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

“Packers were wrong about the costs of a grade stamp

Help Support Ranchers.net:

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America


For Immediate Release Contact: Shae Dodson, Communications Coordinator
December 1, 2005 Phone: 406-672-8969; e-mail: [email protected]



Cattle Producers React to Proposed Legislation

to Change USDA Grade Stamp System



(Billings, Mont.) – In an effort to highlight the need to provide additional information to U.S. consumers about the beef they serve their families, Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., along with co-sponsors Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., recently introduced legislation titled the “Truth in Quality Grading Act of 2005” to amend the Federal Meat Inspection Act.



Johnson’s legislation would bar the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) from applying quality grade stamps on various cuts of imported meat and would classify imported beef or beef produced from imported cattle that has a USDA grade stamp as “misbranded,” producing a net effect of ensuring imported meat cannot take advantage of the USDA grade stamp.



Beginning in 1962, USDA required that imported meats, including carcasses, sides and cuts be marked with a country-of-origin label until they were graded for quality (prime, choice, select, standard, commercial, utility, cutter and canner). Then, in 1980, USDA changed its requirements and began grading only carcasses, including imported carcasses. However, current regulations do not require the country-of-origin information to remain on meat cuts after they are processed.



Johnson pointed out that imported cattle from Canada and Mexico are clearly marked with country-of-origin information. Canadian cattle imported for immediate slaughter and imported Canadian feeder cattle are marked with a “CAN.” Mexican feeder cattle also are identified with a hide brand, typically “M” or “Mx.”



“We agree wholeheartedly that when a U.S. consumer goes to the meat counter and picks up a package of beef marked ‘USDA Choice’ and no other marking, then those shoppers should be guaranteed they’re purchasing an item that they can count on to be of USA origin, 100 percent,” said R-CALF USA COOL Committee Chair Danni Beer. “USDA’s current grading system misleads consumers into thinking a USDA grade stamp means that product came from an animal born, raised and slaughtered here in the U.S. As Senator Johnson’s legislation clearly points out, this is false, as the meat could well be of foreign origin.



“Senator Johnson’s efforts clearly highlight the essential need to implement Mandatory COOL as soon as possible, and R-CALF will continue to work with Congress to accomplish this as quickly as we can,” Beer continued. “It’s high time Mandatory COOL was allowed to take effect, and we know, based on a study done by economists and law professors from several universities, that COOL can be implemented at a very minimal cost, and at no cost to producers.



“Additionally, in August 2003, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), issued a report that found USDA’s inflated cost estimates for implementing Mandatory COOL were questionable and not well supported,” Beer recalled. “It also suggested that USDA consider the National School Lunch Act as a useful model for implementing COOL, a model that establishes domestic origin by simply identifying imported cattle and beef.



“Many producers remember how, decades ago, the packers were vehemently fighting the implementation of the grade stamp, saying, just as they are now about COOL, how they would suffer exorbitant costs if such a program were allowed to take effect because it was unworkable and too costly,” Beer said. “Yet, these days, most carcasses do carry the USDA grade stamp, which has become an important marketing tool for the industry.



“Packers were wrong about the costs of a grade stamp then, and in the very near future, their unfounded complaints about the costs of COOL will be proven wrong as well,” Beer noted. “If Mandatory COOL were in effect today, consumers would clearly be able to differentiate imported beef products from domestic items, whether USDA had marked the product with a grade stamp or not.”



# # #



R-CALF USA (Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America) represents thousands of U.S. cattle producers on domestic and international trade and marketing issues. R-CALF USA, a national, non-profit organization, is dedicated to ensuring the continued profitability and viability of the U.S. cattle industry. R-CALF USA’s membership consists primarily of cow/calf operators, cattle backgrounders, and feedlot owners. Its members – over 18,000 strong – are located in 47 states, and the organization has over 60 local and state association affiliates, from both cattle and farm organizations. Various main street businesses are associate members of R-CALF USA. For more information, visit www.r-calfusa.com or, call 406-252-2516.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
HAY MAKER said:
R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America


For Immediate Release Contact: Shae Dodson, Communications Coordinator
December 1, 2005 Phone: 406-672-8969; e-mail: [email protected]



Cattle Producers React to Proposed Legislation

to Change USDA Grade Stamp System



(Billings, Mont.) – In an effort to highlight the need to provide additional information to U.S. consumers about the beef they serve their families, Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., along with co-sponsors Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., recently introduced legislation titled the “Truth in Quality Grading Act of 2005” to amend the Federal Meat Inspection Act.



