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

Ag issues breed discontent in heart of Bush country

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Tommy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
755
Reaction score
0
Location
South East Kansas
Ag issues breed discontent in heart of Bush country

By ROBERT W. BLACK
Star-Tribune capital bureau

CHEYENNE -- Wyoming may be deep in the heart of Bush country -- and one of the reddest of the red states -- but discontentment is brewing over the administration's handling of agricultural and trade issues.

White House support for a new trade agreement with Central America and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's effort to overturn a ban on Canadian cattle imports have irked many ranchers and farmers who were among the 69 percent of Wyomingites casting their votes for Bush-Cheney in 2004.

A delay in mandatory country-of-origin food labeling is also a sore spot.

"When George Bush ran for president the first time, when he was discussing foreign policy, he said we would look out for America's interests first, which is a very good thing. But when it came to trade, I don't think that's the way it's being played out," said Terry Stevenson, who works for his family's feedlot west of Wheatland.

Only Utah, at 72 percent, provided more support for the GOP ticket than Wyoming. But Stevenson and other staunch Wyoming Republicans believe their national leaders are treading down the wrong path, sacrificing some commodities for the sake of broad trade agreements.

Residents can air their concerns today in Douglas when Mark E. Rey, USDA natural resources and environment undersecretary, holds a forum at the State Fair's McKibben Cafeteria from 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

"There's some divisiveness within our membership," said Jim Magagna, executive vice president of the Wyoming Stock Growers Association. "But I would certainly say there is a significant portion of the membership that has philosophical differences on trade issues from where the Bush administration appears to be headed."

The Central America Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA, was narrowly passed by Congress in July and signed by President Bush on Aug. 2. It creates a free-trade zone comprising the United States, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua, plus the Dominican Republic.

Supporters said the agreement will increase jobs in the United States by opening new markets for American goods. Detractors said the opposite will occur, that jobs will be shipped where labor is cheap and that immigrants will find it easier to work in the United States.

Sugar worries

The flash point of the debate for many Wyoming residents -- including the state's congressional delegation, which was unanimously opposed -- is the potential effect on the sugar industry. Wyoming ranks ninth nationally in sugar beet production, according to the USDA, and sugar beets are the state's No. 2 cash crop behind hay.

The national sugar industry mounted a vigorous campaign against CAFTA, fearing the deal might unleash a flood of sugar on the domestic market and drive down prices.

Supporters, however, said new imports would comprise only 1 to 1.2 percent of domestic sugar consumption. And Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns said the agreement has provisions to protect American sugar if it is threatened under CAFTA.

Sen. Craig Thomas, R-Wyo., said Tuesday he had never been lobbied so hard by the administration on one issue as he was on CAFTA. Still, he voted against it because of his concern that the potential effect on sugar was not satisfactorily addressed.

Terry Jones, who raises alfalfa, barley and sugar beets near Otto in the Big Horn Basin, said American farmers often suffer under trade agreements because taxes they pay aren't the same as for foreign producers.

"They should get a calculation on what it costs an American producer to produce crops and how much of that is going toward paying taxes, and they should have the same taxation on people who want to come into the United States and do business," he said.

Richard McKamey, a Worland sugar beet farmer, thinks CAFTA "by itself is a pretty small deal." But, he said, "I think the administration was surprised at the opposition, and we're hopeful that out of that we will see a change in this, the bent to do all these regional trade agreements on an all-inclusive basis."

Cattle concerns

In 2004, President Bush signed a law delaying implementation of country-of-origin food labeling for most commodities until Sept. 30, 2006. Meatpackers and food processors oppose the mandate.

Thomas and fellow Wyoming Sen. Mike Enzi, meanwhile, have been trying to move up the deadline.

Stevenson said without mandatory labeling, consumers won't know where much of their beef comes from. "It's just as much an issue to me as undocumented aliens coming into this country," he said.

Another source of angst is Canadian cattle. A federal appeals court paved the way for a resumption of imports last month when it overturned a judge's order blocking the USDA from reopening the border. In May 2003, imports were barred after an Alberta cow was found with mad cow disease.

