Canfax numbers

[Tam]

Rod what is the different between SLAMMED SHUT and Open Books. one you see NOTHING the other you can have someone that knows what they are looking at look at them and summarize what is in them so those that don't know can understand.

Ummmm, law clerks don't know whats in them or how to find funds. The real people who could actually find signs of wrong doings were not allowed to look at the real books. It was in the quotes you provided! The books were slammed shut and KEPT SHUT to the people who could actually do some good.

Do you have any evident that refute the findings of the Alberta Government, the House of Commons Standing Committee or the Competiton Bureau?

Tam, don't try and twist things around. I am nothing more than a producer with no inside information other than common sense, however it is my right when I see things like this to voice an opinion. Obviously, since my MP also sees some irregularities, I'm not the only one that sat up and said WTF?.

Did you also happen to notice, again in the quotes you provided, that the findings were qualified by the bureau and they specifically mentioned that summary documents had been used in certain areas? You get the feeling that someone in the bureau was trying to cover their butts? Audits of that nature aren't generally qualified like that.

So, riddle me this, since the packers are starving to death, just barely making it hand to mouth, where are they getting money for plant expansions, trucking companies, and overseas purchases? And don't say borrowing it, because its gotta be paid back. Did they happen to stumble upon a money tree growing under one of the smaller plants they bought?

Rod

Rod according to what I read more than you and your MP had opinions but all three investigations came up with the same results. There was no evidence to support those opinions. And where did I say the packers were starving ROD you are putting words in my mouth, if you haven't notice I can speak for myself. I realize that the packers did profit but maybe not to the extent you think they did. And not by doing anything illegal or at least one of the three investigation would have found some kind of evidence but I guess they didn't ask you did they? Twist all you want Rod but you said the books were slammed shut and they weren't. :roll:

 

[Tam]

Are you and BMR married?

That is fluff and you don't need to know.

Does BMR know?

Thats fluff and you don't need to know

 

[Econ101]

That is fluff and you don't need to know.

Does BMR know?

Thats fluff and you don't need to know

Do you have any proof either way?

 

[Tam]

Does BMR know?

Thats fluff and you don't need to know

Do you have any proof either way?

Thats fluff and you don't need to know. Do you have any evidence to the question you are diverting attention from with all your stupid questions.

 

[Econ101]

Thats fluff and you don't need to know

Do you have any proof either way?

Thats fluff and you don't need to know. Do you have any evidence to the question you are diverting attention from with all your stupid questions.

I agree. I will stop if you stop. The first time I asked, BMR was asking me a question that you obviously knew the answer to based on your subsequent post.

I don't know a whole lot about the Canadian beef industry. You comprise only 5 % of the U.S. beef industry at times and yet you act like you own the U.S. market. Your competition laws are obviously not good enough to protect producers with the market plays that are going on in the industry. You have allowed packers to run your country and get huge amounts of tax money and then you take up their cause every step you can. BMR claims to be a leader in the Canadian cattle business and yet he and you seem to support a system that perpetuates the status quo. I hope it is because that is all that you feel you can do at this point and that you don't truely believe it.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Your competition laws are obviously not good enough to protect producers with the market plays that are going on in the industry.

I don't know how our anti-comp laws compare to the US, but it strikes me that we have similar problems to the US. We have the laws, its just convincing someone to enforce them that we run into problems. And most Western Canadians tend to be sheep. Even though something stinks, they won't say anything, but rather "adapt to the current reality"

Rod

 

[Econ101]

Your competition laws are obviously not good enough to protect producers with the market plays that are going on in the industry.

I don't know how our anti-comp laws compare to the US, but it strikes me that we have similar problems to the US. We have the laws, its just convincing someone to enforce them that we run into problems. And most Western Canadians tend to be sheep. Even though something stinks, they won't say anything, but rather "adapt to the current reality"

Rod

That is how you lose a nation. It disrespects our servicemen we send out to fight our foreign battles when we don't fight the ones at home.

BMR and Tam, the analogy between a family that is allowing an incestuous relationship for their child and your defenses of the packers on this board still stands. I don't see how this problem will get solved with people like you in leadership positions in either the NCBA or the Canadian equivilent.
You should be ashamed.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

That is how you lose a nation. It disrespects our servicemen we send out to fight our foreign battles when we don't fight the ones at home.

I agree. Our entire political process needs to be reworked and "adjusted to the modern reality". Our fore fathers never envisioned massive gov't like we have now, nor did they envision the kind of corruption we have.

