|
| Author |
Message |
per
Rancher
Joined: 22 Dec 2007
Posts: 6090
Location: SW Alberta
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:17 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Shaft wrote: |
burnt, you're just a miserable old @#$% from Ontario, which gives us something in common.
As for you Sandy, well:
| Quote: |
| We're all in the same boat, and COOL partnered with an aggressive marketing campaign seems to me the best way to head off the flood of South American beef that the triumvirate of the NCBA/USDA/Packers are intent on bringing to our shores. |
When I see it, I'll believe it, but all I see from R-CALF is continuous attacks on Canada and Canadian cattle producers. Up here we respect those who walk the walk, not those who just talk the talk.
For the general edification of those who have a cosmopolitan view I would refer you to the UK's new agricultural policy document called Food 2030, released last month.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/food/pdf/food2030strategy.pdf
Among other things the UK government has identified that profit and risk must be 'spread more fairly across the supply chain' (see page 30). Who knew?
Now Sandy, is R-CALF on board with your surprisingly common-sense approach of 'COOL partnered with an aggressive marketing campaign' (which I wholeheartedly agree with), or will the BS continue? |
Common sense for the Center of the Universe, who knew!  Now there are 2. The rest are to get the shaft or be burnt. 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Sandhusker
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 18081
Location: Nebraska
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 7:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Shaft, I've said that R-CALF is not targeting Canadian producers here so many times that I'm getting sick to the gills of it. If you would think about it, going after producers doesn't make sense - which is exactly why R-CALF ISN'T targeting Canadian producers. Canadian producers don't have the power, don't make the policy, etc.... R-CALF is going after the damn packers and the sold-out lackeys in the goverments.
Are producers going to be collateral damage in an attack on the afore mentioned duo? Of course. It's unavoidable when the system that you're in has made you dependent on those very same pirates. If you take out the bootleggers, Grandpa's still income is going to suffer even if you have nothing against Grandpa. Should that reality cause one to not take action? Since not taking action means certain servitude ala the US chicken and pork industries, I think that is easily answered.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Kato
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 2519
Location: Manitoba - At the end of the road
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Oldtimer
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 24333
Location: Northeast Montana
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Shaft
Member
Joined: 14 Feb 2008
Posts: 132
Location: The Big Smoke
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well gee, I'm sure glad we cleared all that up. Must be that some evil spirit not involved with R-CALF has possessed Bill Bullard and assorted members of the press throughout North America. I just knew deep down in the bottom of my heart that all the fuss about R-CALF's latest attack on Canada and hence Canadian producers was untrue. Just more of that old whining and paranoia at work, I guess.
After all, we all know that R-CALF has always stood for telling the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, at all times. Just like their advocates on this thread.
| Quote: |
“We believe Canada’s subsidies on beef and cattle constitute an artificial propping-up of a Canadian cattle industry that is unsustainable at its present size but for those government subsidies, and further we believe that Canada’s subsidies are inconsistent with the very World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements that Canada claims the U.S. has violated vis-à-vis COOL,” explained R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard.
“USTR and USDA should not tolerate the Government of Canada’s ongoing practice of using the Canadian treasury to manipulate the U.S. cattle market by subsidizing Canadian cattle supplies and beef production at levels above what a competitive market can support. This practice is particularly appalling given the Government of Canada is trying to undermine the United States’ constitutionally passed COOL law – which is widely supported by U.S. cattle producers and consumers – while simultaneously using its treasury to out-compete independent U.S. cattle producers, whose prices are depressed because Canada is unjustly and artificially propping-up its cattle supplies beyond what the available market can bear…” the letter states, in part. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
burnt
Rancher
Joined: 28 Feb 2008
Posts: 4250
Location: Mid-western Ontario
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 8:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
rcalf has long proven that it might not be the sharpest tool in the box. The lack of perception of its most ardent followers evidences that.
But it is a most USEFUL tool in the packer's bag since all the legal battles undertaken by rcalf play directly into the packer's plans.
OT said ". . . until foreign food imports from Mexico- China - Thailand- etc. around the world- was found to be adulterated, or diseased- or tainted- and hundreds/thousands were sickened or killed by these imports....That is when US consumers stood up and said they want . . ."
By the way, how many of the food items listed so graciously by porker and flounder (in the "food recalls" thread)originated in the U.S. from products grown entirely in the U.S.?
Beef, pistachios, cheese, spinach, poultry, instant oatmeal breakfast cereals, peanut butter, salsa, salami . . .Wow, a lot of those foods are likely in the fridges and cupboards of most of us who frequent these pages!
