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

"Capitalism" and The Meat Industry

Econ101

Well-known member
… Since the meat industrial complex represents such a rich example of the abject inhumanity of American Capitalism, corporations like Smithfield Foods and McDonald’s were so instrumental in the growth of this complex, and men like Kroc and Luter profited so handsomely from such a massive entity’s existence, let’s scrutinize the devastation this abominable entity is wreaking upon our fur, feather and scale-bearing cousins, the Earth, and humanity…



Rover is not on the menu, Wilbur is, and Mahmoud just starved to death: "Another bacon burger, anyone?"



By Jason Miller

Thomas Paine’s Corner

3/25/07



“If my competitor were drowning, I’d stick a hose in his mouth and turn on the water.”

--Ray Kroc



“….a funny, jowly, canny, barbarous guy who lives in a multimillion-dollar condo on Park Avenue in Manhattan and conveys himself about the planet in a corporate jet and a private yacht. At sixty-seven, he is unrepentant in the face of criticism. He describes himself as a "tough man in a tough business"….."The animal-rights people," he once said, "want to impose a vegetarian's society on the U.S. Most vegetarians I know are neurotic."”



--Jeff Tietz’s description of meat processing magnate, Joseph Luter III (from his Rolling Stone article, “Boss Hog”)



Despite the obvious signs that our nation is declining rapidly and despite the increasing global animosity against us for our greed, excesses, hypocrisy, and belligerence, we US Americans are defiantly “staying the course”. Neither harsh reality nor the ire of the world community has shaken our foundations. Mouthing hollow platitudes about freedom and liberty while supporting a war machine perpetrating genocide in Iraq, we mindlessly buttress a socioeconomic system some of history’s most notable fascists would envy.



While many of us mollify ourselves with the belief that the malevolence of the Bush administration is merely an anomaly in American government, the reality is that the current administration has simply become emboldened enough to dispose of the false mask of benevolence worn tightly by its predecessors.



Let’s face it. We are obsessed with American Capitalism, a system so rotten that it actually encourages, enables, legalizes, and richly rewards pathological degrees of narcissism, greed, competitiveness, and ruthlessness. While millions suffer and die because of us, we cocoon ourselves in impenetrable bubbles of denial and continue feeding our pathetic addictions to fast food, gas guzzling automobiles, American Idol, military domination, video games, the NFL, “righteous” Christianity, and the acquisition of material possessions. Yet we actually expect human beings who are not mentally incapacitated to believe that the United States is a beacon of hope for humanity on a noble quest to spread “freedom and democracy”?



How could one maintain a straight face while asserting that a Constitutional Republic (alleged to be premised on Enlightened principles) could co-exist with such a deeply depraved socioeconomic system?



We’re talking about the system that made the “successes” of men like Ray Kroc and Joseph Luter III possible. Those eager to assuage their guilt or avoid the mental exercise of critical thinking can simply embrace the inane mythology that those who rise to the top of the economic hierarchy in the United States are harmlessly enjoying the fruits of their labor they so richly deserve. Yet for truth seekers, this conclusion reeks with a stench that rivals the pungent stink of Boss Hog’s factory farms.



Since the meat industrial complex represents such a rich example of the abject inhumanity of American Capitalism, corporations like Smithfield Foods and McDonald’s were so instrumental in the growth of this complex, and men like Kroc and Luter profited so handsomely from such a massive entity’s existence, let’s scrutinize the devastation this abominable entity is wreaking upon our fur, feather and scale-bearing cousins, the Earth, and humanity.



According to muck-raking journalist Eric Schlosser, US Americans spent over $110 billion on fast food in the year 2000, more than they did on higher education. Aside from being a tragic indicator of our grossly misplaced priorities, this shocking statistic is an indictment of McDonald’s and its ilk. Ubiquity, affordability, convenience, laboratory-developed great taste, and a capacity to manipulate public opinion that puts Bernays to shame enable fast food giants to spread like noxious weeds, annihilating hapless “mom and pop” competitors like so much “collateral damage” in a US imperialistic invasion.



