• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Which way is it Sandcheska?

A

Anonymous

Guest
Tim H (to Sandcheska): "your above post seems to imply that you are saying "No,the current firewalls are not adequate to protect consumers from domestic bse". Am I reading that correctly???"

Sandcheska (in response): "Yes, you are correct."

Sandcheska : "Somebody has finally figured out what R-CALF has been saying for three years"


Leo McDonnell said we have the safest beef in the world and said that if we had a domestic case of bse in the US we could look the consumers right in the eye and tell them our beef is safe due to our firewalls.

Meanwhile, you are saying that R-CALF's position is that our firewalls are inadequate to protect consumers from domestic bse.

How can you claim R-CALF's position as "our firewalls are inadequate to protect consumers" when Leo McDonnell has directly contradicted you Sandcheska?

So which way is it? Is R-CALF's position that our firewalls are not adequate or that as Leo has stated, our beef is safe due to our firewalls?


~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
What seems to be the problem Sandcheska?

Question too uncomfortable for ya?

Which way is it?


~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Ah come on Sandcheska?

Afraid to explain R-CALF's position?

Which way is it Sandcheska do you represent R-CALF's views or did Leo when he made his statement?

Cat got your tongue?


~SH~
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
quit pickin on poor old Sandhusker Scott. He's got blisters on his feet from the new running shoes he's been high tailing in the last couple of days. :wink:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Tim H (to Sandcheska): "your above post seems to imply that you are saying "No,the current firewalls are not adequate to protect consumers from domestic bse". Am I reading that correctly???"

Sandcheska (in response): "Yes, you are correct."

Sandcheska : "Somebody has finally figured out what R-CALF has been saying for three years"


Leo McDonnell said we have the safest beef in the world and said that if we had a domestic case of bse in the US we could look the consumers right in the eye and tell them our beef is safe due to our firewalls.

Meanwhile, you are saying that R-CALF's position is that our firewalls are inadequate to protect consumers from domestic bse.

How can you claim R-CALF's position as "our firewalls are inadequate to protect consumers" when Leo McDonnell has directly contradicted you Sandcheska?

So which way is it? Is R-CALF's position that our firewalls are not adequate or that as Leo has stated, our beef is safe due to our firewalls?


~SH~


Rcalf obviously has issues with the USDA even though Leo was repeating what the Sec. of Agriculture was saying as the "informed" party line.

Our firewalls are non existent if we have to depend on government deciding what the truth is with no independent verification.

It was not the way the founding fathers envisioned our country. Reality decided soley by the government is not real.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman,

Nobody cares what kind of lame brain conspiracy you can come up with to try to justify the inconsistancies in R-CALF's position because you are nothing but a liar.


Sandcheska,

So which way is it?

Is R-CALF's position that our firewalls are not adequate or that as Leo has stated, our beef is safe due to our firewalls?


Why do you duck and run from such a simple question?


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Conman,

Nobody cares what kind of lame brain conspiracy you can come up with to try to justify the inconsistancies in R-CALF's position because you are nothing but a liar.


Sandcheska,

So which way is it?

Is R-CALF's position that our firewalls are not adequate or that as Leo has stated, our beef is safe due to our firewalls?


Why do you duck and run from such a simple question?


~SH~

Who voted you president of the world?

Self proclamations don't count.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Run away Lying King!

This place was better off without your constant lies muddying the water.


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Run away Lying King!

This place was better off without your constant lies muddying the water.


~SH~

You are one to be talking.

You act like a 12 year old with your names and calling people liars.

Why don't you just grow up a little. It would be great if we could argue the points without you dipping back into grade school tactics.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Why don't you quit lying Conman?

What do you think you can possible gain by being such a liar?

You have lied to the point where you have earned the title of Lying King.

Start telling the truth and you might gain some respect.


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Why don't you quit lying Conman?

What do you think you can possible gain by being such a liar?

You have lied to the point where you have earned the title of Lying King.

Start telling the truth and you might gain some respect.


~SH~

You mean participate in your delusion and I would get your respect.

SH, your juvenile name calling and calling people a liar because they don't agree with you is just immature.

Trying to garner respect from someone like you is not worth the effort.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman: "SH, your juvenile name calling and calling people a liar because they don't agree with you is just immature."

You are a liar because you lie continually, not because you disagree with me.

You lie about Walmart selling "select beef" as "choice". You lie about fly eggs in your meat. You lie about your phone lines being tapped. You lie about "back door meetings" and "paid off politicians". You lie about USDA. You lie about market manipulation. You are a lying conspiracy theorist and your opinion means nothing because of your lies.


Sandcheska,

So which way is it?

Is R-CALF's position that our firewalls are not adequate or that as Leo has stated, our beef is safe due to our firewalls?



~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Conman: "SH, your juvenile name calling and calling people a liar because they don't agree with you is just immature."

You are a liar because you lie continually, not because you disagree with me.

You lie about Walmart selling "select beef" as "choice". You lie about fly eggs in your meat. You lie about your phone lines being tapped. You lie about "back door meetings" and "paid off politicians". You lie about USDA. You lie about market manipulation. You are a lying conspiracy theorist and your opinion means nothing because of your lies.


Sandcheska,

So which way is it?

