Sandman: "Econ101, has the entertainment value of "debating" SH started to wear thin, yet? Afterwhile you'll just get tired of the his water torture methods and you'll give up."
If you can't contribute anything besides waving your packer blaming pom poms, go play in the street you circle fly. Absorbing an insult from you is not unlike being run over by a Tonka truck.
Econ. 101: " Perjury is about lying to a jury under oath. Did this happen and was it proven? Does presumption of innocence only pertain to packers? You seem to be doublespeaking here."
Here's Judge Strom's instructions to the jurors:
"During the testimony of Mike Callicrate, I instructed you to disregard a portion of his testimony because I found it was not true. You should consider his testimony on other subjects with caution and weigh it with great care. You may disregard his testimony in whole or in part, except insofar as it my have been corroborated by other credible evidence. Remember, that you, as jurors, are the sole judges of the truthfullness of the witnesses and the weight their testimony deserves."
Can it be any clearer for you?
You are right, perjury is lying to a jury under oath. That is exactly what Mike did.
That isn't the first time I have seen Mike Callicrate lie in public.
I have heard him state "fat cattle prices have nothing to do with supply and demand that the price is totally arbitrary".
Would you like to try defending that Econ. 101?
How about ibp having contractual arrangements with the other major packers? Interestingly, I have asked the heads of cattle procurement for Tyson's competition and they said the same thing Bob Peterson said, "it was a damn lie".
He even claimed on the Derry Brownfield show that ibp dismissed jurors simply because they were black. That's the type of person Mike Callicrate is.
Econ. 101: "I did not go to the trial but your arguments can be refuted by anyone who is willing to think about it and give you the time of day."
More cheap talk!
You haven't refuted a damn thing yet with facts to the contrary. All you can do is make your feeble attempt to discredit. More of the same from the "factually defenseless" packer blamers.
Econ. 101: "If you are the person who cattlemen have to talk to in order to sell their fat cattle then I you might be able to make a prima facia case that it is more efficient to have some pricing mechanism that is not based on haggling with you."
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Oh gawd, you really crack me up with your humor!
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
OCM,
Since you seem to think you know so much about the case, why don't you present the evidence that supported the market manipulation conspiracy theory?
Nobody else has!
I'm tired of dancing with Econ. and ankle biter.
I'm assuming the Plaintiffs thought they had something of relevance.
What did the plaintiffs present to support their market manipulation allegation??? You have to have some idea?
You guys fed on the "preferential treatment" aspect of the case like sharks in a feeding frenzy I would have to assume you had something of relevance regarding a PSA violation of market manipulation????
What say you?
Bet you wish you would have went after the "preferential treatment" allegation instead huh?
Oh, regarding Mr. Perjury's hypocrisy, what could be more blatant than to claim packers and retailers were making $400 per head off the backs of America's cattlemen then to pay a top premium of $50 per head for fat cattle for your "Born, Raised, and Processed in the U.S." branded beef program, charge the consumer 10% to 20% more for the beef, and claim "consumer apathy" as the reason for your lack of profitability???
Does hypocrisy run any deeper than that considering Mike's support of "Mandatory" Born, Raised and Processed labeling and $400 per head profits????
If you guys are ever going to peg something on the evil successful packers, you are going to have to find more credible witnesses.
By all means, keep handing Mike Callicrate the microphone.
~SH~