And what red-blooded American would leave the drive-thru without a Big Mac, chicken nuggets, sausage biscuit, bacon burger, fish sandwich, or some other delightful victual containing meat?



To keep up with the sky-rocketing demand for meat caused by the mass-production and mass consumption of fast food, men like Luter jumped to the fore to pioneer factory farming and “vertical integration” of the industry.



Thanks to corporate behemoths, livestock producing family farms are all but extinct. In the United States, 54% of cattle are raised by 5% of the nation’s farms and corporate entities produce a staggering 98% of our poultry.



While many pets in our country receive better care than billions of deeply impoverished humans in developing countries, we consume the flesh, fat, and muscle of sentient beings merely to satiate our carnivorous desires. Compounding this barbarism is the fact that this behavior enriches those who condemn millions of pigs, cattle, fish, and chickens to abbreviated and miserable existences.



Consider what our fellow living beings endure that we might indulge ourselves with burgers, filets, chops and such:



“Unfortunately, this trend of mass production has resulted in incredible pain and suffering for the animals. Animals today raised on factory farms have had their genes manipulated and pumped full of antibiotics, hormones and other chemicals to encourage high productivity. In the food industry, animals are not considered animals at all; they are food producing machines. They are confined to small cages with metal bars, ammonia-filled air and artificial lighting or no lighting at all. They are subjected to horrible mutilations: beak searing, tail docking, ear cutting and castration. Even the most minimum humane standards proposed are thwarted by the powerful food conglomerates.”



The 9 billion chickens raised each year for their meat are packed into horribly over-crowded, filthy and under-ventilated sheds. Pharmaceuticals and genetic manipulation accelerate their body growth to the extent that their internal organs often fail or they become severely crippled. Denied their natural inclinations to roost, nest, and bathe in the sun, their wretched lives end with a slash of their throats by a mechanical razor.



85 million cattle die each year to put beef on our tables. Four corporate conglomerates account for 80% of this massive slaughter. Ravaged by diseases and metabolic disorders caused by unnatural diets, over-crowding, and cocktails of growth-enhancing hormones and antibiotics, cattle fare little better than their feathered counter-parts. Branding, castration, waddling, and dehorning are often performed without anesthesia. In spite of the Humane Slaughter Act, many cattle are improperly stunned before their throats are slit to bleed them in preparation for the final mutilation of their remains.



“Pigs have the cognitive ability to be quite sophisticated. Even more so than dogs and certainly [more so than] three-year-olds,” says Dr. Donald Broom, Cambridge University professor and former scientific advisor to the Council of Europe.” Yet each year in the United States we torture and kill 100 million of them. Factory “farmers” keep sows confined in tiny spaces and in perpetual states of impregnation for several years until they are eventually slaughtered. Hogs are “fortunate” in that their sentence to a life of profound misery is a “mere” six months before they “nobly sacrifice themselves” to provide us with ham, sausage, and bacon. As with cattle, pigs are subjected to multiple mutilations without pain-killers, including tail and tooth removal. Cursed by their own intellect, the porcine “farm” experience is perhaps the cruelest. Packing them into claustrophobic enclosures causes them serious mental distress, often leading to cannibalism, self-mutilation, and repetitive, compulsive behaviors.



Commercial fishing has decimated fish populations to the extent that nearly 30% of the seafood we consume now needs to be raised on aquafarms. Aside from driving some varieties of fish to near extinction, commercial fishing techniques cause the deaths of over 100,000 marine mammals each year. Fish raised on aquafarms face many of the same horrors as their terrestrial cousins. Over-crowding, disease, and injury kill approximately 40% of farm-raised fish before they reach market. Aquafarming also has disastrous environmental consequences resulting from the release of “tons of fish feces, antibiotic-laden fish feed, and diseased fish carcasses.”



