|
| Author |
Message |
~SH~
Rancher
Joined: 14 Feb 2005
Posts: 5426
Location: South Western SD
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2005 1:40 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Quit dancing around the question Sandhusker.
FOR A THIRD TIME...............
Again, if trade policy is being guided by AMI's "bottom line", why did AMI file suit against USDA????
What's the problem Sandhusker?
Answer the question?
~SH~
|
|
| Back to top |
|
rancher
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 1059
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2005 1:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Again, if trade policy is being guided by AMI's "bottom line", why did AMI file suit against USDA????
To try and get the power back that R-calf is stopping.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
~SH~
Rancher
Joined: 14 Feb 2005
Posts: 5426
Location: South Western SD
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2005 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Rancher: "To try and get the power back that R-calf is stopping."
Ridiculous!
~SH~
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Sandhusker
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 18244
Location: Nebraska
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2005 5:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ~SH~ wrote: |
Quit dancing around the question Sandhusker.
FOR A THIRD TIME...............
Again, if trade policy is being guided by AMI's "bottom line", why did AMI file suit against USDA????
What's the problem Sandhusker?
Answer the question?
~SH~ |
Fine, I'll answer your question even though you asked it in a diversion so as to not address my question to you. I'll answer yours with a gentlemen's agreement that you address mine.
The way I see it is that the AMI has recognized a new climate. The can no longer get what they want as easy as they used to. There's a new sheriff in town thats watching what is going on and it's not going to be business as usual. They used to get what they wanted and NCBA stayed mum or even backed the USDA (Creekstone is a prime example). Is it a coincidence that this lawsuit comes after R-CALF becomes a voice? I don't think so.
Now, explain to me how the USDA went from viewing BSE as a health issue before May 23 to viewing it as an economic issue on May 25. No diversionary questions, no R-CALF tangents, nothing but this issue.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Murgen
Rancher
Joined: 12 Feb 2005
Posts: 2117
Location: Ontario
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2005 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
After May 20, 2003, the USDA realized that BSE was no longer just a problem outside North America. Before this the emphasis was on keeping it out of North America. Once it was realized that it was present in North America it then became a priority to emphasise that it was not a food safety issue because of the safegaurds already in place and the ones being implemented. And by looking at the OIE "guidelines" that BSE should not be used as a trade barrier, the USDA implemented a policy that would allow for minimal numbers of cases to not impede trade.
|
Obviously when it comes home to roost, you have to make changes, I'm thankful that the USDA isn't stuck in the '80's, you should be too. what is it that you don't like about change when the situation changes. I know you will blame this on flip flopping, but it's called adapting and changing to circumstances. Hell if you want to run your business on the "good old days" go ahead! Has your business changed in the last few years? Marketing, management etc?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Murgen
Rancher
Joined: 12 Feb 2005
Posts: 2117
Location: Ontario
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2005 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sandhusker, you know, when a light bulb burns out in my house, I replace it. Seems like you're dealing with a 40 watt, that's burnt out a long time ago. Get a transplant, replace it with a 100 watt.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Sandhusker
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 18244
Location: Nebraska
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2005 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Murgen wrote: |
| Quote: |
After May 20, 2003, the USDA realized that BSE was no longer just a problem outside North America. Before this the emphasis was on keeping it out of North America. Once it was realized that it was present in North America it then became a priority to emphasise that it was not a food safety issue because of the safegaurds already in place and the ones being implemented. And by looking at the OIE "guidelines" that BSE should not be used as a trade barrier, the USDA implemented a policy that would allow for minimal numbers of cases to not impede trade.
|
Obviously when it comes home to roost, you have to make changes, I'm thankful that the USDA isn't stuck in the '80's, you should be too. what is it that you don't like about change when the situation changes. I know you will blame this on flip flopping, but it's called adapting and changing to circumstances. Hell if you want to run your business on the "good old days" go ahead! Has your business changed in the last few years? Marketing, management etc? |
You change economic laws as the economy changes. You change health laws as the underlying knowledge changes. You don't change health laws for economic reasons. That is the point you are missing. It it makes you sick, it makes you sick, regardless of economics.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Sandhusker
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 18244
Location: Nebraska
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2005 6:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Maple Leaf Angus wrote: |
| Maple Leaf Angus wrote: |
| Oldtimer wrote: |
Sandhusker- Theres an old rule of law that after the crime has been commited or the event has occurred you can't go back and change the law and make it retroactive for that event--- That is what the USDA has done and its going to burn them in the butt... If they wanted to reduce the standards for importing from BSE countries why didn't they do it BEFORE Canada got BSE? Why didn't they do it for Britain ( an ally in the war against terrorism by the way) or Switzerland or any other BSE country?