Johnson’s legislation would bar the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) from applying quality grade stamps on various cuts of imported meat and would classify imported beef or beef produced from imported cattle that has a USDA grade stamp as “misbranded,” producing a net effect of ensuring imported meat cannot take advantage of the USDA grade stamp.



Beginning in 1962, USDA required that imported meats, including carcasses, sides and cuts be marked with a country-of-origin label until they were graded for quality (prime, choice, select, standard, commercial, utility, cutter and canner). Then, in 1980, USDA changed its requirements and began grading only carcasses, including imported carcasses. However, current regulations do not require the country-of-origin information to remain on meat cuts after they are processed.



Johnson pointed out that imported cattle from Canada and Mexico are clearly marked with country-of-origin information. Canadian cattle imported for immediate slaughter and imported Canadian feeder cattle are marked with a “CAN.” Mexican feeder cattle also are identified with a hide brand, typically “M” or “Mx.”



“We agree wholeheartedly that when a U.S. consumer goes to the meat counter and picks up a package of beef marked ‘USDA Choice’ and no other marking, then those shoppers should be guaranteed they’re purchasing an item that they can count on to be of USA origin, 100 percent,” said R-CALF USA COOL Committee Chair Danni Beer. “USDA’s current grading system misleads consumers into thinking a USDA grade stamp means that product came from an animal born, raised and slaughtered here in the U.S. As Senator Johnson’s legislation clearly points out, this is false, as the meat could well be of foreign origin.



“Senator Johnson’s efforts clearly highlight the essential need to implement Mandatory COOL as soon as possible, and R-CALF will continue to work with Congress to accomplish this as quickly as we can,” Beer continued. “It’s high time Mandatory COOL was allowed to take effect, and we know, based on a study done by economists and law professors from several universities, that COOL can be implemented at a very minimal cost, and at no cost to producers.



“Additionally, in August 2003, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), issued a report that found USDA’s inflated cost estimates for implementing Mandatory COOL were questionable and not well supported,” Beer recalled. “It also suggested that USDA consider the National School Lunch Act as a useful model for implementing COOL, a model that establishes domestic origin by simply identifying imported cattle and beef.



“Many producers remember how, decades ago, the packers were vehemently fighting the implementation of the grade stamp, saying, just as they are now about COOL, how they would suffer exorbitant costs if such a program were allowed to take effect because it was unworkable and too costly,” Beer said. “Yet, these days, most carcasses do carry the USDA grade stamp, which has become an important marketing tool for the industry.



“Packers were wrong about the costs of a grade stamp then, and in the very near future, their unfounded complaints about the costs of COOL will be proven wrong as well,” Beer noted. “If Mandatory COOL were in effect today, consumers would clearly be able to differentiate imported beef products from domestic items, whether USDA had marked the product with a grade stamp or not.”



# # #



R-CALF USA (Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America) represents thousands of U.S. cattle producers on domestic and international trade and marketing issues. R-CALF USA, a national, non-profit organization, is dedicated to ensuring the continued profitability and viability of the U.S. cattle industry. R-CALF USA’s membership consists primarily of cow/calf operators, cattle backgrounders, and feedlot owners. Its members – over 18,000 strong – are located in 47 states, and the organization has over 60 local and state association affiliates, from both cattle and farm organizations. Various main street businesses are associate members of R-CALF USA. For more information, visit www.r-calfusa.com or, call 406-252-2516.

If they are lying so much about the facts or issues, why is anyone listening to the packers? Seems to me that we should hold our politicians responsible for being able to tell if someone is lying or not. After all, they do work in D.C. where self interest is pushed instead of the nation's interest. If they are not smart enough to see some of these lies then maybe they should get a factory job or something.
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
“Many producers remember how, decades ago, the packers were vehemently fighting the implementation of the grade stamp, saying, just as they are now about COOL, how they would suffer exorbitant costs if such a program were allowed to take effect because it was unworkable and too costly,” Beer said. “Yet, these days, most carcasses do carry the USDA grade stamp, which has become an important marketing tool for the industry.