What does our overwhelming support for this systematic torment and massacre of millions of our fellow creatures say about our society? Patrice Greanville, board member of Animal People Magazine, editor and publisher of Cyrano’s Journal Online, and renowned Leftist radical, put it like this:



“This moral blindness is inexcusable for those who rightly see themselves as the moral vanguard of humanity. For the bottom line is that speciesism—a surreptitious form of human fascism applied to animals and nature in general—is by far the oldest and most pervasive form of brutal tyrannization encountered in the sorry annals of human history. I don't use the word "fascism" as hyperbole in this context or for dramatic effect. I wish it were hyperbole. But the fact is that fascism is noted for its unilateral proclamations of superiority by a certain race or breed, endowing said race with the "right" to dominate, exploit, and annihilate at will any group deemed "inferior." If that pretty much doesn't describe eloquently our despicable behavior toward non-human animals, I don't know what does.”



Speciesism is yet another ugly manifestation of the hubristic narcissism that has infected our collective psyche here in the United States. While tormenting and butchering “lesser beings” simply to please our palates is reprehensible behavior, there is a less obvious but equally sinister component to the meat industrial complex. Let’s explore it, shall we?



Consuming meat is a luxury that comes with an extremely high human cost. While dated, agricultural economist Rene Dumont’s observation rings even more true in 2007 than when he made it in 1974:



"The overconsumption of meat by the rich means hunger for the poor. This wasteful agriculture must be changed - by the suppression of feedlots where beef are fattened on grains, and even a massive reduction of beef cattle."



Dr. Aaron Altshul, author of Proteins: Their Chemistry and Politics, concluded that the foods cultivated to sustain a vegetarian diet provide enough calories per acre to support twenty times more people than the meat produced by raising livestock. Altshul further observed that the Earth could support up to 20 billion people if available agricultural land was devoted to cultivating vegetarian sustenance.



So while we savor our succulent T-bones, relish our tender pork loin, and feast upon our marinated chicken breasts, over 35,000 of our fellow human beings starve to death EACH DAY. 30,000 of them are CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF FIVE.



Consider these disturbing facts (most of which can be found here):



--80% of starving children live in countries where there is actually a grain surplus, but farmers use the grain to feed livestock in order to sell meat to wealthier nations



--Due to its profitability, cattle ranching is rapidly replacing the cultivation of essential crops in Central and South America (where millions of people are malnourished or starving). Deforestation to create cattle pasture is also occurring at an alarming rate.



--Over 70% of the grain that we grow goes to feed livestock. Of the calories animals derive from this grain, only a small percentage yields meat for human consumption.



--In a world in which potable water is becoming increasingly scarce, the United States devotes 50% of its supply to livestock production.



--Raising crops to feed humans requires far less land than producing meat. Today there is 2/3 of an acre of arable land per person on the Earth. Within 40 years that figure is expected to drop to 1/3 of an acre.



--Typically, 60 gallons of water will yield one pound of wheat. It takes about 2500 gallons to produce a pound of beef. While water is a fairly renewable resource, the meat industrial complex does its best (or more appropriately, worst) to ensure that such renewal is seriously compromised. The EPA has determined that livestock waste, 1.4 billion tons of which were released into our water supply in 1996, is the principal water pollutant in the United States.



--“Vegfam, a British non-profit organization also claims that 10 acres can support 60 people when growing soybeans, 24 when growing wheat, 10 when growing corn, 2 when raising cattle. Also, PETA claims, "because of deforestation for cattle land, each vegetarian saves 1 acre of rainforest a year."”



Pork chops, fried chicken, bacon, and KC strip steaks are delectable in a way that defies description. Yet like so many of the tantalizing offerings dangled before us by our corporate masters, they are contributing to the demise of the human race, our animal brethren, and the Earth itself.



The system we have been conditioned to accept, support, and adore is unsustainable, vile, exploitative, and, frankly, murderous. American Capitalism is little more than an “evolved” form of feudalism in which corporations have replaced lords and the working class has been condemned to economic serfdom. The concomitant symptoms of this global malignancy, including runaway industrialization, imperial conquest, technological advances sans ethical considerations, environmental destruction, fascism, racism, speciesism, neoliberalism, and rampant consumerism, are straining the Earth and its inhabitants beyond reasonable limits.



