve: "I think if Bullard came to Kadoka SH would be a no-show. Seems like he is a typical internet coward to me."

What's your full name and address SD Steve and we'll see who the intenet coward is.


I have questioned Bullard twice in public already.

Once I asked Bill Bullard at the Black Hills Stockshow what the packer ban's affect on USPB would be. Even his supporters admitted he didn't answer the question. He just made a bunch of statements to divert the question, AS ALWAYS.

R-CALF does not enter debates, they prefer "question and statement" forums where they are not held accountable for their statements with follow up questions. They have learned that lesson in a courtroom.

Another time I asked Bullard, "if captive supply and packer concentration were the reasons for lower cattle prices, which of those two factors has changed to allow prices to go higher recently".

Johnny Smith, Bill Bullard, and Mike Callicrate all danced around that question like circus chickens. I called back and asked the same exact question again and got different answers the second time. LOL!

That's when Mike Callicrate said, "Cattle prices have nothing to do with supply and demand, cattle prices are totally arbitrary." then followed that with his observations of empty pens in numerous feedlots. I guess there is no relation between empty pens and reduced supply huh? LOL!

Why would I waste my time at another question and statement forum? I want a debate of the issues, not grandstanding for fellow blamers.

SD Steve, when you think you have found the courage to contradict anything I have stated with facts to the contrary, bring it. You wont cause you blamers always feel more comfortable making your meaningless little discrediting statements. A time honored tradition.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Another time I asked Bullard, "if captive supply and packer concentration were the reasons for lower cattle prices, which of those two factors has changed to allow prices to go higher recently".

Captive supplies were the vehicle for the exercise of market power and concentration was a necessary ingredient. Packers drove down the supply curve on that vehicle. That swings the cattle market. Look up any monopsony model and you get the answer you are seeking. It is Economics 101. There are also deadweight losses to the economy.

 

[Anonymous]

Feeders have numerous marketing options available to them through numerous packing companies which shatters your baseless market manipulation conspiracy theory.

Nobody will ever be convicted on "THEORY" and "OPINION" in a fair court of law. Lowered prices due to meeting a portion of your needs is not market manipulation.



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Feeders have numerous marketing options available to them through numerous packing companies which shatters your baseless market manipulation conspiracy theory.

Nobody will ever be convicted on "THEORY" and "OPINION" in a fair court of law. Lowered prices due to meeting a portion of your needs is not market manipulation.



~SH~

It is when prices are based on that thinner market. If a monopoly like an electrical company gives all its customers many different ways to pay their bill like cash, check, credit card, avg. monthly over a period of time, etc.... It does not mean that the electric company did not use its market power to expropriate money from its customers. The electrical company could have said that its customers could use generators (gas or diesel), human fans, windmills, generators hooked to tractors or individual motors, solar cells, etc. and so there was plenty of options for them. All of this is extraneous to the proof. Lowered prices due to meeting a portion of your needs is not necessarily market manipulation, unless those lowered prices were the price base for captive supplies. Then it could be. Pickett proved that to the jurors.

SH--

That's when Mike Callicrate said, "Cattle prices have nothing to do with supply and demand, cattle prices are totally arbitrary." then followed that with his observations of empty pens in numerous feedlots. I guess there is no relation between empty pens and reduced supply huh? LOL!

I think, and I do not want to put words in Mike C.'s mouth, is that with the manipulation that the big boys do with all their tools, it is hard to get a fair price. The cattlemen do not see that they are winning at the pea shell game because the man behind the table (packers) are not playing the game fairly. The plaintiffs proved that to the jury. You just do not like the verdict.

 

[Sandhusker]

So I take it you're not going then SH? Why am I not surprised?

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman: "So I take it you're not going then SH? Why am I not surprised?"

I asked you when and what time?

I also asked you if it will be a debate, a question and statement forum, or a pep rally for fellow blamers?

Kindergarten Econ.: "If a monopoly like an electrical company gives all its customers many different ways to pay their bill like cash, check, credit card, avg. monthly over a period of time, etc.... It does not mean that the electric company did not use its market power to expropriate money from its customers. The electrical company could have said that its customers could use generators (gas or diesel), human fans, windmills, generators hooked to tractors or individual motors, solar cells, etc. and so there was plenty of options for them. All of this is extraneous to the proof."

Another unrelated analogy! LOL!

PROVIDE THE FACTS THAT BACK YOUR DAMN POSITION FOR ONCE!

Kindegarten Econ.: "Lowered prices due to meeting a portion of your needs is not necessarily market manipulation, unless those lowered prices were the price base for captive supplies. Then it could be. Pickett proved that to the jurors."

"Could be" won't earn you a solid conviction.

"Could be" doesn't mean squat when you have other markets available to you. Another solid argument you cannot refute.

Kindergarten Econ.:"You just do not like the verdict."

The verdict was based on "OPINIONS" and "THEORIES" not facts and hard evidence.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Sandman: "So I take it you're not going then SH? Why am I not surprised?"

I asked you when and what time?