What is the cost of the grading system in the US?

Does the grade stamp really get to the heart of quality and consistency? Consistency being those attributes that bring the consumer back to a product time and time again!
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Quoting from a story in the (Denver) Record Stockman, "According to USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service, the agency has not graded ANY (emphasis is mine) imported beef in 2004 or 2005 since grading more than 5 million pounds in 2003 and a high of more than 40 million pounds in 1999.

MRJ
 

BLH

New member
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Location
California
MRJ is close to the mark, and once again, it's what R-CALF DOESN'T tell you that's important.

Beef imported in a box does not receive a USDA grade stamp, only sides and carcasses. We stopped imported any meaningful quantities of sides and carcasses 20 years ago, so this legislation would apply only to a very small quantity (less than 10%, certainly) of beef imports. It would change nothing with respect to imported cattle.

This is just the latest in a ceaseless string of bills, which include Burns’s anti-COOL delay bill, Rehberg’s J-list bill, Pomeroy and Grassley’s packer ownership bills, which are intended to do little more than generate favorable press back home in northern-tier cattle states, and give the member something to demagogue with his rural constituents. Inevitably, these bills generate a flurry of attention immediately after they are introduced, and forgotten about soon after.

BLH
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Welcome to the forum BLH!

I just got back from the South Dakota Cattlemens Association's annual convention and it was sure refreshing to see all the progressive forward thinking producers that can see right through R-CULT's lies and deception! Steve Dittmer from the Agri Business Freedom Foundation really spelled out R-CULT's government mandated, socialistic agenda using their own words. Nobody tried to defend R-CULT.

I introduced a resolution opposing the Captive Supply Reform Act and it passed unanymously. Nobody in the SDCA wanted the government to dictate to the feeders how they will market their cattle.

Can't wait to see the captive supply reform act get shot down in flames!

Packer blaming............what a waste of energy when we could be revamping the Endangered Species Act instead.


Guess who was on the front lines to address the media when BSE hit the U.S.? NCBA!

Guess who was blaming Canada and USDA instead of being concerned about how our consumers would perceive BSE in the U.S.? R-CULT!

How can anyone keep a straight face claiming that R-CULT is the only organization to represent the grass roots cattlemen? Pffft! R-CULT is a "LEGAL FUND", not an organization that represents producers on a national level on the issues that could really affect the future of this industry. They have eventually lost every court case to date and most in the first round. THEY HAVE NO FACTS!

If I learned one thing at this convention it is how many producers out there are getting R-CULT figured out for the Liberal Activist Group that it is.



~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Steve Dittmer? The one-man one-topic "foundation" was your speaker? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: What was the deal, couldn't Saddam's information minister make it? :wink: :lol: :lol: Did he tell you what you wanted to hear?

Talk about a credibility problem... :roll: :lol: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag: "Talk about a credibility problem..."

What has Dittmer stated that is not true Sandbag?

Any parasite can make discrediting allegations but it takes integrity to back them.

Dittmer just displayed R-CULT leader statements for everyone to see and the positions of their "anti beef" consumer group cohorts.



~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
Sandbag: "Talk about a credibility problem..."

What has Dittmer stated that is not true Sandbag?

Any parasite can make discrediting allegations but it takes integrity to back them.

Dittmer just displayed R-CULT leader statements for everyone to see and the positions of their "anti beef" consumer group cohorts.



~SH~

Why, SH, are you tring to discredit me by calling me "Sandbag"? Maybe a little school yard bullying?

