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

For you NAFTA blamers........

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Chief: "Now this is definitely the biggest stretch of paranoia I have ever seen. Wow, you need to lighten up Scott. You're letting this crap get to you and it is showing in your thoughts."
Click to expand...

There is nothing paranoid about one country retaliating against another when a protectionist group like R-CULT throws up a trade barrier based on a pack of lies. The fact is, had that unfair trade barrier remained, we could have paid the price in other areas but R-CULT is simply too narrowly focused to see beyond the word "import".

Now let's talk paranoid shall we?

Who was the protectionist group that lied to the U.S. cattlemen by telling them if the Canadian border would open there would be a flood of imported cattle and our markets would tank?

WHO TOLD THE U.S. CATTLEMEN THAT LIE???

Pretty obvious, this paranoid ignorant position came from none other than R-CULT, AS ALWAYS and was not true. Why anyone even listens to them anymore is beyond me. I guess it's that need to blame.

But that's Ok with you right? The end (slightly higher cattle prices) justifies the means (lying about the safety of Canadian cattle and beef).


Sandhusker:"A country has to be able to afford their sanctions."
Click to expand...

I'd say with the rebuilding of New Orleans and current oil prices, it's a pretty safe bet that Canada could offset some or all of their losses in cattle with their gains in lumber and oil. You don't knife a country in the back the way R-CULT did Canada and think its forgotten overnight.


Sandhusker: "We consider a government not catering to money interests to be more important."
Click to expand...

Another of your many speculative theories unsupported by fact.

~SH~
 
Quote:
Sandhusker: "We consider a government not catering to money interests to be more important."


SH, "Another of your many speculative theories unsupported by fact."

Are you going to try to tell us that all those millions that corporations kick into campaign coffers is done without any expectations of getting anything in return?
 
Sandhusker: "Are you going to try to tell us that all those millions that corporations kick into campaign coffers is done without any expectations of getting anything in return?"
Click to expand...

Give me an example in regards to the beef industry.


~SH~
 
~SH~ said:
Sandhusker: "Are you going to try to tell us that all those millions that corporations kick into campaign coffers is done without any expectations of getting anything in return?"
Click to expand...

Give me an example in regards to the beef industry.


~SH~
Click to expand...

Now why would any industry be different? Take a look at Bonilla's " Agri-business Contributors". Do you think they expected nothing in return? Maybe you could tell us what Tyson expects when they cut a check to a politician or party?
 
GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE SANDMAN!!!!!!!!!!

Try backing your position for once in your life.



~SH~
 
~SH~ said:
DIVERSION!

GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE SANDMAN!


~SH~
Click to expand...

Tyson & Espy
Johanns and Con-Agra

Do I need to prove to you that Espy and Johanns had anything to do with the beef industry?
 
Sandman: "Tyson & Espy
Johanns and Con-Agra

Do I need to prove to you that Espy and Johanns had anything to do with the beef industry?"
Click to expand...

You don't know what was donated and you don't know what political favors, IF ANY, were granted. In short, you don't know sh*t AGAIN!

PURE SPECULATION!

Donations to campaign funds are simply to help get candidates in office that tend to vote the same way you do and those campaign funds come from both political camps. Conservatives and blamers. Take for example Thune vs. Daschle. Both had huge war chests. This knife cuts both ways so don't give me your whining speculation about corporate payoffs when that money flows both ways and you don't even know what was donated and whether any favors were granted.

"MASTER ILLUSIONIST" again!


~SH~
 
Tyson was giving Espy free perks like tickets to ball games and flying him there free on corporate jets. No biggies...unless you happen to be the Sec. of AG. and a large Agra business. :eek:

How about Tyson and Hillary's cattle futures...of course 'The Smartest Woman in the World' should be expected to take the profitable position on every commodity trade transaction. I'm sure Tyson learned something from their involvement with her. :shock:
 
SH, "You don't know what was donated and you don't know what political favors, IF ANY, were granted. In short, you don't know sh*t AGAIN! PURE SPECULATION! "

Johanns got $27,500 and Espy and his girlfriend got perks valued over $12,000. I do seem to know sh*t. Big donations have to be recorded - favors don't.

SH, "Donations to campaign funds are simply to help get candidates in office that tend to vote the same way you do and those campaign funds come from both political camps. Conservatives and blamers. Take for example Thune vs. Daschle. Both had huge war chests. This knife cuts both ways so don't give me your whining speculation about corporate payoffs when that money flows both ways and you don't even know what was donated and whether any favors were granted."MASTER ILLUSIONIST" again!"