I also asked you if it will be a debate, a question and statement forum, or a pep rally for fellow blamers?

Kindergarten Econ.: "If a monopoly like an electrical company gives all its customers many different ways to pay their bill like cash, check, credit card, avg. monthly over a period of time, etc.... It does not mean that the electric company did not use its market power to expropriate money from its customers. The electrical company could have said that its customers could use generators (gas or diesel), human fans, windmills, generators hooked to tractors or individual motors, solar cells, etc. and so there was plenty of options for them. All of this is extraneous to the proof."

Another unrelated analogy! LOL!

PROVIDE THE FACTS THAT BACK YOUR DAMN POSITION FOR ONCE!

Kindegarten Econ.: "Lowered prices due to meeting a portion of your needs is not necessarily market manipulation, unless those lowered prices were the price base for captive supplies. Then it could be. Pickett proved that to the jurors."

"Could be" won't earn you a solid conviction.

"Could be" doesn't mean squat when you have other markets available to you. Another solid argument you cannot refute.

Kindergarten Econ.:"You just do not like the verdict."

The verdict was based on "OPINIONS" and "THEORIES" not facts and hard evidence.


~SH~

SH, Are you saying that all the discovery given to Dr. Taylor was just theories? He analyzed the data that was given to him by the defendents. The Canadians have other markets too. They have the same arguments. You even back their arguments. When the big buyer discriminates against you for reasons other than the quality of your product, there is a violation of the PSA. Period. Taylor proved that was the case over periods of time with the evidence that was provided from discovery. Do you deny that?
When the jury came back with the verdict and it could not be contridicted with real evidence, it was proven, it wasn't a theory any more.

Both Strom and the appellate courts have to have more than a mere scintilla of evidence (they didn't even have that) to overturn a jury verdict. This court stinks and the stink smells like packer money. Look who is on the judiciary committe and who gets the donations. It is simple. Politicians who sell out a minority they represent for campaign contributions should be held accountable. Look at what has happened in New Orleans! Same story. Wake up.

 

[Anonymous]

Kindergarten: "SH, Are you saying that all the discovery given to Dr. Taylor was just theories?"

Are you saying it wasn't?

Where is that proof then?

Kindergarten: "The Canadians have other markets too."

What other markets?

Kindergarten: "When the big buyer discriminates against you for reasons other than the quality of your product, there is a violation of the PSA. Period."

Lowering your price as your needs are met is not discriminatory. It's business, pure and simple. Any successful company that buys their raw materials does it unless they happen to be an exclusive supplier at contract price.

Kindergarten: "Taylor proved that was the case over periods of time with the evidence that was provided from discovery. Do you deny that?"

I do not deny that ibp would lower their price in the cash market if their needs had been met in the formula market.

Kindergarten: "When the jury came back with the verdict and it could not be contridicted with real evidence, it was proven, it wasn't a theory any more."

Bullsh*t!

A lack of evidence to contradict a theory does not validate that theory.

Only hard evidence can earn a valid conviction, not theories.

Kindergarten: "Both Strom and the appellate courts have to have more than a mere scintilla of evidence (they didn't even have that) to overturn a jury verdict."

The plaintiffs had to prove their case beyond a shadow of a doubt. It is not Tyson's responsibility to prove their innocense. You are totally ignorant if you think a theory will earn a conviction in a fair minded court of law.

Kindergarten: "This court stinks and the stink smells like packer money. Look who is on the judiciary committe and who gets the donations. It is simple. Politicians who sell out a minority they represent for campaign contributions should be held accountable."

I'm sure you have the proof of a "buy off" too don't you?

BEWARE OF THE CONSPIRING MIND!


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

The plaintiffs had to prove their case beyond a shadow of a doubt. It is not Tyson's responsibility to prove their innocense. You are totally ignorant if you think a theory will earn a conviction in a fair minded court of law.

No, that is not the burden of proof in a civil action. Do you know what it is?

 

[Anonymous]

The plaintiffs had to prove their case beyond a shadow of a doubt. It is not Tyson's responsibility to prove their innocense. You are totally ignorant if you think a theory will earn a conviction in a fair minded court of law.

No, that is not the burden of proof in a civil action. Do you know what it is?

You are right 101- Beyond a reasonable doubt is only in criminal trials- Preponderance of the evidence in civil trials...In other words if the jury felt the evidence weighed heavier toward the plaintiffs- they win...Which is what the jury felt......And civil juries can be split- with majority winning- but in this case it was unanimous........

 

[Anonymous]

I repeat, it is not Tyson's responsibility to prove their innocense. It's the plaintiff's responsibility to prove Tyson's guilt which they could not do. They bullsh*tted the jury but the Judge and the 11th circuit saw right through it.

Some "Illusionist" like Econ. can throw out some stupid statement like the difference between the captive supply price and the cash price is proof of market manipulation in a court of jurors that do not understand cattle marketing but you saw how long that lie flew with those who do understand cattle marketing.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

I repeat, it is not Tyson's responsibility to prove their innocense. It's the plaintiff's responsibility to prove Tyson's guilt which they could not do. They bullsh*tted the jury but the Judge and the 11th circuit saw right through it.