They only came up with the idea after the packers got shut down from their supply of unlabeled generic beef from Canada- that they could take and stick a USDA lablel on and pass of as US product for a larger profit........ |
In answer to your question as to why the USDA wants to change this law.... well OT, to anyone outside of the US and quite a few within, the answer is pretty clear - it's because of the HIGH PROBABILITY that the US has BSE in its herd as well as Canada due to the "small" matter of identical feeding practices and herd intermingling for decades.
So, the real reason for this change is for the purpose of covering your own American not nicee$ when the presence of BSE in your herd is finally admitted.
But when you finally understand this, don't feel bad about your stubborn refusal to see the truth, OT. We all understand how scary it must be for you to admit your vulnerability. |
Read this post again Sandhusker. Or, maybe once was too much for you to handle? |
Maple Leaf: In answer to your question as to why the USDA wants to change this law.... well OT, to anyone outside of the US and quite a few within, the answer is pretty clear - it's because of the HIGH PROBABILITY that the US has BSE in its herd as well as Canada due to the "small" matter of identical feeding practices and herd intermingling for decades.
So, the real reason for this change is for the purpose of covering your own American not nicee$ when the presence of BSE in your herd is finally admitted.
But when you finally understand this, don't feel bad about your stubborn refusal to see the truth, OT. We all understand how scary it must be for you to admit your vulnerability.[/quote]
I'll agree with you that the USDA saw the probablity that we would have it as well. But, how would changing our policy cover our a$$? I mean, really, say we discover BSE in the US and the world closes to us (like they already have) We tell them (Japan for instance) that they should take our beef because we changed our policy to take Canadian? That's going to do the trick? Japan will say, "and that what to do with us?" just like they are treating us now. Notice how much changing our policy to take your boxed beef has helped us? What about our domestic consumers? They will be comforted because we changed our policy to you? Please explain the corelation between changing our policy for you and covering our rears.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Murgen
Rancher
Joined: 12 Feb 2005
Posts: 2117
Location: Ontario
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2005 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
You change economic laws as the economy changes. You change health laws as the underlying knowledge changes. You don't change health laws for economic reasons. That is the point you are missing. It it makes you sick, it makes you sick, regardless of economics.
|
and the economics of the US beef industry hasn't changed, get your head out of the sand!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Sandhusker
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 18244
Location: Nebraska
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2005 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Murgen wrote: |
| Quote: |
You change economic laws as the economy changes. You change health laws as the underlying knowledge changes. You don't change health laws for economic reasons. That is the point you are missing. It it makes you sick, it makes you sick, regardless of economics.
|
and the economics of the US beef industry hasn't changed, get your head out of the sand! |
And economics has what to do with a health law?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
~SH~
Rancher
Joined: 14 Feb 2005
Posts: 5426
Location: South Western SD
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 7:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sandhusker: "It is about whether or not our trade policy will be guided by the AMI's bottom line or not."
SH (in response): "If trade policy is being guided by AMI's "bottom line", why did AMI file suit against USDA????"
Sandhusker (in response): "The way I see it is that the AMI has recognized a new climate. They can no longer get what they want as easy as they used to."
Bwahahahaha!
Oh, I see, our trade policy will be guided by the AMI's bottom line but they can no longer get what they want..........
Ahhhh.....ok?
Is that kinda like first I voted for it then I voted against it????
Sandhusker: "Now, explain to me how the USDA went from viewing BSE as a health issue before May 23 to viewing it as an economic issue on May 25."
No way! You are going to have to explain yourself better than that. Only an idiot would take you at your word.
Before I am going to answer this question, you are going to provide proof that USDA changed directions ("health issue" to "economic issue").
Not R-CULT parroted statements, FACTS. PROOF! EVIDENCE!
I'm not going to fall for your bullsh*t anymore. You bring the facts to back your position, then I'll answer your question.
~SH~
|
|
| Back to top |
|
~SH~
Rancher
Joined: 14 Feb 2005
Posts: 5426
Location: South Western SD
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 7:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sandhusker: "You change economic laws as the economy changes. You change health laws as the underlying knowledge changes. You don't change health laws for economic reasons. That is the point you are missing."
Sandhusker: "And economics has what to do with a health law?"
What law are you taking about??
Provide the law you are referring to Sandhusker!
~SH~
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