Thomas tried to hold ground on the ban because several Asian countries continue to block American imports due to a case of mad cow found in the United States two years ago.

"It didn't seem to me it was fair to open the Canadian border until we got those other markets back open again," he said.

Stevenson said any new policies that allow increased food imports will cost America more of its independence.

"We need to work toward something that we would call food sovereignty," he said. "We don't want to be dependent on food from foreign countries like we are on foreign countries for our energy right now."

But asked if he would prefer John Kerry or Al Gore in the White House, Stevenson flatly replied, "Absolutely not."

Democrats likely would not take a different stance on trade, he said. Also, George Bush and the Republicans are mostly correct on other issues such as fiscal policy, he said.

"It's not like I'm a malcontent and going the other direction," Stevenson said. "I'm involved in it and trying to change my party to being completely right instead of just part way."

Jones agreed he would never trade Bush and Cheney for a Democratic White House.

"I'm so grateful for the good leadership," he said. "They're doing basically a good job."
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Wouldn't a better headline have read: "Ranchers strongly support Bush on most issues"?

That is the bottom line agreed upon in the last paragraphs of the story, after all.

Too bad the reporter didn't ask Stevenson to explain how COOL would tell consumers where the beef came from when most imported beef is exempt from labeling under that law, and ALL of it could be legally diverted to food service, restaurant, and pre-cooked product, all of which is exempt.

MRJ
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
CAFTA countries already export to the U.S. without reaching their quotas. CAFTA didn't have anything to do with these countries exporting to the U.S. Currently we are paying tarriffs to these countries as high as 40% while they export to the U.S. basically duty free. CAFTA would eliminate those heavy tarriffs on our beef exports.

"M"COOL is an absolute joke!

The lies about the safety of Canadian beef was never justification to close the Canadian border to live cattle for more than a short period of time in the first place. Did calf prices fall through the floor as many conspiracy theorists predicted? NO!

Typical unfounded blamer issues.



~SH~
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
The point made is that a whole lot of conservatives in Wyoming are on the opposite side as the administration on these issues.

You guys who paint this as a position of liberals are completely wrong.

In fact you are even supporting the decisions of judges who legislate from the bench and extend government power even more.

Stevenson spoke at the annual OCM conference. He is VERY intelligent and described himself as being somewhere to the right of Jerry Falwell.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
You can try to sugarcoat it all you want ocm but the fact remains, R-CULT/OCM wants more government intervention into our lives which is a typical liberal Democrat position. OCM leans to the left, not to the right.

Look who voted against CAFTA. THE LEFT!

Look who voted for allowing the federal government to pick and chose who can and who cannot own cattle. THE LEFT!

Look who wants FLAWED COOL. THE LEFT!


R-CULT/OCM is left leaning all the way.

Mike Callicrate - DEM
Leo McDonnell - DEM
Dennis McDonald - DEM
Johnny Smith - supports DEMS
Herman Schumacher - supports DEMS
Kathleen Kelly - DEM


A tiger can't change it's stripes.

The only reason so many Wyoming Republicans have fallen for the "Please government, save us from ourselves" position of R-CULT/OCM is because most are never privy to the debate.

When it comes crunch time and the facts are sorted from opinions, R-CULT/OCM will continue to lose.


~SH~
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
~SH~ said:
Mike Callicrate - DEM
Leo McDonnell - DEM
Dennis McDonald - DEM
Johnny Smith - supports DEMS
Herman Schumacher - supports DEMS
Kathleen Kelly - DEM

~SH~

OCM

Randy Stevenson - REP
Keith Mudd - REP
John Dittrich - REP
Fred Stokes - REP

Guest speakers at annual meeting
Steve Farrell - REP
Terry Stevenson - REP
Helen Chenoweth-Hage - REP

Invited speakers who did not attend
Phyllis Schlafly - REP
Mike Enzi - REP

R-CALF

Just look at the Republican vs Democrat populations where R-CALF is most numerous vs where NCBA is most numerous.