And guess what, those items came not from China, Thailand, Hong Kong, Mexico or Canada but were Made in the USA and would be labeled accordingly!! So much for the illusion of a label being an indicator of safe food!
So yeah, you should likely label all the stuff you sell, but it sounds like the consumers would benefit the most from something like COOL with Mandatory I.D. to simplify the sourcing of contamination which seems to pop up with frustrating frequency!!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Oldtimer
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 24333
Location: Northeast Montana
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Shaft wrote: |
Well gee, I'm sure glad we cleared all that up. Must be that some evil spirit not involved with R-CALF has possessed Bill Bullard and assorted members of the press throughout North America. I just knew deep down in the bottom of my heart that all the fuss about R-CALF's latest attack on Canada and hence Canadian producers was untrue. Just more of that old whining and paranoia at work, I guess.
After all, we all know that R-CALF has always stood for telling the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, at all times. Just like their advocates on this thread.
| Quote: |
“We believe Canada’s subsidies on beef and cattle constitute an artificial propping-up of a Canadian cattle industry that is unsustainable at its present size but for those government subsidies, and further we believe that Canada’s subsidies are inconsistent with the very World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements that Canada claims the U.S. has violated vis-à-vis COOL,” explained R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard.
“USTR and USDA should not tolerate the Government of Canada’s ongoing practice of using the Canadian treasury to manipulate the U.S. cattle market by subsidizing Canadian cattle supplies and beef production at levels above what a competitive market can support. This practice is particularly appalling given the Government of Canada is trying to undermine the United States’ constitutionally passed COOL law – which is widely supported by U.S. cattle producers and consumers – while simultaneously using its treasury to out-compete independent U.S. cattle producers, whose prices are depressed because Canada is unjustly and artificially propping-up its cattle supplies beyond what the available market can bear…” the letter states, in part. |
|
Shaft- Canada and the imports from- along with the multinationals ability to use captive supply cattle to manipulate prices under NAFTA- was just the wakeup for both US and Canadian producers...
But I think most US producers are intelligent enough to look at the Tyson/Swift/JBS/Cargill feeder/packer investments around the world to know that that is all the use of Canadian cattle is- a wakeup call- and that these multinationals will use borders/FTO's/currency values for a long time to rape and pillage for their advantage....
Its sad to see that you aren't one of the many Canadians I know that can finally see that.... 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
burnt
Rancher
Joined: 28 Feb 2008
Posts: 4250
Location: Mid-western Ontario
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 8:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sandhusker wrote: |
| Shaft, I've said that R-CALF is not targeting Canadian producers here so many times that I'm getting sick to the gills of it. . . |
Hummm, could it be that sandy is misdiagnosing a pang of conscience?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Shaft
Member
Joined: 14 Feb 2008
Posts: 132
Location: The Big Smoke
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 10:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| OT, you're telling me that beating your best friend over the head with a baseball bat is an appropriate form of 'wakeup call' to the bad guys that they had better mend their ways. I guess if your intent is that you make the packers laugh themselves to death, you may be on to something.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Sandhusker
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 18081
Location: Nebraska
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Sandhusker
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 18081
Location: Nebraska
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2010 7:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Burnt, "But it is a most USEFUL tool in the packer's bag since all the legal battles undertaken by rcalf play directly into the packer's plans."
You've got to be kidding me.
Private BSE testing; Packers against - R-CALF for.
COOL; Packers against - R-CALF for.
Wide open borders; Packers for - R-CALF against.
PSA as written; Packers against - R-CALF for.
Increased competition on fats markets; Packers against - R-CALF for.
Full market disclosure on fat cattle sales; Packers against - R-CALF for.
NAIS; Packers for - R-CALF against.
Relaxing FMD import firewalls; Packers for - R-CALF against.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
burnt
Rancher
Joined: 28 Feb 2008
Posts: 4250
Location: Mid-western Ontario
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2010 7:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sandhusker wrote: |
Burnt, "But it is a most USEFUL tool in the packer's bag since all the legal battles undertaken by rcalf play directly into the packer's plans."
You've got to be kidding me.
Private BSE testing; Packers against - R-CALF for.
COOL; Packers against - R-CALF for.
Wide open borders; Packers for - R-CALF against.
PSA as written; Packers against - R-CALF for.
Increased competition on fats markets; Packers against - R-CALF for.
Full market disclosure on fat cattle sales; Packers against - R-CALF for.
NAIS; Packers for - R-CALF against.
Relaxing FMD import firewalls; Packers for - R-CALF against. |
Just the kind of reply I have come to expect from an rcalfer. Completely blind to the real issue.
Yanuck, we need an "I can't SEEEE" emoticon . . .
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