Don Robertson, the American Philosopher, has concluded that “we are all moral barbarians today.”



If we wish to evolve into more civilized human beings and perpetuate life on Earth, we need to put some serious effort into embodying Robertson’s moral imperative:



“The moral imperative of life is to live a life that detracts not at all from the lives available to those who will follow us into this world.”



While not easy, shunning the egregiously deleterious meat industrial complex is a simple first step. (To learn more, go to http://www.goveg.com/)



Disclosure Statement: The author of this essay converted to vegetarianism two months ago. As a result, he has experienced spiritual, physical, and mental invigoration. He highly recommends it.





Jason Miller is a wage slave of the American Empire who has freed himself intellectually and spiritually. He writes prolifically, his essays have been widely published, he is an associate editor for Cyrano's Journal Online, and he volunteers at homeless shelters. He welcomes constructive correspondence at [email protected] or via his blog, Thomas Paine's Corner, at http://civillibertarian.blogspot.com/



Thomas Paine's Corner

Thomas Paine's Corner is a site dedicated to advancing universal human rights, fostering social and economic justice, and supporting the cause of all oppressed, exploited, and impoverished human beings on our Earth.



civillibertarian.blogspot.com
 

Econ101

Well-known member
graybull said:
Just curious as to why you would take the time and make the effort to post such crap??

I think, as rkaiser, that you can learn from even those you disagree with. I didn't vote for Bill Clinton and sure wouldn't vote for his wife, but Bill Clinton always had the ability to listen to the other side, pick out the parts that may be true vs. the parts that may be plain old self serving and of less value. This allowed him to become a very good politician, a fact you have to agree with even if you dislike the guy. It is a trait we should all be trained in.

Graybull, you should always be able to pick out the good apples out of the bag and throw out the bad ones. Sometimes you have to throw out the whole bag. If you disagree with this article, post which part you don't agree, reasons why, and do the same with the part you do agree with, if any. I am sure whatever position you take, there will be plenty that agree with you including myself. You have to know what the arguments are to be able to confront them. Keeping quiet and walking away from the debate does not help you win it. Countering the arguments does.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Good point Graybull, however, maybe we who are believers in the 'American way', capitalism, the 'Golden Rule', 'Christian principles', and the like, upon which our nation was founded, really need to learn about the ideals and social systems the enemies of our traditions and very way of life are preaching and indoctrinating others into.

MRJ
 

Econ101

Well-known member
MRJ said:
Good point Graybull, however, maybe we who are believers in the 'American way', capitalism, the 'Golden Rule', 'Christian principles', and the like, upon which our nation was founded, really need to learn about the ideals and social systems the enemies of our traditions and very way of life are preaching and indoctrinating others into.

MRJ

MRJ, you don't believe in these things. You don't believe in justice, you believe in following the good old boys club. Your position on the OIG investigation into GIPSA clearly shows this. You have a huge lack of empathy unless it is for yourself.

Stop being so hypocritical.
 

mrj

Well-known member
E., it really is time for you to stop trusting your old crystal ball which you seem to believe gives you the power to know what I think.

It encourages you to lie!

MRJ
 

Econ101

Well-known member
MRJ said:
E., it really is time for you to stop trusting your old crystal ball which you seem to believe gives you the power to know what I think.

It encourages you to lie!

MRJ

You are right, MRJ, I don't know what you think. I haven't seen enough evidence of it yet. On this particular issue, you first blew off the OIG report because it seemed you believed it was a political hatchet job instead of real problems that were documented with respect to GIPSA and their handling of investigations and complaints.

Then it seemed you took the line of someone you seemed to respect, a probable NCBA propaganda person, before reading the report yourself.

You finally read the report, or at least parts of it, and pretty much stuck with the two options you took previously.

You are totally right, I don't know what you think in regards to this subject. Would you please explain it to me?
 

mrj

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
MRJ said:
E., it really is time for you to stop trusting your old crystal ball which you seem to believe gives you the power to know what I think.