Outright Democrat state - Calfornica - second most NCBA members of any state.

Outright Republican state - Wyoming - R-CALF members outnumber NCBA members 5 to 1. (without LMA help)

And remember who voted for NAFTA---the LEFT -- Clinton and Company

You support bigger government (9th Circuit Court decision)
You support activist judges (11th Circuit Court decision)


I swear, I think if a mosquito bit you you would call it a democrat.


And finally--Steve Dittmer was at the OCM meeting taking notes. Why don't you ask him why he has NOT written his usual venom about how liberal they are. Too much evidence to the contrary, I'd bet.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Look at your own issues OCM.

You think you need an "UNENFORCEABLE" government mandate to label beef as to it's country of origin WHEN THE FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM IS ALREADY OFFERING SOURCE VERIFIED BRANDED BEEF PROGRAMS.

You want to allow the federal government to pick and chose who can and who cannot own cattle through the communist packer ban and then dictate to the feeders how those cattle would be marketed.

You are afraid to trade so you whine about Central American countries dumping cheap imported beef into the U.S. below our cost of production WHEN THOSE COUNTRIES CAN IMPORT NOW AND ARE NOT REACHING THEIR QUOTAS.

You are the one who thinks everyone needs to know what I got for my fat cattle through Mandatory Price Reporting.

You are the one who is afraid to trade with Canada so you support lying about the safety of Canadian beef to stop Canadian imports.

THOSE ISSUES ARE AS LEFT WING AS YOU CAN GET.

Nobody can call themselves a conservative and support legislation that punishes large successful corporations.

THAT IS A DEMOCRAT STANCE, NOT REPUBLICANS.

Packer victims and import blamers!


Try as you will, you cannot deny the motivations behind the issues you support.


OCM is "left wing" all the way regardless how many "SUPPOSED" Republicans support it.


Just one more truth that you cannot handle.


ocm: "PLEASE GOVERNMENT, SAVE US FROM OURSELVES"


~SH~
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
~SH~ said:
Look at your own issues OCM.

You think you need an "UNENFORCEABLE" government mandate to label beef as to it's country of origin WHEN THE FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM IS ALREADY OFFERING SOURCE VERIFIED BRANDED BEEF PROGRAMS.

You want to allow the federal government to pick and chose who can and who cannot own cattle through the communist packer ban and then dictate to the feeders how those cattle would be marketed.

You are afraid to trade so you whine about Central American countries dumping cheap imported beef into the U.S. below our cost of production WHEN THOSE COUNTRIES CAN IMPORT NOW AND ARE NOT REACHING THEIR QUOTAS.

You are the one who thinks everyone needs to know what I got for my fat cattle through Mandatory Price Reporting.

You are the one who is afraid to trade with Canada so you support lying about the safety of Canadian beef to stop Canadian imports.

THOSE ISSUES ARE AS LEFT WING AS YOU CAN GET.

Nobody can call themselves a conservative and support legislation that punishes large successful corporations.

THAT IS A DEMOCRAT STANCE, NOT REPUBLICANS.

Packer victims and import blamers!


Try as you will, you cannot deny the motivations behind the issues you support.


OCM is "left wing" all the way regardless how many "SUPPOSED" Republicans support it.


Just one more truth that you cannot handle.


ocm: "PLEASE GOVERNMENT, SAVE US FROM OURSELVES"


~SH~

We like to see laws enforced as they are written. The Packers and Stockyards Act for one. Is that a liberal position? I think not. but you support a court decision in which the court did not interpret the PSA literally. That is a liberal position! Why are you supporting such a liberal position?

Hey, Sandhusker, watch him dodge that last question.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
ocm: "We like to see laws enforced as they are written. The Packers and Stockyards Act for one. Is that a liberal position?"

No, the liberal position is the inability to accept the fact that the PSA is being enforced and you packer blamers have absolutely nothing to stand on to support your baseless market manipulation conspiracy theories.


ocm: "but you support a court decision in which the court did not interpret the PSA literally."

