|
| Author |
Message |
Sandhusker
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 18244
Location: Nebraska
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 8:14 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| ~SH~ wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Sandbag: "Your questions are NOT related directly to R-CALF. They're not even related indirectly. They're related directly to me." |
Well we can certainly fix that!
Does R-CALF support Canadians being allowed to export cattle and boxed beef to the United States, YES OR NO???
Does R-CALF support Australians being allowed to export lean trimmings to the United States, YES OR NO???
Does R-CALF support New Zealand being allowed to export lean trimmings to the United Stated, YES OR NO???
Watch the circus chicken dance now ..............
~SH~ |
Canada; At this time, under the current conditions, NO.
Australia and New Zealand; R-CALF has made no official statement supporting nor condemning trade with these two countries. They have voiced concerns regarding the trade agreements with these countries, most notably Australia, but have never advocated ceasing trade.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
~SH~
Rancher
Joined: 14 Feb 2005
Posts: 5426
Location: South Western SD
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 8:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'll take that as an "anti trade" position against Canada since our bse precautionary measures are identical and R-CALF has stated that we have the safest beef in the world due to our bse precautionary measures.
~SH~
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Sandhusker
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 18244
Location: Nebraska
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 8:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ~SH~ wrote: |
I'll take that as an "anti trade" position against Canada since our bse precautionary measures are identical and R-CALF has stated that we have the safest beef in the world due to our bse precautionary measures.
~SH~ |
You've shown time and time again you'll take anything the way you want to take it, facts be damned.
As of now, we do have an anti-trade position against CANADA, not the whole world.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
~SH~
Rancher
Joined: 14 Feb 2005
Posts: 5426
Location: South Western SD
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 8:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
If you admit that R-CALF has an "anti trade" position against Canada, then I obviously took R-CALF's position for the way it really is.
Why is R-CALF opposed to trading with Canada?
~SH~
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Sandhusker
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 18244
Location: Nebraska
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 8:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
SH, "If you admit that R-CALF has an "anti trade" position against Canada, then I obviously took R-CALF's position for the way it really is. "
Yeah, and you obviously took R-CALF to be anti-trade wrong. Their support of the Korean FTA alone puts water on that notion.
SH, "Why is R-CALF opposed to trading with Canada?"
Because, after consulting scientists and experts in the field, the USDA testified to Congress that a closed border with any BSE positive country was necessary to combat the problem. Our knowledge of the disease has not changed since that policy was implemented, there has been no evidence brought forward to suggest that policy was based on poor or incorrect information, so there should be no reason to change that policy.
That policy was not questioned when 22 countries in this world were discovered to be BSE positive. Only when #23 was uncovered, was there any problems. What a coincidence that #23 (Canada) just also happened to have a large US packer presence while none of the previous did.... R-CALF is against US producers being put a greater risk just so the large packers can make a buck. Call it a sell out by the USDA, blood money, whatever.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
~SH~
Rancher
Joined: 14 Feb 2005
Posts: 5426
Location: South Western SD
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Sandbag: "Yeah, and you obviously took R-CALF to be anti-trade wrong. Their support of the Korean FTA alone puts water on that notion." |
R-CALF kinda "VERBALLY" supports exports and "VERBALLY" opposes imports.
Who knows what their official position on trade is since Leo says we should be spending checkoff dollars to expand our export markets while Bullard is saying we would be better off without an export market.
Typical R-CALF!
| Quote: |
| Sandbag: "Because, after consulting scientists and experts in the field, the USDA testified to Congress that a closed border with any BSE positive country was necessary to combat the problem. Our knowledge of the disease has not changed since that policy was implemented, there has been no evidence brought forward to suggest that policy was based on poor or incorrect information, so there should be no reason to change that policy." |
USDA did close the border until measures were taken to assure that it was safe to resume trade.
The bse precautionary measures that have been taken has changed since the policy was implemented. Those bse precautionary measures must be considered and were considered in arriving at a decision to reopen the border. That's why R-CALF lost their injunction against USDA.
Since the world often looks to the United States for guidance on such issues, the bse standards we apply to Canada could be the exact same standards another country could impose on us.
Should Japan abide by those same rules since we had BSE in our native herd? OH BUT THAT'S SOMEHOW DIFFERENT.
We cannot impose any restrictions against Canada that we would not be willing to live by ourselves. That is how you bring integrity into the issue.
R-CALF's position on Canada has nothing to do with BSE and has everything to do with stopping Canadian imports. R-CALF fools nobody. That presidence was established when they filed their phony dumping case that they lost. BSE was just a convenient excuse to stop Canadian imports.
| Quote: |
| Sandbag: "That policy was not questioned when 22 countries in this world were discovered to be BSE positive. Only when #23 was uncovered, was there any problems. What a coincidence that #23 (Canada) just also happened to have a large US packer presence while none of the previous did.... R-CALF is against US producers being put a greater risk just so the large packers can make a buck. Call it a sell out by the USDA, blood money, whatever." |
The fact that the AMI filed a suit against USDA to allow the importation of beef from cattle over 30 months buries any packer bias you would like to create.
