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

Beef Safety and Reason.....can they co-exist on this site?

MRJ, "Doesn't this all make you feel very justified in your belief that packers and USDA are united in a plot to cheat cattle producers and to kill off lots of consumers with poisoned beef just so they can have bigger profits and under the table pay-offs for USDA regulators????"

It is my belief that the USDA looks the other way, makes concessions not in the public interest, and rulings that favor the big packers to the detriment of small packers and producers due to the influence and "contributions" made in Washington. It's obvious of you would open your eyes and ask a few questions.
 
Mrs. Greg wrote:

Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:38 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BSETester....our cattle are grass fed and finished,not for everbody but the demand for that type of finishing is growing,our finished cattle are sold privatly,prob 98% are slaughtered,cut and wrapped in our small town,a person could EAT off the floor in that butchershop. Don't tell me where my animals are going.

I'm impressed you reported that,there a protocol thats to be followed with any possible blood transmission,the companys your seeing in Edmonton not only SHOULD be following that protocol its reportable if NOT being followed. Look what happened in Veg. with the sterilization issue there,we STILL can't use our equipment because of that.Protocols were not being followed.

BTW...I didn't say third hand....Longcut did......ask him about his statement to you,I have enough of my own issues with you without you adding his to mine.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are right - it was Longcut and not you - for that oversight, I apologize. But I again stress that your issues with me are misguided and I am confident that once you realize that you will see that my only goal is to help producers like you to produce a safer product - and no, I am not saying that your product is unsafe but the public perception paints all producers with the same brush.

As for your animals - read this and do what you want with it:

Personally, I don't care at all where you send your cattle. And as for your comment regarding Veg - I agree completely. A friend of mine had his mother in there when that happened and the trauma that family went through was unforgiveable. I admire your passion for some of your issues!!!!
 
Sandhusker, fortunately, you are in a minority, and the majority of cattle producers and others affected by USDA do not have your conspiratorial mindset about actions of USDA.

Most farmers and others affected by USDA actions do understand that perfection exists only rarely.

Mistakes are made on occasion, but are part of learning how to do better.

And that overall, most political contributions by ag organizations and even by agri-bus. actually are made in attempts to elect good people who will be open minded and fair with ag producers and businesses.

mrj
 
MRJ, "And that overall, most political contributions by ag organizations and even by agri-bus. actually are made in attempts to elect good people who will be open minded and fair with ag producers and businesses."

:shock: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :roll:

I think you need to change your handle to "Polly Anna".

Take a look at how much Tyson, Conagra, Cargill, etc.... are spending on lobbyists and ask yourself how they justify that.
 
Sandhusker said:
MRJ, "And that overall, most political contributions by ag organizations and even by agri-bus. actually are made in attempts to elect good people who will be open minded and fair with ag producers and businesses."

:shock: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :roll:

I think you need to change your handle to "Polly Anna".

Take a look at how much Tyson, Conagra, Cargill, etc.... are spending on lobbyists and ask yourself how they justify that.
Click to expand...

Don't you know, sandhusker, they are doing it all for the producers!!!!

All that overseas investment is for the U.S. producer.


All that stopping BSE testing is for the producer

All that market manipulation is for the producer!

All that USDA help with Joann Waterfield is for the producer!

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

mrj is beyond help.
 
MRJ needs to get her a nice bottle of wine and read:

"Rats In The Grain"

If that doesn't open her eyes to the shenanigans of the Agri-business companies nothing will.

Poor thing has been locked up with no outside communications with the real world for too long. :roll:
 
Sorry, it is you three boys who apparently are imbibing more than you can hold and still remain cognitive.

Sandhusker, the operative word is "most". Tyson, Conagra, and Cargill are three of at least hundreds, more probably multiple thousands of small, medium, and large agribusinesses and individuals and producer organizations making political contributions and hiring lobbyists, as well as the huge ones you portray as being the ONLY ones.

A "pollyanna" sees ONLY good. Wonder what the term is for those like you who see only evil among those other than themselves and their allies?

I still can see good among the evil out there, and some of the evil I see is pretty close to you!

Mike, abuses are one thing, occasional accidental incidents also occur. Perfection is very rare and difficult costly to attain and maintain. There is probably a point of diminishing returns, even to society as a whole for food production standards.

Assuming you are extremely careful to use only approved animal meds appropriately, neverfor 'off label' purposes, always administered absolutely correctly, adhere strictly to withdrawal time periods.........but the day comes when for whatever reason, or when someone in your employ, gets careless and deceives you, and the error is caught after the animal is sold by you.........and the price for deception is placed upon you and is VERY high, possibly enough to cripple your business and ruin your reputation, are you willing to accept that cost in order for all US beef to have the "perfect" label.

So far as 'outside communication', in the past two weeks, I've driven over 2,400 miles to attend two funerals, one in WY and one in SD, visited with literally dozens, maybe a couple of hundred people, on a wide variety of subjects as well as the normal sympathy and compassion facets of such celebrations of lives well lived.