Some "Illusionist" like Econ. can throw out some stupid statement like the difference between the captive supply price and the cash price is proof of market manipulation in a court of jurors that do not understand cattle marketing but you saw how long that lie flew with those who do understand cattle marketing.


~SH~

The appellate court obviously had problems dealing with the intention of the law. They made that clear with their TOTAL misapplication of the Robinson-Patman example. Anyone who signed off on that opinion has serious credibility issues in regards to the legal and economic issues at hand.

Do I need to continue to post the prima fascia evidence requirements in the Robinson-Patman Act?

 

[Anonymous]

Kindergarten: "Do I need to continue to post the prima fascia evidence requirements in the Robinson-Patman Act?"

Let's start with the evidence that proved that ibp manipulated markets.

Is that too much to ask?


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Kindergarten: "Do I need to continue to post the prima fascia evidence requirements in the Robinson-Patman Act?"

Let's start with the evidence that proved that ibp manipulated markets.

Is that too much to ask?


~SH~

Good idea, SH. That is exactly what I have been asking to be released by the packers. Maybe you could convince Agman to ask the packers.

While we are on this subject of evidence, what proof do you give that the grid and formula cattle were priced higher because they gave value to the business? Was anyone outside of packers allowed into slaughter floor to verify that this was the case? How do cattlemen know that they are being paid based on yield/grade (which translates into value in price per lb.) if they do not have access to the slaughter floors?

Would it not be intuitive that allowing anyone on the slaughter floor to see how their cattle dressed out be a good idea? This way they could continue to produce what the market wanted instead of inferior cattle.

 

[Anonymous]

Kindergarten: "Good idea, SH. That is exactly what I have been asking to be released by the packers.":

Still wanting the packers to prove their innocense rather than the plaintiffs having to prove their guilt huh?"

Too funny!

You're such a joke!

Kindergarten: "While we are on this subject of evidence, what proof do you give that the grid and formula cattle were priced higher because they gave value to the business?"

What proof do you have that ibp manipulated markets with captive supplies?

Kindergarten: "Was anyone outside of packers allowed into slaughter floor to verify that this was the case?"

What proof do you have that ibp manipulated markets with captive supplies?

Kindergarten: "How do cattlemen know that they are being paid based on yield/grade (which translates into value in price per lb.) if they do not have access to the slaughter floors?"

The packers don't grade them you idiot, USDA graders do.

You are in over your head again.

Kindergarten: "This way they could continue to produce what the market wanted instead of inferior cattle."

That's what grid pricing is for.


Where did you come from anyway?

You don't have a clue on these issues and you keep proving it over and over and over.

Why don't you quit while you're behind.



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Kindergarten: "Good idea, SH. That is exactly what I have been asking to be released by the packers.":

Still wanting the packers to prove their innocense rather than the plaintiffs having to prove their guilt huh?"

Too funny!

You're such a joke!

Kindergarten: "While we are on this subject of evidence, what proof do you give that the grid and formula cattle were priced higher because they gave value to the business?"

What proof do you have that ibp manipulated markets with captive supplies?

Kindergarten: "Was anyone outside of packers allowed into slaughter floor to verify that this was the case?"

What proof do you have that ibp manipulated markets with captive supplies?

Kindergarten: "How do cattlemen know that they are being paid based on yield/grade (which translates into value in price per lb.) if they do not have access to the slaughter floors?"

The packers don't grade them you idiot, USDA graders do.

You are in over your head again.

Kindergarten: "This way they could continue to produce what the market wanted instead of inferior cattle."

That's what grid pricing is for.


Where did you come from anyway?

You don't have a clue on these issues and you keep proving it over and over and over.

Why don't you quit while you're behind.



~SH~

You keep getting burdens of proof wrong, SH. This shows your total lack of intellect of a court's rules.

I will try to make it simple for you. When a man is on trial for a murder, he has the right to remanin silent. If he exercises that right then he can not be asked questions or be compelled to answer them. In this case the burden of proof of guilt lies on the accuser.

In civil courts, there is still a right to not answer questions, but that can be held against you. Tyson declined to answer some very critical questions. Obviously the jury held it against them and thought the answers to those questions were material.

Tyson/IBP wants it both ways. It doesn't work that way.

Please stop showing your ignorance of these two very different rights in court and their effects on judgement. I did not even go into the preponderance of evidence vs. beyond a reasonable doubt in relation to these two different scenarios.

You can bring up all of these points in discussion, but please, please, do not profess to know the truth when you get them mixed up. You just lose credibility.

Tyson had its chance to convince the jury during the trial. They had their chance to present the facts and answer questions and they declined. The jury voted. Any change in what the decided must be on the merits of the case, not judgements by one judge or a bunch of appellate judges who don't know what they are talking about.

 

[Anonymous]

What proof do you have that ibp manipulated markets with captive supply cattle?

Everything else is irrelevant.

WHAT IS YOUR PROOF KINDERGARTEN?



~SH~