That's bullsh*t!

Judge Strom stated in his decision that there was no violation of the PSA.


You packer blamers just keep throwing crap like this against the wall to see if anything will stick and it never does.

You can't admit that you were soundly defeated because Mr. Perjury and his packer blaming buddies couldn't pull a rabbit out of a hat.


$26 PER HEAD PROFITS, "LIONS, TIGERS, AND BEARS, OH MY"!!!


ocm: " Hey, Sandhusker, watch him dodge that last question."

Would you two like to be left alone so you can blame and discuss your conspiracy theories without being bothered with the truth?

You blamers really need each other.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
OCM, you can tell SH the sky is blue and provide a quote from NASA saying the same, and he'll argue what is blue and what is orange. He calls for facts and then ignores them. You prove him full of crap and he'll resurface his same arguement a month later. He calls others liars, deceivers, blamers, etc.. and he is the most guilty of the same. Argueing with him is fun for a while, but never ending and pointless. Eventually you'll hurt yourself from beating your head against the wall. Let him go, let him be a fool if he insists on it.
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
I hate to be the one to tell you ~SH~, but even the 11th Circuit in its decision acknowledged that the PSA does not provide for a "meet the competition" defense. They were also unable to quote the Act for any indication of the "business justification defense." So they legislated from the bench.

And you support them.

Want to defend yourself. Cut and paste from the Packers and Stockyards Act the section that refers to the "business justification."

It isn't there, and you are left defending a liberal position--not following the law literally.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
ocm: "I hate to be the one to tell you ~SH~, but even the 11th Circuit in its decision acknowledged that the PSA does not provide for a "meet the competition" defense. They were also unable to quote the Act for any indication of the "business justification defense." So they legislated from the bench."

Yeh, yeh, yeh, and according to deceptive Bullard, the 9th circuit was not privy to all the facts that judge Cebull was right?

Gosh, I wonder who Bullard could blame for that EVEN IF IT WAS TRUE????

Hey, you gotta say something to save face. It can't be easy for "supposed" conservatives like you who want more government intervention into our lives to accept your continual loses in the court room.

A "meet the competition" defense??

The "Business justification defense"??

First The PSA of 1921 or whatever the hell was written under completely different circumstances than fat cattle are procured under today.

How many fat cattle are sold in the "STOCKYARD" today????

Second, I am not about to listen to YOUR definition of either of these terms without hearing how the courts defined them within the context of their original intent or within the context of their decision.

"INTENT" AND "INTERPRETATION"

There is always lots of wiggle room around both when only listening to one side of the story.

The fact remains, there was never any proof of market manipulation because it was nothing more than a baseless conspiracy theory and one more chapter in the packer blamer's empty book.

The damages assessed to IBP were more than their total profits for that period of time which proves just how ignorant the prosecution in this case was.

The best part of Strom's verdict was when the plaintiffs had to pay the court costs. Keep donating those calves boys!


Sandman: "He calls for facts and then ignores them. You prove him full of crap and he'll resurface his same arguement a month later."

You don't provide facts Sandman, you provide opinions OUT OF CONTEXT that create an illusion of agreeing with you and call them facts.

You don't even know what a fact is.

You basically never support anything you want to believe with supporting evidence.

A statement is not a fact Sandman.

You prove me full of crap? Hahaha! The few times I have ever been wrong on the issues we discuss here (EU fur ban), I have readily admitted I was wrong before you even had a chance to prove me wrong.

In contrast, you are continually wrong and NEVER ADMIT IT! That's how arrogant you are.

You never back your position with anything of substance.

Trying to create an "ILLUSION OF BEING RIGHT" is more your style.

You just set up some stupid strawman definition like ("giving up our sovereignty"), which wasn't even original, to argue against trade because the U.S. might WILLINGLY agree to give something up in a trade negotiation TO GAIN SOMETHING IN RETURN.

You are not even smart enough to understand the basic concept of trade negotiations or the purpose of the WTO.