I do believe I've had about enough "outside communication with the REAL world" for a while. Will be leaving for Reno, NV before long, to attend the largest, most informative and interactive cattle producer convention you will find in the USA, though.

mrj
 
MRJ, "Sandhusker, the operative word is "most". Tyson, Conagra, and Cargill are three of at least hundreds, more probably multiple thousands of small, medium, and large agribusinesses and individuals and producer organizations making political contributions and hiring lobbyists, as well as the huge ones you portray as being the ONLY ones. "

Never did I imply they were the only ones. I did imply they spend the most. So tell me, how does somebody like Tyson justify spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on lobbyists?
 
Sandhusker, obviously businesses spending money on lobbyists are doing so in an effort to defend against law and rule changes that would damage their businesses........just like your bank owner does through his bankers assoc. and/or directly.

There obviously are good, honest lobbyists, and there are the other kind. Do you believe, like some have claimed on this site, that some, if not most elected Representatives and Senators and appointed officials and regulators are getting money under the table illegally from corporate lobbyists?

mrj
 
mrj said:
Sandhusker, obviously businesses spending money on lobbyists are doing so in an effort to defend against law and rule changes that would damage their businesses........just like your bank owner does through his bankers assoc. and/or directly.

There obviously are good, honest lobbyists, and there are the other kind. Do you believe, like some have claimed on this site, that some, if not most elected Representatives and Senators and appointed officials and regulators are getting money under the table illegally from corporate lobbyists?

mrj
Click to expand...

Let us see...... John McCain has said that he has seen it where committee chairs have called for campaign donations reminding the potential donors that their legislation is to come up soon........

John Edwards has said he would not have lobbyists in his administration--to cut down on the revolving door of lobbyist and their interests being put in positions of political power.....

mrj, where have you been? This whole election is about changing sold out washington dc.

My own Congressman has lamented the fact that the contributions he receives to continue in his job comes largely out of the district.

You are nothing but an uninformed nut, mrj.
 
mrj said:
Sandhusker, obviously businesses spending money on lobbyists are doing so in an effort to defend against law and rule changes that would damage their businesses........just like your bank owner does through his bankers assoc. and/or directly.

There obviously are good, honest lobbyists, and there are the other kind. Do you believe, like some have claimed on this site, that some, if not most elected Representatives and Senators and appointed officials and regulators are getting money under the table illegally from corporate lobbyists?

mrj
Click to expand...

So they're buying influence with the government, then. Exactly my point.
 
SAndhusker, you didn't answer my question.

No, I didn't say THEY are buing influence with government. Some MAY be trying to do so. Others are honestly putting lobbyists in WDC TRYING to get their information known about how proposed laws and rules will affect their businesses. Since when is it dishonest to use money to support candidates who MAY be good legislators?

Your assumption most or all lobbying and campaign contributions are for the purpose of 'buying' votes and elected officials is off base.

Tex/Econ, McCain and Edwards, and your own Congressman ARE running for office, are they not? Did McCain do anything about what he 'saw'? You imply that most politicians are crooked, so why do you trust them to be telling the truth? Have you polished up your crystal ball (remember, it hasn't been real accurate for you in the past), or do you have some other means of sorting out who is telling you the truth and who is not among politicians.......and lobbyists?

"Uninformed"? I'm not the one way out in left field claiming that at least an entire department (USDA), and most likely the entire GWB admin. is crooked!

My take, that while there are some dishonest people, the majority are honest, is the sane side of this issue.

mrj
 
MRJ, when it all shakes out, they have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars and in return they get favorable legislation. If they did not get those favors, they would not pay the money. They pay and they get. How is that not buying influence?
 
So, Sandhusker, IF your premise is totally accurate of ALL who donate money to support candidates for office, do you then admit that lobbying by R-CALF is "buying influence" and that it is wrong?

What better system do you propose for candidates to fund the very expensive campaigns of modern times?

Bad as it MAY be, where is there a better system than in the USA for changing who leads our goverments, local, state, national?

Doom and Gloom get so tiresome, and does so little good!

mrj
 
mrj said:
So, Sandhusker, IF your premise is totally accurate of ALL who donate money to support candidates for office, do you then admit that lobbying by R-CALF is "buying influence" and that it is wrong?

What better system do you propose for candidates to fund the very expensive campaigns of modern times?

Bad as it MAY be, where is there a better system than in the USA for changing who leads our goverments, local, state, national?

Doom and Gloom get so tiresome, and does so little good!

mrj
Click to expand...

I think there is a difference between an individual or an employee of a company bending the ear of an official as compared to a hired gun lobbyist. Many of the lobbyists are former Congressmen - that should tell you that this isn't just about communicating desires.

Bad as it MAY be? Come on, it's a shame. Do you think Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, etal would approve? I do have a solution - address the disease and not the symptoms. Put a limit (low) on how much can be spent on campaigns. The system we have now is rediculous. Our representatives are whoring their votes because they need money to fund huge campaigns that consist of littering the landscape with signs and numerous TV and radio ads that sling mud and tell half-truths. It's so bad that most people are so dang glad election day comes just so the bombardment of BS ceases. Limiting how much can be spent fixes two problems, the whoring and the littering.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top