I'm not sure which staff member of the "foundation" came up with these gems; whether is was the President, Vice President, Head Reporter or subordinate, or even the janitor - no wait, isn't Dittmer all of these? Oh, yeah, he IS the "foundation"! :roll: :lol:

OK, Mr. "My only bias is the truth", direct from the "foundation's" website;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Banned would be:

Alliances of ranchers, feeders, breed associations, packers and retailers

Branded beef

Packer/feeder contracts and grids

A group in the drastic minority like R-CALF that wants to see the above kinds of things come to pass has to find some way to get leverage.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More gems on what R-CALF supposedly is going along with;

Only "sustainable" agriculture would be permitted. This means selling only fresh food locally, not out of state and not internationally, using organic methods -- no herbicides, pesticides, antibiotics, feed additives or genetically modified plants or animals allowed.

USDA and other government agencies would be run by those with no agricultural experience to "bias" their decisions. Representatives from consumer activist groups, environmental groups, faith-based groups and unions would run USDA. People who had worked for NCBA or food corporations would be considered unfit for service.

Packing companies and retailers would become union shops.

Foreign trade would be discouraged, since they see it taking away jobs, especially union jobs, in this country. The U.S. should just provide increased government aid to poor countries to help their economies, rather than trade with them. They feel trade with us damages farmers in poor countries.

Corporate trading companies should be broken up and government trading agencies created to sell America's agricultural products. The large food, agricultural, drug and ag chemical companies would be broken up in favor of small non-corporate companies, government marketing agencies and local food coops.

Large feedyards - defined as more than 1,000 head - are termed "factory farms" and would be banned as too damaging to the environment and too inhumane for animals
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you still going to tell us this is the truth?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag: "Are you still going to tell us this is the truth?"

There is no way to discern the agenda's of some of the radical consumer groups that R-CULT joined hands with and the agenda of R-CULT themselves within the context of these statements.

After hearing Dittmer actually speak, he did not lump the agendas of R-CULT's cohorts to R-CULT's own agenda. He posted their quotes seperately and did not lump their agendas as you have here.

I look no further than R-CULT's own words, their actions, and the wording of the existing Captive Supply Reform Act to see their pathetic socialized cattle marketing agenda.


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
Sandbag: "Are you still going to tell us this is the truth?"

There is no way to discern the agenda's of some of the radical consumer groups that R-CULT joined hands with and the agenda of R-CULT themselves within the context of these statements.

After hearing Dittmer actually speak, he did not lump the agendas of R-CULT's cohorts to R-CULT's own agenda. He posted their quotes seperately and did not lump their agendas as you have here.

I look no further than R-CULT's own words, their actions, and the wording of the existing Captive Supply Reform Act to see their pathetic socialized cattle marketing agenda.


~SH~

I didn't lumpt the agendas together, Dittmer did! I cut this directly from the "foundation's" web site!

Nice job of backtracking. He gave such a great talk at the convention, but you can't discern what he put in writing? :roll: Again, you read what Dittmer posted and tell me this is the truth, after all, isn't that your only bias? :roll: Should we break everything out?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Yeh, lets break it out!

Banned would be:

Alliances of ranchers, feeders, breed associations, packers and retailers

Branded beef

Packer/feeder contracts and grids

A group in the drastic minority like R-CALF that wants to see the above kinds of things come to pass has to find some way to get leverage.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The LMA driven R-CULT does not support alliances or producer owned coops like USPB because it routes cattle around the sale barns. They fear the "chickenization" of the beef industry from these alliances.

Never heard R-CULT mention anything about breed associations since many members are involved in them. I don't believe Dittmer was referring to R-CULT with this because he says "a group, in the drastic minority like R-CULT, that wants to see the above kinds of things come to pass.....". He never mentioned anything of the sort during his talk.

Never heard R-CULT mention anything about banning feeders. That is absolutely coming from the anti-beef cohorts they joined hands with, not R-CULT.

R-CULT wants to break up the large packers and hates Walmart. Anyone that is large and successful they detest except Vermillion Ranches and Debruyckers.

R-CULT's communist captive supply reform act would impact branded beef programs, formula and grid pricing as we know it.


More gems on what R-CALF supposedly is going along with;

Only "sustainable" agriculture would be permitted. This means selling only fresh food locally, not out of state and not internationally, using organic methods -- no herbicides, pesticides, antibiotics, feed additives or genetically modified plants or animals allowed.

By joining hands with these anti beef consumer groups, they are giving support to these agendas. That is Dittmer's point and he's right about that. He didn't say this was R-CULT's agenda.