It encourages you to lie!

MRJ

You are right, MRJ, I don't know what you think. I haven't seen enough evidence of it yet. On this particular issue, you first blew off the OIG report because it seemed you believed it was a political hatchet job instead of real problems that were documented with respect to GIPSA and their handling of investigations and complaints.

Then it seemed you took the line of someone you seemed to respect, a probable NCBA propaganda person, before reading the report yourself.

You finally read the report, or at least parts of it, and pretty much stuck with the two options you took previously.

You are totally right, I don't know what you think in regards to this subject. Would you please explain it to me?

Still more "Econo-LIES"!

If, as you now admit, you do not know what I think, what are you trying to gain by lying about it? When you accuse me of being unable to think, easily led, and worse, it appears you are attempting to discredit my intelligence, accuracy of facts, and even my honesty in order to discredit anything I may post re. cattle industry organizations and issues. That is neither nice, honest, nor credible and reflects worse upon you than me.

I never said, so you admittedly cannot know, that there was any one person whose account of the report was my source.

FACT: as usual in such situations, I read various reports by reporters, acedemics, and industry leaders, found in several ag media sources which we have in the past found to be reasonably accurate and honest in their coverage of ag related news.

Why do you imply that the use of "propaganda', defined first as: a systematic effort to persuade a body of people to support or adopt a particular opinion, attitude, or course of action by any selection of FACTS, ideas, or allegations forming the basis of such an effort; by NCBA is bad?

More recent usage of the word "Propaganda is now often used in a disparaging sense, as of a body of distortions and half-truths calculated to bias one's judgement or opinions"; actually fits most of your posts far better than it does information released by anyone you so disdainfully term " a probable NCBA propaganda person".

I did NOT 'blow off" anything! It seems reasonable to me to allow the 'new broom' the opportunity to investigate the "charges" you claim have gone without investigation. You claim there is evidence proving negligence and cover-ups. That there is 'evidence' supporting such charges and claims are disputed by other. Maybe you should make use of your claimed "inside information" and lead the charge! Why have you not done so?

BTW, what do you think will come of the accusation that someone at or near the top of GSA is in trouble?

MRJ
 

Econ101

Well-known member
MRJ said:
Econ101 said:
MRJ said:
E., it really is time for you to stop trusting your old crystal ball which you seem to believe gives you the power to know what I think.

It encourages you to lie!

MRJ

You are right, MRJ, I don't know what you think. I haven't seen enough evidence of it yet. On this particular issue, you first blew off the OIG report because it seemed you believed it was a political hatchet job instead of real problems that were documented with respect to GIPSA and their handling of investigations and complaints.

Then it seemed you took the line of someone you seemed to respect, a probable NCBA propaganda person, before reading the report yourself.

You finally read the report, or at least parts of it, and pretty much stuck with the two options you took previously.

You are totally right, I don't know what you think in regards to this subject. Would you please explain it to me?

Still more "Econo-LIES"!

If, as you now admit, you do not know what I think, what are you trying to gain by lying about it? When you accuse me of being unable to think, easily led, and worse, it appears you are attempting to discredit my intelligence, accuracy of facts, and even my honesty in order to discredit anything I may post re. cattle industry organizations and issues. That is neither nice, honest, nor credible and reflects worse upon you than me.

I never said, so you admittedly cannot know, that there was any one person whose account of the report was my source.

FACT: as usual in such situations, I read various reports by reporters, acedemics, and industry leaders, found in several ag media sources which we have in the past found to be reasonably accurate and honest in their coverage of ag related news.

Why do you imply that the use of "propaganda', defined first as: a systematic effort to persuade a body of people to support or adopt a particular opinion, attitude, or course of action by any selection of FACTS, ideas, or allegations forming the basis of such an effort; by NCBA is bad?

More recent usage of the word "Propaganda is now often used in a disparaging sense, as of a body of distortions and half-truths calculated to bias one's judgement or opinions"; actually fits most of your posts far better than it does information released by anyone you so disdainfully term " a probable NCBA propaganda person".

