Why R-Calf Threatens the Packer led NCBA

[Econ101]

Any bets on the Aberdeen case Conman?

Think Herman and Mike can pull an illusional rabbit out of this hat and make a jury believe that Tyson, Cargill, Swift, and National all knew that USDA had reported boxed beef prices inaccurately???

How ironic! These are the same blamers that insisted on "MANDATORY" socialistic price reporting then sue the packers because they got the socialistic law they wished for.

How typical!

You packer blamers will lose another one. Write it down Conman!


~SH~

This is a question of incompetence at the USDA or corruption by the packers. My contention is that they are one and the same. If they questioned JoAnn Waterfield instead of giving her a walk, we would see that is the case. That agency is milking the U.S. producer.

The higher ups need their protection.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "This is a question of incompetence at the USDA or corruption by the packers. My contention is that they are one and the same. If they questioned JoAnn Waterfield instead of giving her a walk, we would see that is the case. That agency is milking the U.S. producer."

DIVERSION!

Any predictions on the case Conman?

Mike: "Question: Doesn't the USDA report prices that are supplied to them by the packers?"

Not sure if the boxed beef prices are reported by the packers or the retailers or both. I would assume both.

This case stems from the USDA's misreporting of boxed beef prices which the plaintiffs allege the packers knew were reported wrongly and the packers failed to adjust their prices accordingly.

This case stands on weaker ground than the pickett case.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "This is a question of incompetence at the USDA or corruption by the packers. My contention is that they are one and the same. If they questioned JoAnn Waterfield instead of giving her a walk, we would see that is the case. That agency is milking the U.S. producer."

DIVERSION!

Any predictions on the case Conman?

Mike: "Question: Doesn't the USDA report prices that are supplied to them by the packers?"

Not sure if the boxed beef prices are reported by the packers or the retailers or both. I would assume both.

This case stems from the USDA's misreporting of boxed beef prices which the plaintiffs allege the packers knew were reported wrongly and the packers failed to adjust their prices accordingly.

This case stands on weaker ground than the pickett case.


~SH~

Pardon me if I don't take legal advice from one who supports legitimate market manipulation. :roll:

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "Not sure if the boxed beef prices are reported by the packers or the retailers or both. I would assume both. This case stems from the USDA's misreporting of boxed beef prices which the plaintiffs allege the packers knew were reported wrongly and the packers failed to adjust their prices accordingly. This case stands on weaker ground than the pickett case."

The packers are to report the prices they receive for boxed beef twice daily. What came out in the USDA's reports was not correct. Either it was reported wrong to them, or they messed it up putting it on their reports.

Tell us, SH, do you think the packers read those reports from the USDA?

 

[Anonymous]

Another empty statement from the king of diversion.

Any predictions on the case Conman?

Do you even know anything about the case?

Oh, I get it, that's why you are doing the circus chicken dance again. Silly me!


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Another empty statement from the king of diversion.

Any predictions on the case Conman?

Do you even know anything about the case?

Oh, I get it, that's why you are doing the circus chicken dance again. Silly me!


~SH~

What do you know about the case, SH? You didn't know the reporting requirements. Do you think the packers read those reports from the USDA?

 

[Mike]

Another empty statement from the king of diversion.

Any predictions on the case Conman?

Do you even know anything about the case?

Oh, I get it, that's why you are doing the circus chicken dance again. Silly me!


~SH~

What do you know about the case, SH? You didn't know the reporting requirements. Do you think the packers read those reports from the USDA?

The way I see it. The trial should last about 15 minutes.

1-Look at the Boxed Beef Reports.

2-Look at what the packers reported.

3-Look at what the usda reported.

4-If there is a difference, someone is lying.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "The packers are to report the prices they receive for boxed beef twice daily. What came out in the USDA's reports was not correct. Either it was reported wrong to them, or they messed it up putting it on their reports."

USDA already admitted that they failed to report the prices accurately, DUH!

Sandbag: "What do you know about the case, SH?"

I know that Tyson, Excel, Swift, and National cannot be held accountable for USDA's ADMITTED mistake in reporting. Only a packer blamer like you would think otherwise.

Any predictions on this case Sandbag?

Do you think your packer blaming heros have a smoking gun this time? LOL!

Sandbag: "You didn't know the reporting requirements."

Irrelevant, how can Tyson, Excel, Swift, and National be held accountable for USDA's ADMITTED reporting mistake?

That's the level of packer blamer intelligence we are dealing with here, AGAIN.

Sandbag: "Do you think the packers read those reports from the USDA?"

If you think you actually have a point, MAKE IT instead of creating "ILLUSIONS" again like the "ILLUSIONIST" you always are.



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Sandbag: "The packers are to report the prices they receive for boxed beef twice daily. What came out in the USDA's reports was not correct. Either it was reported wrong to them, or they messed it up putting it on their reports."

USDA already admitted that they failed to report the prices accurately, DUH!

Sandbag: "What do you know about the case, SH?"