USDA and other government agencies would be run by those with no agricultural experience to "bias" their decisions. Representatives from consumer activist groups, environmental groups, faith-based groups and unions would run USDA. People who had worked for NCBA or food corporations would be considered unfit for service.

R-CULT criticizes USDA and certainly any employee who formerly worked for NCBA. They can't tell you why but they still oppose NCBA members being hired by USDA. Must be too intelligent.

I don't know where R-CULT's anti consumer group cohorts stand on this.

I don't believe that R-CULT wants USDA run by someone who doesn't understand Agriculture. They just want USDA run by whiny packer victims and import blamers like themselves.


Packing companies and retailers would become union shops.

Mike Callicrate and Kathleen Kelley have both been outwardly critical of packer wages and third world living conditions for packer employees. Kathleen Kelly is an R-CULT director or was.


Foreign trade would be discouraged, since they see it taking away jobs, especially union jobs, in this country. The U.S. should just provide increased government aid to poor countries to help their economies, rather than trade with them. They feel trade with us damages farmers in poor countries.

R-CULTs position on trade is well documented. Bill Bullard thinks we'd be better off without trade and has stated so.

Haven't heard anything about government aid.


Corporate trading companies should be broken up and government trading agencies created to sell America's agricultural products. The large food, agricultural, drug and ag chemical companies would be broken up in favor of small non-corporate companies, government marketing agencies and local food coops.

R-CALF has definitely taken a stand on breaking up the large packers in favor of smaller packing companies believing more bidders creates more money for producers.


Large feedyards - defined as more than 1,000 head - are termed "factory farms" and would be banned as too damaging to the environment and too inhumane for animals

That is definitely the agenda of R-CULT's new bed partners, the anti-beef consumer groups that they try to justify their alignments with.


Consider it "broken out".


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Sounds like the same arguments over the markets that happened when Upton Sinclair wrote "The Jungle" and the PSA was written.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Good grief, SH, I ask for the truth and you spin your opinions, tangent off on the LMA, what a member once said, etc.... exactly what I expected. :roll:

SH, "Never heard R-CULT mention anything about breed associations since many members are involved in them. I don't believe Dittmer was referring to R-CULT with this because he says "a group, in the drastic minority like R-CULT, that wants to see the above kinds of things come to pass.....". He never mentioned anything of the sort during his talk."

You don't believe Dittmer was referring to R-CALF here but you do with the other items in the same list? :roll:

SH, "R-CULT wants to break up the large packers and hates Walmart. Anyone that is large and successful they detest except Vermillion Ranches and Debruyckers."

Horse crap. You know where the R-CALF web site achives are. Bring a statement from them proving your point.


Quote:
More gems on what R-CALF supposedly is going along with;

Only "sustainable" agriculture would be permitted. This means selling only fresh food locally, not out of state and not internationally, using organic methods -- no herbicides, pesticides, antibiotics, feed additives or genetically modified plants or animals allowed.


SH, "By joining hands with these anti beef consumer groups, they are giving support to these agendas. That is Dittmer's point and he's right about that. He didn't say this was R-CULT's agenda."

He said r-CALF is going along with it. That is a bold-faced lie. Someone who's only bias is the truth should of picked up on that.


Quote:
USDA and other government agencies would be run by those with no agricultural experience to "bias" their decisions. Representatives from consumer activist groups, environmental groups, faith-based groups and unions would run USDA. People who had worked for NCBA or food corporations would be considered unfit for service.


SH "R-CULT criticizes USDA and certainly any employee who formerly worked for NCBA. They can't tell you why but they still oppose NCBA members being hired by USDA. Must be too intelligent."

I've seen NCBA criticize the USDA and I've seen R-CALF praise them. I think R-CALF's view on NCBA is well documented.

SH, "I don't believe that R-CULT wants USDA run by someone who doesn't understand Agriculture. They just want USDA run by whiny packer victims and import blamers like themselves."

Dittmer does. Who is right?


Quote:
Packing companies and retailers would become union shops.


SH, "Mike Callicrate and Kathleen Kelley have both been outwardly critical of packer wages and third world living conditions for packer employees. Kathleen Kelly is an R-CULT director or was."