I did NOT 'blow off" anything! It seems reasonable to me to allow the 'new broom' the opportunity to investigate the "charges" you claim have gone without investigation. You claim there is evidence proving negligence and cover-ups. That there is 'evidence' supporting such charges and claims are disputed by other. Maybe you should make use of your claimed "inside information" and lead the charge! Why have you not done so?

BTW, what do you think will come of the accusation that someone at or near the top of GSA is in trouble?

MRJ

MRJ, who is disputing what was in the OIG report?
 

mrj

Well-known member
If all were in agreement that every accusation or claim of wrongdoing in the report is accurate, wouldn't there be court cases being pursued by avaricious law firms??? Probably even 'get-rich-quick' lawsuits to recover damages!!!!!

MRJ
 

Mike

Well-known member
MRJ said:
If all were in agreement that every accusation or claim of wrongdoing in the report is accurate, wouldn't there be court cases being pursued by avaricious law firms??? Probably even 'get-rich-quick' lawsuits to recover damages!!!!!

MRJ
You ever tried suing government employees for loafing on the job?

Can't happen. You have to start at the top and start cleaning house.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
MRJ said:
If all were in agreement that every accusation or claim of wrongdoing in the report is accurate, wouldn't there be court cases being pursued by avaricious law firms??? Probably even 'get-rich-quick' lawsuits to recover damages!!!!!

MRJ

Who, other than SH, has questioned the accuracy of the report?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
MRJ said:
If all were in agreement that every accusation or claim of wrongdoing in the report is accurate, wouldn't there be court cases being pursued by avaricious law firms??? Probably even 'get-rich-quick' lawsuits to recover damages!!!!!

MRJ

So, just to clarify, I asked you who didn't believe the OIG report and you came back with this answer. Do you believe that the findings could not be true because of the threat of lawsuits? Did this deter the Enron fiasco, WorldCom, Adelphia and others? Does this threat of lawsuits deter all criminal and civil wrongdoing? Do all of the wrongdoings in the U.S. get rectified through the court system?

Again, I ask you, who was it that did not believe the report and why? Did they provide the reasons you just gave?
 

mrj

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
MRJ said:
If all were in agreement that every accusation or claim of wrongdoing in the report is accurate, wouldn't there be court cases being pursued by avaricious law firms??? Probably even 'get-rich-quick' lawsuits to recover damages!!!!!

MRJ

So, just to clarify, I asked you who didn't believe the OIG report and you came back with this answer. Do you believe that the findings could not be true because of the threat of lawsuits? Did this deter the Enron fiasco, WorldCom, Adelphia and others? Does this threat of lawsuits deter all criminal and civil wrongdoing? Do all of the wrongdoings in the U.S. get rectified through the court system?

Again, I ask you, who was it that did not believe the report and why? Did they provide the reasons you just gave?


Sorry, but I don't have time to figure out how to say this in words of one syllable so you can understand.

Obviously, you do know that I did NOT say, as you imply that I did, "the findings could not be true BECAUSE of the threat of lawsuits". Those were your own words, not mine, just more of your deception is all that is.

I QUESTION the validity of your claims about the 'findings' because I SUSPECT that if the EVIDENCE of wrongdoing was so clear, there would be those who would love to get into court with it.

Aside from the law firms who search for 'easy' pickings for lawsuits, there are politicians and political groups who seem all too eager to go after anything vaguely suspect administered by this Bush administration.

I did not hear or read something by only ONE individual questionning the 'findings' of that report. It may have been as small as one sentence in an article.

Do any of you actually believe there is ANY government report with which EVERYONE agrees????

Your attempts to put words into my mouth and to entrap me are juvenile and boring. Get over it!

MRJ
 

Econ101

Well-known member
MRJ said:
Econ101 said:
MRJ said:
If all were in agreement that every accusation or claim of wrongdoing in the report is accurate, wouldn't there be court cases being pursued by avaricious law firms??? Probably even 'get-rich-quick' lawsuits to recover damages!!!!!