USDA realizes that we cannot hold any country to standards we are not willing to live by ourselves. Thank God they are in charge of such negotiations and not a shortsighted blaming organization like R-CALF.
When we had our first native born case of bse in the United States, R-CALF stated that our beef was safe due to the precautionary measure we have taken. Since they also said Canadian beef was "contaminated" and "high risk" when they had bse in their native herd, can you explain the difference between the precautionary bse precautionary measures in each country?
Let's see you dance around that because I would ask you the same question in public.
~SH~
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Sandhusker
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 18244
Location: Nebraska
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 1:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
SH, "The bse precautionary measures that have been taken has changed since the policy was implemented."
That is wrong. Name one precautionary measure that is known today that was not known in 1997.
SH, "Since the world often looks to the United States for guidance on such issues, the bse standards we apply to Canada could be the exact same standards another country could impose on us. "
Open your eyes, SH. Other countries are NOT imposing the same standard on as we are Canada. You don't have to guess, you don't have to speculate, you can choose to live in reality. It is obvious the rest of the world is NOT looking to us for guidance. Proof that I am right - Japan, Taiwan, Korea, Egypt - how many examples do I need to provide to you?
SH, "Should Japan abide by those same rules since we had BSE in our native herd? OH BUT THAT'S SOMEHOW DIFFERENT."
Japan should do whatever they feel is best for them. They are a soverign nation.
SH, "We cannot impose any restrictions against Canada that we would not be willing to live by ourselves. That is how you bring integrity into the issue."
We certainly can, other countries are doing it to us. Reality, SH, reality - give it a try.
Quote:
Sandbag: "That policy was not questioned when 22 countries in this world were discovered to be BSE positive. Only when #23 was uncovered, was there any problems. What a coincidence that #23 (Canada) just also happened to have a large US packer presence while none of the previous did.... R-CALF is against US producers being put a greater risk just so the large packers can make a buck. Call it a sell out by the USDA, blood money, whatever."
SH, "The fact that the AMI filed a suit against USDA to allow the importation of beef from cattle over 30 months buries any packer bias you would like to create."
Yeah, right, SH. Maybe you missed Johans saying he is committed to opening the border to cattle over 30 months?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
~SH~
Rancher
Joined: 14 Feb 2005
Posts: 5426
Location: South Western SD
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 12:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| SH (previous): "The bse precautionary measures that have been taken has changed since the policy was implemented." |
| Quote: |
| Sandbag's deceptive response: "That is wrong. Name one precautionary measure that is known today that was not known in 1997." |
Another deceptive spin job by the "MASTER ILLUSIONIST"!
I was not talking about the NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL PROCEDURES, I was talking about the LEVEL OF PROCEDURES.
The bse precuationary measures we knew about in 1997 were not being incorporated to the degree that they are today ("the bse precautionary measures that have been taken has changed").
I can't believe how deceptive you are. You knew what I meant but you had to spin it. You just think you're so cute don't you? This is such a fun little game to you isn't it? Little Sandcheska, "master illusionist"!
| Quote: |
| Sandbag: "Other countries are NOT imposing the same standard on as we are Canada. You don't have to guess, you don't have to speculate, you can choose to live in reality. It is obvious the rest of the world is NOT looking to us for guidance. Proof that I am right - Japan, Taiwan, Korea, Egypt - how many examples do I need to provide to you?" |
If the rest of the world is not considering our position on BSE, WHY DID WE ACCESS THE JAPANESE MARKET WITHOUT TESTING WHEN YOU CLAIMED THE JAPANESE CONSUMERS WERE DEMANDING TESTING????
Another empty tree!
| Quote: |
| Sandbag: "Japan should do whatever they feel is best for them. They are a soverign nation." |
How convenient!
| Quote: |
| Sandbag: "We certainly can, other countries are doing it to us." |
Oh give me a damn break. You and the other R-CALF isolationist's concern for BSE goes as far as stopping Canadian imports. You fool nobody. You showed your cards when your leaders contradicted themselves on their position regarding having BSE in your native herd.
| Quote: |
| Sandbag: "Yeah, right, SH. Maybe you missed Johans saying he is committed to opening the border to cattle over 30 months?" |
Maybe you missed the obvious fact that the Canadian border is closed to cattle over 30 months of age while opened to cattle under 30 months of age.
FACTS BE DAMNED, if someone says anything to support your bias, you sink your teeth into it like the deceiver you are.
~SH~
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