You are smart to stay out of this one after trying to defend something as ridiculous as, "well just because the plaintiffs wanted to enter into forward contracts does not give IBP the right to accept those contracts".

Wow, such a respectable defense position.


Make another discrediting, diverting, denying, and deceiving speach Sandman! That's always been the "safety zone" for the "factually void" such as yourself!


~SH~
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
SH:
The fact remains, there was never any proof of market manipulation because it was nothing more than a baseless conspiracy theory and one more chapter in the packer blamer's empty book.

I would like to interject my assessment of the Appeals court decision here.

There was proof of the lowering of cash cattle prices by marketing agreements, that proof was offered by Pickett and was available to the jury, so says the Appeal Documents.

The problem came in that whether Tyson was using these marketing agreements to screw the cattle owners, or whether they were using these marketing agreements for use as competition against their packer rivals.

The Appeals Court decided that Tyson had the right to use these marketing agreements because they were authored by cattlemen, and that the use of them would help them be competitive against those other packers.

Fair enough?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike: "There was proof of the lowering of cash cattle prices by marketing agreements, that proof was offered by Pickett and was available to the jury, so says the Appeal Documents."


Of course there is proof that forward contracting of fat cattle results in lower fat cattle prices in the cash market AT TIMES BECAUSE THE MARKET MOVED SOUTH BETWEEN THE TIME OF THE CONTRACT PRICE AND THE TIME OF THE CASH PRICE.

Is that some revolutionary finding??

That's not market manipulation any more than giving up something TO GET SOMETHING in a trade negotiation is "giving up our sovereignty".

There is just as many times when marketing agreements result in HIGHER cattle prices in the cash market BECAUSE MARKETS MOVED HIGHER BETWEEN THE TIME OF THE CONTRACT PRICE AND THE TIME OF THE CASH PRICE.

Should the packers sue the feeders for market manipulation in that case???

The other reason is that packers have less cattle to buy in the cash market if they have cattle tied up under contracts.

HOW THE HECK CAN ANYONE CALL THAT MARKET MANIPULATION WHEN THAT SAME CONCEPT APPLIES TO ANY AND ALL OTHER CATTLE PURCHASES???

Think of the consequences of this action Mike. There is no way this bogus "market manipulation" conspiracy theory can apply to fat cattle and not to feeder cattle.

The producer should be able to sue the feeder for the same reasons if they buy forward contract feeder calves on Superior Livestock.

OH BUT THAT'S SOMEHOW DIFFERENT ISN'T IT??

It's no different.

The LMA is the driver behind this because they hate the idea that fat cattle are not marketed through their sale barns for them to capitalize on taking more of the producers hard earned dollars.

Anyone with any common sense can see right through their motives.



~SH~
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
There you go calling the jury stupid again.

How is it that you know more than they did, and YOU WEREN'T EVEN THERE.

Is it that god complex again?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
ocm: "There you go calling the jury stupid again."

There you go, putting words in people's mouths again.

I never said the jury was stupid but I will say that they obviously did not understand the judges instructions to them or the facts presented to them.

Judge Strom instructed the jurors that they had to agree that ibp lacked a legitimate business reason for using forward contracts. The plaintiffs testified to the contrary so how the heck could they possibly reach their verdict with any degree of understanding?

Now you can call that whatever you want but I call it not understanding the issue.


ocm: "How is it that you know more than they did, and YOU WEREN'T EVEN THERE."

I don't have to be there to have read the testimony, read the judges instructions to the jury, or to read the judges ruling.

I have heard the plaintiff's bullsh*t packer blaming allegations a hundred times. They didn't have any more merit to Judge Strom than they had every time I hear them at a blamer's convention.

In addition to that, I understand how the conspiring mind of the packer blamer works and the fact that the truth does not matter to them. Look no further than Mike Callicrate lying under oath. YOUR HERO!

What I do know is that the plaintiffs were not smart enough to even realize that the damages they assessed to IBP were more than IBP's total profits for that period of time.

What could be more revealing regarding the ignorance of the plaintiffs than that?