Rod

 

[mrj]

Wouldn't the honest thing be to wait till those ALLEGATIONS and ACCUSATIONS of corruption are proven in court before stating them as fact?

MRJ

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Wouldn't the honest thing be to wait till those ALLEGATIONS and ACCUSATIONS of corruption are proven in court before stating them as fact?

Well MRJ, given that over the past decade we've had several politicians convicted of monetary abuses, I feel pretty safe in saying there is corruption in government. Given the ease in which they were able to steal money and provide insider information to companies, it obvious that our checks and balances aren't working quite right. The whole lobby system that can donote vast sums of money to political campaigns needs to be reworked. I won't bother going on anymore, but surely to God you're not blind to number of charges, convicted or not, that are laid on politicians these days?

On edit: And for those who are convicted, the punishment rarely suits the crime. Hundreds of thousands of dollars gone, much of it not having to be paid back, and suspended sentences. I can't think of single politician thats actually had to go to jail. Not saying there wasn't one, but I sure don't remember it.

And for those who aren't convicted, they've managed to find another healthy niche suing the establishment for character defamation.

Rod

 

[Econ101]

Wouldn't the honest thing be to wait till those ALLEGATIONS and ACCUSATIONS of corruption are proven in court before stating them as fact?

MRJ

MRJ, the ethics committees are not doing their jobs in Congress. Why? Because they are monitoring themselves. When was the last time you put yourself in jail?

 

[Tam]

Do you have any proof either way?

Thats fluff and you don't need to know. Do you have any evidence to the question you are diverting attention from with all your stupid questions.

I agree. I will stop if you stop. The first time I asked, BMR was asking me a question that you obviously knew the answer to based on your subsequent post.

I don't know a whole lot about the Canadian beef industry. You comprise only 5 % of the U.S. beef industry at times and yet you act like you own the U.S. market. Your competition laws are obviously not good enough to protect producers with the market plays that are going on in the industry. You have allowed packers to run your country and get huge amounts of tax money and then you take up their cause every step you can. BMR claims to be a leader in the Canadian cattle business and yet he and you seem to support a system that perpetuates the status quo. I hope it is because that is all that you feel you can do at this point and that you don't truely believe it.

See how fast Econ turns things around when the topic comes back to the question he is diverting attention from. :lol:
More personal information Econ when is yours forth coming. At least we are willing to admit who we are and what interest we have in the Cattle industry all we know about you is you are a buzy body that likes sticking his nose into other peoples business of which you don't know a whole lot about . And thank you for admitting you don't know a whole lot about the Canadian beef industry. Please remember that when you are trying to tell us how to run it OK. And please don't think you know all there is to know about what we are fighting for in Canada as I would have to say you know even less about that than you do about the Canadian beef industry in general.

 

[Tam]

Your competition laws are obviously not good enough to protect producers with the market plays that are going on in the industry.

I don't know how our anti-comp laws compare to the US, but it strikes me that we have similar problems to the US. We have the laws, its just convincing someone to enforce them that we run into problems. And most Western Canadians tend to be sheep. Even though something stinks, they won't say anything, but rather "adapt to the current reality"

Rod

That is how you lose a nation. It disrespects our servicemen we send out to fight our foreign battles when we don't fight the ones at home.

BMR and Tam, the analogy between a family that is allowing an incestuous relationship for their child and your defenses of the packers on this board still stands. I don't see how this problem will get solved with people like you in leadership positions in either the NCBA or the Canadian equivilent.
You should be ashamed.

talk about someone that should be ashamed your analogy mays me SICK You have no idea what we are fighting for and you don't really care either. as it wouldn't fit into your sick mental image. You need to see a docter about your problem.

 

[Econ101]

I don't know how our anti-comp laws compare to the US, but it strikes me that we have similar problems to the US. We have the laws, its just convincing someone to enforce them that we run into problems. And most Western Canadians tend to be sheep. Even though something stinks, they won't say anything, but rather "adapt to the current reality"

Rod

That is how you lose a nation. It disrespects our servicemen we send out to fight our foreign battles when we don't fight the ones at home.

BMR and Tam, the analogy between a family that is allowing an incestuous relationship for their child and your defenses of the packers on this board still stands. I don't see how this problem will get solved with people like you in leadership positions in either the NCBA or the Canadian equivilent.
You should be ashamed.

talk about someone that should be ashamed your analogy mays me SICK You have no idea what we are fighting for and you don't really care either. as it wouldn't fit into your sick mental image. You need to see a docter about your problem.