Whatever, their opinions are not official R-CALF policy, are they?


Quote:
Foreign trade would be discouraged, since they see it taking away jobs, especially union jobs, in this country. The U.S. should just provide increased government aid to poor countries to help their economies, rather than trade with them. They feel trade with us damages farmers in poor countries.


SH, "R-CULTs position on trade is well documented. Bill Bullard thinks we'd be better off without trade and has stated so."

R-CALF's positon on trade IS well documented. Well enough that I would think a non-biased truth seeker such as yourself would be able to post their statements directly from them instead of offering half truths and slanted opinion.


Quote:
Corporate trading companies should be broken up and government trading agencies created to sell America's agricultural products. The large food, agricultural, drug and ag chemical companies would be broken up in favor of small non-corporate companies, government marketing agencies and local food coops.


SH, "R-CALF has definitely taken a stand on breaking up the large packers in favor of smaller packing companies believing more bidders creates more money for producers."

Where in the he!! have you seen anything from R-CALF trying to break up the large packers? What about the rest of Dittmer's drivel?


Quote:
Large feedyards - defined as more than 1,000 head - are termed "factory farms" and would be banned as too damaging to the environment and too inhumane for animals

SH, "That is definitely the agenda of R-CULT's new bed partners, the anti-beef consumer groups that they try to justify their alignments with."

R-CALF joined with consumer groups (which you label anti-beef) on an issue of mutual interest and suddenly you claim they are "bed partners" and assume their agendas are entwined. If that is the case, why don't you also apply the same to NCBA and the Nature Conservancy? Your only bias is the truth? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

SH, "Consider it "broken out". "

:lol: :lol: :lol: I consider it slanted, biased nonsense rooted in hate filled fantasy by a bought and paid for hack and a contrary fool with an inferiority complex. If you want to prove what R-CALF wants, their website is at your fingertips. Post facts, not opinions rooted in spite.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
You're right Sandbag, it is difficult to discern R-CULT's positions since they change daily with the political winds.

Yesterday:

"USDA doesn't care about food safety"
"USDA has not gone far enough to assure the safety of our beef"


Today:

"We have the safest beef in the world"


Yesterday:

McDonnel: "Checkoff dollars should be used to expand our export markets"

Today:

Bullard: "Because you don't produce enough beef to satisfy your own domestic market, you don't need an export market to distribute your production"


Yesterday:

"Consumers have a right to know where their beef was born, raised, and slaughtered."

Today:

"Don't burden me with traceback".


Your point is taken on R-CULT'S never ending position changes Sandbag!


Sandbag: " consider it slanted, biased nonsense rooted in hate filled fantasy by a bought and paid for hack and a contrary fool with an inferiority complex."

Hahaha!

What an imagination you have little Sandbag. Better run to the post office, that Tyson check might be waiting? ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz!


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
And you divert from the topic of Dittmer's nonsense. I guess I would too if it clearly could not be defended.

Speaking of divertion, when are the US consumers going to rebel because of special treatment Japan is getting but we are not?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
What irrelevant topic are you whining about now Sandbag?


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
What irrelevant topic are you whining about now Sandbag?


~SH~

You know - I guess when you get proved full of crap again, the topic becomes irrelevant? :lol: :p
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag: "You know - I guess when you get proved full of crap again, the topic becomes irrelevant?"

Only in your fantasy filled world cheap talker!

You can't prove anyone wrong unless they prove themselves wrong.

Wow, some threat you are? ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz!



~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
Sandbag: "You know - I guess when you get proved full of crap again, the topic becomes irrelevant?"

Only in your fantasy filled world cheap talker!

You can't prove anyone wrong unless they prove themselves wrong.

Wow, some threat you are? ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz!



~SH~

You're on record as stating the US consumers would not stand for us giving Japan special treatment - yet that is exactly was is happening now. You were quite vocal a few months ago, I was wondering if you could give us an update?

I don't have to prove your wrong because you do it for me - wow, some threat you are. ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz!

Actually, I'm fine with you "proving you yourself wrong". I just wish you could prove yourself right for once. :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

Latest posts

Top