I understand this issue intimately because I have researched it. I'm not like you in that I do not need to drum up some wild packer blaming conspiracy theory to explain lower cattle prices. I understand market fundamentals very well.

Your inability to disprove anything I have stated is just more proof.



~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Mike, "I would like to interject my assessment of the Appeals court decision here.

There was proof of the lowering of cash cattle prices by marketing agreements, that proof was offered by Pickett and was available to the jury, so says the Appeal Documents.

The problem came in that whether Tyson was using these marketing agreements to screw the cattle owners, or whether they were using these marketing agreements for use as competition against their packer rivals.

The Appeals Court decided that Tyson had the right to use these marketing agreements because they were authored by cattlemen, and that the use of them would help them be competitive against those other packers.

Fair enough?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think you've nailed it pretty good, Mike. Let me toss in my two cents worth.

When Judge Strom decreed that Pickett had to prove Tyson lacked a legitimate use of marketing agreements, they were doomed. That wasn't the arguement to begin with. Just becasue the had a legitimate use for agreements doesn't mean they were not also using these agreements in an underhanded manner.

To me, Tyson's attorney's all but admitted Tyson was using these marketing agreements to lower cash prices, and in turn the prices paid in marketing agreements as they are based on the cash prices as they didn't even challenge that. Instead, they argued that the PSA was intended to prohibit acts that adversely effect competition. They were not denying Tyson was using marketing agreements to lower cash prices - they were argueing that this case should not be tried under PSA.

With the way the court agreed, it is now obvious that the PSA has little, if any, value to producers. The courts are more or less stating that the PSA is between packers, not producers and packers.

Bottom line; Under PSA, it is legal for packers to manipulate markets and screw producers as long as it does not give them an unfair advantage over other packers. Aint that a dandy? :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandman: "Just becasue the had a legitimate use for agreements doesn't mean they were not also using these agreements in an underhanded manner."

What a phony analysis that was Sandman.

Once again you don't even know what the hell you are talking about. You just rattle off something that sounds good to you in typical R-CULT fashion.

Futures contracts are not based on the cash market, they are based on the futures market. When Tyson forward contracts cattle they simply turn around and protect themselves on the CME board JUST AS THE PRODUCERS COULD HAVE.

There is absolutely no difference between a feeder forward contracting cattle with a packer than a producer forward contracting cattle to a feeder.

NOT ONE DAMN BIT OF DIFFERENCE!

To bid less agreessively on the balance of your cattle needs because you have already met part of those needs is not "MARKET MANIPULATION", It's business pure and simple.

The fact that the plaintiffs themselves forward contracted cattle shows the weakness in the case.

The bottom line is the every producer can determine for himself how they will market their cattle rather than having some two bit packer blamer initiated law that forces all feeders to sell their cattle in some socialized cattle marketing scheme so the LMA can carve their commission dollars out of the pie.

Had this verdict stood it would have opened the door for any producer to sue any feeder for the same damn thing.

The packer blamers like you used to have some wild conspiracy that the packers were manipulating the market through the CME so GIPSA conducted a government investigation into the CME. The results of that investigation found the feeders had far more short positions than the packers did. ONE MORE PACKER BLAMING CONSPIRACY THEORY THAT WAS SHOT DOWN IN FLAMES.

"PLEASE JUDGE STROM, I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT I WAS DOING WHEN I ENTERED THOSE FORWARD CONTRACTS".

What a bunch of packer parasites.



~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
You simply amaze me, SH. Just what did my post have to do with the futures market? Talk about someone not knowing what they are talking about...

While I'm on the topic if you know knowing what you're talking about, let's examine this misinformed statement of yours; "The fact that the plaintiffs themselves forward contracted cattle shows the weakness in the case."
Here again, your need to be contrary and defend large packers no matter what puts a big foot in your mouth. The fact is, NONE if the plaintiffs forward contracted cattle.

For a person who unabashedly promotes himself as only dealing with facts, you have a heck of a time providing them and accepting them.
 

Latest posts

Top