Of course money flows both ways. Everybody wants something whether they're liberal, conservative, or those who think they're conservative. There's a problem in your reasoning, though, (imagine that :lol: ) If people only "donate" to get those in office that vote the same way, why are "donations" made AFTER the elections? Maybe the next candidate votes even more their way.

If it is no biggie, why was Tyson fined $6 million on the Espy deal?
 
Sandhusker said:
SH, "You don't know what was donated and you don't know what political favors, IF ANY, were granted. In short, you don't know sh*t AGAIN! PURE SPECULATION! "

Johanns got $27,500 and Espy and his girlfriend got perks valued over $12,000. I do seem to know sh*t. Big donations have to be recorded - favors don't.

{Sandhusker, since those "big donations" must be recorded, it should be relatively easy for you to show us cause and effect. I must have missed where you did that. BTW, did Johanns "get" that money, or did one of his campaign funds get it? Isn't there a difference??? MRJ}

SH, "Donations to campaign funds are simply to help get candidates in office that tend to vote the same way you do and those campaign funds come from both political camps. Conservatives and blamers. Take for example Thune vs. Daschle. Both had huge war chests. This knife cuts both ways so don't give me your whining speculation about corporate payoffs when that money flows both ways and you don't even know what was donated and whether any favors were granted."MASTER ILLUSIONIST" again!"

Of course money flows both ways. Everybody wants something whether they're liberal, conservative, or those who think they're conservative. There's a problem in your reasoning, though, (imagine that :lol: ) If people only "donate" to get those in office that vote the same way, why are "donations" made AFTER the elections? Maybe the next candidate votes even more their way.

{Obviously, with media time costing so much, fund raising is a constant effort for anyone considering a serious campaign for office. MRJ}

If it is no biggie, why was Tyson fined $6 million on the Espy deal?
Click to expand...

{Could the answer be that what Tyson did on the "Espy deal" was illegal, and outside the limits of legitimate campaign contributions???? MRJ}
 
Sandman: "Big donations have to be recorded - favors don't."
Click to expand...

EXACTLY!

When it comes to knowing whether favors were granted, YOU DON'T KNOW, PERIOD!

AS ALWAYS!



Why was Tyson fined $6M on the Espy deal?

YOU TELL ME!

Creating an "ILLUSION" again???


~SH~
 
Tell me, SH, in your world is there a big grinning cat that sits in the tree? Does the Queeen of Hearts have tea with a guy in a huge top hat?

I suppose Tyson't fine was an "ILLUSION"? :roll:

I suppose companies "donate" because they need a tax write-off? :roll:

I'm sure they don't expect anything in return. That law "You can't get anything for nothing" doesn't apply in politics? :roll:
 
Sandhusker, you should have a system like ours, these types of contributions are done in "less than obvious ways". You never hear about them unless someone spills the beans. Wouldn't you rather have it out in the open, and a bipartisan system? At least your reps, ann vote the way they want, ours get kicked off the team, if they vote against the "chief"
 
Murgen said:
Sandhusker, you should have a system like ours, these types of contributions are done in "less than obvious ways". You never hear about them unless someone spills the beans. Wouldn't you rather have it out in the open, and a bipartisan system? At least your reps, ann vote the way they want, ours get kicked off the team, if they vote against the "chief"
Click to expand...

What I would like to see is a complete overhaul of the way campaigns are ran. These clowns spend millions littering the landscape with signs and putting spendy ads on the radio and TV that depict their opposition as total morons while telling half the story. The opponent then retaliates with more of the same. They flood you with so much that you're just looking forward to election day so you don't have to hear or see another ad.

I'd like to see a limit that can be spent based on registered voters in the jurisdiction - something low like $1/head. That would clean up the airwaves and landscape. I'd like campaigns to be limited to a special section in the newspaper. Each party could put up 10 issues that each candidate would have to express their views on, and they could have a space for 10 of their individual projects. No mudslinging - just straight up and in writing.

The way it is now, they have to spend so much to keep up in a virtual arms race. The money has to come from some place, and any adult living in reality knows nobody gives you money withoug expecting something in return. This government can't help but be for sale.
 
Sandhusker, they can't help but be for sale, cause their pensions are riding on it. I agree with you, that someway they should be restricted. If I'm not doing my job they fire me, or find some other excuse (hasn't happened yet). But remember, elected ones are something like the ones they finance.

But also remember baseline economics, and how the "other team" plays them.

A cut somewhere, maybe is not a real "cut" as it is a re-adjustment to what was spent the year (period) before.

Just the same as an increase is not the same!

Am I off topic? I'd rather see some $$ go to lobbying of causes such as essentials, like food, as to see it go to other, less important causes!

"bad publicity, is still publicity" and food needs that!
 

Latest posts

Top