Is R-CALF's position that our firewalls are not adequate or that as Leo has stated, our beef is safe due to our firewalls?



~SH~

SH, can you prove any of the aforementioned items were lies? Your opinion does not matter.

If you can not prove them, then you are the one lying.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman: "SH, can you prove any of the aforementioned items were lies?"

You want to believe packers manipulate markets.

Judge Strom said they did not.
The 11th Circuit said they did not.

You still repeat the lie because that's what packer blamers like you want to believe.

Do you know how rotten meat has to be to contain fly larvae? You're such an idiot!

You claim "back door meetings" and "paid off politicians" without a stitch of evidence to prove it. THAT'S LYING!

You can't spout off what you want to believe without proof.

You don't have any problem being a liar so why pretend otherwise?


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Conman: "SH, can you prove any of the aforementioned items were lies?"

You want to believe packers manipulate markets.

Judge Strom said they did not.
The 11th Circuit said they did not.

Econ: Strom is not a jury. When our courts are run strictly by judges, we will have the same problem that Israel did before King Saul. I would say we are already there. Congress is not using its checks on the court's decisions when it comes to the exertion of market power and abuses of the powerful. Same thing that happened in late 1800s.

You still repeat the lie because that's what packer blamers like you want to believe.
Econ: Your opinion that it was a lie is just your gopher trapping opinion. No more, no less.

Do you know how rotten meat has to be to contain fly larvae? You're such an idiot!

Econ: They were pupae, and yes, I do. I am very familiar with the life cycle of the fly and some of its predators. We have implemented a biological control system on our farm that incorporates the use of these predators for fly control. I hung around the entomology labs in college because it was so interesting. To you know what the word means?

You claim "back door meetings" and "paid off politicians" without a stitch of evidence to prove it. THAT'S LYING!

Econ: If you don't think money has an influence on politics, you are deluding yourself. Public Citizen showed the money trail, if you can't connect the dots yourself, don't apply for a job at the FBI.

You can't spout off what you want to believe without proof.

You don't have any problem being a liar so why pretend otherwise?

Econ: Where is the proof, SH? You have little more than poor conjecture here. You have been shown time and time again that you don't know what you are talking about and while you love to continue to talk about it, it doesn't mean you have mastered any facts--just time. It is funny that you are the very thing that you so continually call others.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Actually, Strom said there was evidence that the packers were manipulating the markets. The problem is that he thinks that is acceptable as long as they are doing it in order to compete with each other. I read section 202 several times, up, down and side ways and didn't see where he came up with that one.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Actually, Strom said there was evidence that the packers were manipulating the markets. The problem is that he thinks that is acceptable as long as they are doing it in order to compete with each other. I read section 202 several times, up, down and side ways and didn't see where he came up with that one.

The basis of this argument comes from the comparative advantages that I have mentioned before in this forum.

Instead of taking their competitors to court when they break the law and get a comparative advantage through illegal means, the packers want to be able to have the same comparative advantage with no penalty just because their competitors are doing it. This will allow all of them to cheat, break the law, and have no consequence with the excuse of "they are doing it."

It is like the cheater in the classroom arguing that everyone else is doing it so he has the right to cheat too.

That argument doesn't hold water in a classroom that is properly run. The 11th circuit is not properly run, it is clear to see.

Comparative advantages that come through illegal means should be penalized by our court system. They just haven't had the nuts to do it.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Lying King: "Strom is not a jury. When our courts are run strictly by judges, we will have the same problem that Israel did before King Saul. I would say we are already there. Congress is not using its checks on the court's decisions when it comes to the exertion of market power and abuses of the powerful. Same thing that happened in late 1800s."

The jury is not Strom! Judge Strom knows more about the law then this jury did and the plaintiffs had the appeals process to fall back on if Judge Strom was wrong. The plaintiffs had the supreme court to fall back on if they believed the 11th Circuit was wrong. THE PACKER BLAMERS LOST ON EVERY COUNT.


Lying King: "I am very familiar with the life cycle of the fly and some of its predators. We have implemented a biological control system on our farm that incorporates the use of these predators for fly control."

If that's the case then you know how rotten meat would have to be in order for your lie to be true. It's nothing more than one more example of your conspiring mind and childlike imagination. You are a compulsive liar.


Lying King: "If you don't think money has an influence on politics, you are deluding yourself."

If you can't provide proof of "BACK DOOR MEETINGS" and "PAID OFF POLITICIANS" you are lying. Pure and simple!


Lying King: "You have been shown time and time again that you don't know what you are talking about and while you love to continue to talk about it, it doesn't mean you have mastered any facts--just time."


Hahaha! Yeh right! You have stated TIME AND TIME AGAIN that I don't know what I'm talking about but you couldn't prove that lie any more than any other lie you tell.


Sandcheska: "Actually, Strom said there was evidence that the packers were manipulating the markets. The problem is that he thinks that is acceptable as long as they are doing it in order to compete with each other. I read section 202 several times, up, down and side ways and didn't see where he came up with that one."

Bullsh*t!

I read Judge Strom's ruling, Judge Strom never said, "there was evidence that the packers were manipulating the market".

Just one more lie!


Sandcheska,

So which way is it?

Is R-CALF's position that our firewalls are not adequate or that as Leo has stated, our beef is safe due to our firewalls?



~SH~
 
Top