MRJ

So, just to clarify, I asked you who didn't believe the OIG report and you came back with this answer. Do you believe that the findings could not be true because of the threat of lawsuits? Did this deter the Enron fiasco, WorldCom, Adelphia and others? Does this threat of lawsuits deter all criminal and civil wrongdoing? Do all of the wrongdoings in the U.S. get rectified through the court system?

Again, I ask you, who was it that did not believe the report and why? Did they provide the reasons you just gave?


Sorry, but I don't have time to figure out how to say this in words of one syllable so you can understand.

Obviously, you do know that I did NOT say, as you imply that I did, "the findings could not be true BECAUSE of the threat of lawsuits". Those were your own words, not mine, just more of your deception is all that is.

I QUESTION the validity of your claims about the 'findings' because I SUSPECT that if the EVIDENCE of wrongdoing was so clear, there would be those who would love to get into court with it.

Aside from the law firms who search for 'easy' pickings for lawsuits, there are politicians and political groups who seem all too eager to go after anything vaguely suspect administered by this Bush administration.

I did not hear or read something by only ONE individual questionning the 'findings' of that report. It may have been as small as one sentence in an article.

Do any of you actually believe there is ANY government report with which EVERYONE agrees????

Your attempts to put words into my mouth and to entrap me are juvenile and boring. Get over it!

MRJ
 

Econ101

Well-known member
MRJ said:
Econ101 said:
MRJ said:
If all were in agreement that every accusation or claim of wrongdoing in the report is accurate, wouldn't there be court cases being pursued by avaricious law firms??? Probably even 'get-rich-quick' lawsuits to recover damages!!!!!

MRJ

So, just to clarify, I asked you who didn't believe the OIG report and you came back with this answer. Do you believe that the findings could not be true because of the threat of lawsuits? Did this deter the Enron fiasco, WorldCom, Adelphia and others? Does this threat of lawsuits deter all criminal and civil wrongdoing? Do all of the wrongdoings in the U.S. get rectified through the court system?

Again, I ask you, who was it that did not believe the report and why? Did they provide the reasons you just gave?






Sorry, but I don't have time to figure out how to say this in words of one syllable so you can understand.

Obviously, you do know that I did NOT say, as you imply that I did, "the findings could not be true BECAUSE of the threat of lawsuits". Those were your own words, not mine, just more of your deception is all that is.

I QUESTION the validity of your claims about the 'findings' because I SUSPECT that if the EVIDENCE of wrongdoing was so clear, there would be those who would love to get into court with it.

Aside from the law firms who search for 'easy' pickings for lawsuits, there are politicians and political groups who seem all too eager to go after anything vaguely suspect administered by this Bush administration.

I did not hear or read something by only ONE individual questionning the 'findings' of that report. It may have been as small as one sentence in an article.

Do any of you actually believe there is ANY government report with which EVERYONE agrees????

Your attempts to put words into my mouth and to entrap me are juvenile and boring. Get over it!

MRJ

MRJ, I left those as questions so you could answer and disperse any implications you, I, or anyone else might have made. You used those words as reasons for not believing the report's findings, not I. I was just questioning to see if you really thought about it or was just brainstorming for reasons. Then you reiterate the same argument.



So now you say that you could have read that there was a disagreement with the report as a sentence or two in an article. You then go to state that not everyone agrees with every govt. report. Is this the reason you doubt the OIG's findings and posted that doubt here on ranchers?

My questions for you are pretty simple. What did YOU think and why? Were you just echoing what you may have read?

These questions get to one of my observations about you. I have observed that you have no problem accepting anything that fits your bias and that your bias is toward the status quo. I have observed that you do not critically think and defer to any excuse you can to make things fit your already conceived reality. I would like to see where you gave just a little more thought than those in my observations when you made statements regarding investigations by GIPSA initiated by producers and how they were handled by the government per the OIG findings.

I am being open here. Would you like to try again?

What did you base your comments on that were critical to the OIG findings?
 
Top