Explain it then. I do care.

 

[Tam]

That is how you lose a nation. It disrespects our servicemen we send out to fight our foreign battles when we don't fight the ones at home.

BMR and Tam, the analogy between a family that is allowing an incestuous relationship for their child and your defenses of the packers on this board still stands. I don't see how this problem will get solved with people like you in leadership positions in either the NCBA or the Canadian equivilent.
You should be ashamed.

talk about someone that should be ashamed your analogy mays me SICK You have no idea what we are fighting for and you don't really care either. as it wouldn't fit into your sick mental image. You need to see a docter about your problem.

Explain it then. I do care.

Why so you can turn it around and use in future post to discredit me.

 

[Econ101]

talk about someone that should be ashamed your analogy mays me SICK You have no idea what we are fighting for and you don't really care either. as it wouldn't fit into your sick mental image. You need to see a docter about your problem.

Explain it then. I do care.

Why so you can turn it around and use in future post to discredit me.

No, Tam, I would rather stick to the points only. These little forays into the little diversions are the diverticuli we can all do without. I don't want to discredit you personally, I just want to discuss the points. It is you who have brought identity into the credibility question. You may be a fine person for all I know.

 

[Tam]

Explain it then. I do care.

Why so you can turn it around and use in future post to discredit me.

No, Tam, I would rather stick to the points only. These little forays into the little diversions are the diverticuli we can all do without. I don't want to discredit you personally, I just want to discuss the points. It is you who have brought identity into the credibility question. You may be a fine person for all I know.

No, Tam, I would rather stick to the points only. These little forays into the little diversions are the diverticuli we can all do without.

Like this one Econ

BMR and Tam, the analogy between a family that is allowing an incestuous relationship for their child

and this

BMR, do you and Tam really live together?

I don't want to discredit you personally,

you mean like this

BMR and Tam, the analogy between a family that is allowing an incestuous relationship for their child

and this

I don't see how this problem will get solved with people like you in leadership positions in either the NCBA or the Canadian equivilent.
You should be ashamed

or this

I am sorry if this frustrates you and your packer backer family who are all in bed together.

or this

I have to respect someone for me to be worried if I lose their respect. That doesn't happen to be a bunch of packer lackeys like you, BMR, SH, Jason, Agman or others

. or maybe the one where you called me

the biggest fraud in the Canadian cattle industry.

I just want to discuss the points.

Then why when you are asked a direct question like do you have any proof to your claims of Tyson Official being knife carrying crooks and somehow threatened the Japanese do you choose to divert attention with name calling or by asking personal questions that we all know you will use to discredit at some point in time. From your post Econ I have learned something too and that is you don't want to discuss anything you want us all to agree with you. If you wanted to discuss the points you would answer the questions that come up in the discussion and not divert to name calling and nasty little analogies to discredit.

It is you who have brought identity into the credibility question.

Just how many on this web site have asked you who you are and what your credentials are that you think you have a right to be telling all of us how to fix our industry. I doubt I was the first one Econ I would say just about anyone that is not in the PACKER BLAMING CAMP has.

You may be a fine person for all I know

Yea for all you care to but that doesn't stop you from using sick analogies to discredit when you are lossing the discussion does it. It is like I have said before people like you only feel superior when they crush anyone that dares to contradict you.

The next time you are in a honest discussion and decide to divert and discredit remember your words

I would rather stick to the points only. These little forays into the little diversions are the diverticuli we can all do without.

] and

I just want to discuss the points.

keep those quotes your quotes running through you head the next time you decide to call somebody a discrediting name. OK.

 

[Econ101]

So, Tam, why do you take the positions you take if someone isn't holding something over you?

 

[Tam]

So, Tam, why do you take the positions you take if someone isn't holding something over you?

I don't want to discredit you personally,

yea right Econ how many other threads have you posted you sick analogy on while I was answering this one. you don't deserve an answer. And you sure the He** don't deserve any respect for the crap you post.

 

[Econ101]

So, Tam, why do you take the positions you take if someone isn't holding something over you?

I don't want to discredit you personally,

yea right Econ how many other threads have you posted you sick analogy on while I was answering this one. you don't deserve an answer. And you sure the He** don't deserve any respect for the crap you post.

The analogy is powerful. It should be. There is a lot at stake.