I know that Tyson, Excel, Swift, and National cannot be held accountable for USDA's ADMITTED mistake in reporting. Only a packer blamer like you would think otherwise.

Any predictions on this case Sandbag?

Do you think your packer blaming heros have a smoking gun this time? LOL!

Sandbag: "You didn't know the reporting requirements."

Irrelevant, how can Tyson, Excel, Swift, and National be held accountable for USDA's ADMITTED reporting mistake?

That's the level of packer blamer intelligence we are dealing with here, AGAIN.

Sandbag: "Do you think the packers read those reports from the USDA?"

If you think you actually have a point, MAKE IT instead of creating "ILLUSIONS" again like the "ILLUSIONIST" you always are.



~SH~

Yes, it is going to be quite interesting. The packers blaming the USDA for their incompetence and the USDA trying to not let the packers down by doing what they did with JoAnn Waterfield.

Like I said, incompetence or corruption. Like I also said, it all seems the same to me.


Maybe this falls under the "legitimate manipulation" category you have developed, SH.

 

[Anonymous]

What? No prediction Conman?

Afraid the packer blamers will get their heads handed to them again?

The incompetancy here is with MANDATORY PRICE REPORTING! The socialist law passed by packer blamers that reports price WITHOUT REPORTING THE VALUE THE PRICE IS BASED ON.

Socialism!


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

What? No prediction Conman?

Afraid the packer blamers will get their heads handed to them again?

The incompetancy here is with MANDATORY PRICE REPORTING! The socialist law passed by packer blamers that reports price WITHOUT REPORTING THE VALUE THE PRICE IS BASED ON.

Socialism!


~SH~

Your characterization of market reporting being a socialist law is quite revealing, SH. I guess you are all with the "don't ask, don't tell" market system.


SH:"The incompetancy here is with MANDATORY PRICE REPORTING! The socialist law passed by packer blamers that reports price WITHOUT REPORTING THE VALUE THE PRICE IS BASED ON."

Econ: Packers always have the opportunity of reporting that information voluntarily, SH.

Another Omega 3 argument flushed down the drain.

 

[Sandhusker]

Quote:
Sandbag: "You didn't know the reporting requirements."


SH, "Irrelevant, how can Tyson, Excel, Swift, and National be held accountable for USDA's ADMITTED reporting mistake? That's the level of packer blamer intelligence we are dealing with here, AGAIN. "

When did USDA admit they made the reporting error in this case?


Quote:
Sandbag: "Do you think the packers read those reports from the USDA?"


SH, "If you think you actually have a point, MAKE IT instead of creating "ILLUSIONS" again like the "ILLUSIONIST" you always are."

I asked a question. I asked it twice. Are you going to answer it or do a chicken dance?

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "Packers always have the opportunity of reporting that information voluntarily, SH."

They did report that information voluntarily negating the need for the stupid socialistic price reporting law.

It's none of your damn business what I get paid for fat cattle unless I choose to tell you. Damn socialist!

Sandbag: " When did USDA admit they made the reporting error in this case?"

Shortly after the error was discovered.

Sandbag: "I asked a question. I asked it twice. Are you going to answer it or do a chicken dance?"

Can't you come up with anything original ("chicken dance", "gopher trapper", etc. etc.)? You're such a mindless follower.

I have no way of knowing whether the packers read those reports or not and my speculation is irrelevant.

Now if you think you have a point, MAKE IT!


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "Packers always have the opportunity of reporting that information voluntarily, SH."

They did report that information voluntarily negating the need for the stupid socialistic price reporting law.

It's none of your damn business what I get paid for fat cattle unless I choose to tell you. Damn socialist!

Sandbag: " When did USDA admit they made the reporting error in this case?"

Shortly after the error was discovered.

Sandbag: "I asked a question. I asked it twice. Are you going to answer it or do a chicken dance?"

Can't you come up with anything original ("chicken dance", "gopher trapper", etc. etc.)? You're such a mindless follower.

I have no way of knowing whether the packers read those reports or not and my speculation is irrelevant.

Now if you think you have a point, MAKE IT!


~SH~

So packers are going off of the "I don't have to disclose who I am advantaging and disadvantaging to manipulate the markets with to screw most producers and the market as a whole because SH doesn't want his neighbors to know" theory even though there is a law on reporting?

That is a novel theory there, SH. It seems you are full of theories these days. Is it a "conspiracy" theory?

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "So packers are going off of the "I don't have to disclose who I am advantaging and disadvantaging to manipulate the markets with to screw most producers and the market as a whole because SH doesn't want his neighbors to know" theory even though there is a law on reporting?"

Another deceptive, lying spin job!

When did I suggest knowing the packers position?

I'm simply stating my position you lying, deceptive SOB!

Conman: "That is a novel theory there, SH. It seems you are full of theories these days. Is it a "conspiracy" theory?"

You'd be the one who'd know about conspiracy theories since your entire MO is based on conspiracy theories.

The day you bring any relevant facts to the table to support your theories will be the day hell freezes over.

~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Quote:
Sandbag: " When did USDA admit they made the reporting error in this case?"


SH, "Shortly after the error was discovered."

Yeah, right. Didn't happen like that, SH. Are you attempting to mislead?


Quote:
Sandbag: "I asked a question. I asked it twice. Are you going to answer it or do a chicken dance?"


SH, "Can't you come up with anything original ("chicken dance", "gopher trapper", etc. etc.)? You're such a mindless follower. I have no way of knowing whether the packers read those reports or not and my speculation is irrelevant. Now if you think you have a point, MAKE IT!"

You know dang good and well that they read those reports. Your decision to dummy up speaks volumes on your knowledge of the case. They read those reports, knew they were inaccurare, but kept mum - and you defend that. That speaks volumes on your honesty and integrity,

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "Yeah, right. Didn't happen like that, SH. Are you attempting to mislead?"

Oh yeh, more cheap talk! Prove it packer blamer!

Bring it!

Observe the diversion.................

Sandbag: "You know dang good and well that they read those reports."

Sandbag: "They read those reports, knew they were inaccurare, but kept mum - and you defend that."

Hahaha! You don't know sh*t! That's a pile of speculation on your part, AS USUAL.

Where is your proof they read the reports?
Where is your proof they knew the reports were inaccurate?
Where is your proof they kept mum after knowing the reports were inaccurate?

You're such a mindless idiot! You just repeat what supports your packer blaming bias. Another head nodder.

Watch how the case turns out and see for yourself who's full of sh*t again.

Sandbag: "That speaks volumes on your honesty and integrity,"

You have $100 that speaks more than your cheap talk about my honesty and integrity. I could have easily weaseled out of that bet by reverting back to my original statement if it wasn't for my honesty and integrity.

None of your little ankle nips can even come close to tarnishing my honesty or my integrity. Little pest.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Sandbag: "Yeah, right. Didn't happen like that, SH. Are you attempting to mislead?"

Oh yeh, more cheap talk! Prove it packer blamer!

Bring it!

Observe the diversion.................

Sandbag: "You know dang good and well that they read those reports."

Sandbag: "They read those reports, knew they were inaccurare, but kept mum - and you defend that."

Hahaha! You don't know sh*t! That's a pile of speculation on your part, AS USUAL.

Where is your proof they read the reports?
Where is your proof they knew the reports were inaccurate?
Where is your proof they kept mum after knowing the reports were inaccurate?

You're such a mindless idiot! You just repeat what supports your packer blaming bias. Another head nodder.

Watch how the case turns out and see for yourself who's full of sh*t again.

Sandbag: "That speaks volumes on your honesty and integrity,"

You have $100 that speaks more than your cheap talk about my honesty and integrity. I could have easily weaseled out of that bet by reverting back to my original statement if it wasn't for my honesty and integrity.

None of your little ankle nips can even come close to tarnishing my honesty or my integrity. Little pest.


~SH~

So why don't you want your neighbors to know the price fat cattle sold on the market?

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "So why don't you want your neighbors to know the price fat cattle sold on the market?"

Another spin job!

Never said I didn't want my neighbors to know the price fat cattle sold on the market at you deceptive, lying !@$%^@!$&!

Voluntary price reporting always worked prior to your "PLEASE GOVERNMENT, SAVE US FROM OURSELVES AGAIN" ^@!%*!@ mandate.

Nebraska cattlemens have a perfect, give data to get data situation without another stupid flawed government mandate.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandbag: "Yeah, right. Didn't happen like that, SH. Are you attempting to mislead?"

Oh yeh, more cheap talk! Prove it packer blamer!

Bring it!

Observe the diversion.................

Sandbag: "You know dang good and well that they read those reports."

Sandbag: "They read those reports, knew they were inaccurare, but kept mum - and you defend that."

Hahaha! You don't know sh*t! That's a pile of speculation on your part, AS USUAL.

Where is your proof they read the reports?
Where is your proof they knew the reports were inaccurate?
Where is your proof they kept mum after knowing the reports were inaccurate?

You're such a mindless idiot! You just repeat what supports your packer blaming bias. Another head nodder.

Watch how the case turns out and see for yourself who's full of sh*t again.

Sandbag: "That speaks volumes on your honesty and integrity,"

You have $100 that speaks more than your cheap talk about my honesty and integrity. I could have easily weaseled out of that bet by reverting back to my original statement if it wasn't for my honesty and integrity.

None of your little ankle nips can even come close to tarnishing my honesty or my integrity. Little pest.


~SH~

Let's just set aside your post until the facts of the trial come out, SH. We'll just see how smart and factual you are. Truth is your only bias? :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:

As far as that $100 bet goes, my offer is still on the table for a double or nothing deal on the original statement you cling to. Heck, I'll even double that. You want it?

You've done a stellar job of tarnishing your own integrity, SH. All us "little ankle nips" did was to give you a microphone.