A
Anonymous
Guest
.....how R-CALF covers all the bases and takes no position on many controversial issues????
The more I read from Bullard and Leo, the more I am figuring out their style of providing "something for everyone" without committing to an official position.
When Bullard made the statement "because you don't produce enough beef to satisfy your own domestic market, you don't need an export market to distribute your production", he followed it with "instead, you can view export markets as an opportunity......" which is clear double talk and a direct contradiction to what he just stated.
When Bullard was asked in Colorado what it would be like without any trade, he responded, "we would be in a very favorable position because we don't produce enough beef to satisfy our own domestic market now".
In contrast, Leo McDonnel has talked about the importance of expanding our export markets and how "M"ID could provide opportunities with our export markets.
With these contradicting statements and double talk, these guys can always cover their butts with any audience without ever committing to an official position on trade. When in doubt, parrot the rhetoric of "fair trade".
It's no different with "M"ID. By pointing out the pros and cons of "M"ID, Leo rallys his troops to support "M"ID but still caters to those who oppose it never actually committing to an official position.
Same way with their checkoff rhetoric. They can espouse the positive things about beef research, promotion, and education while they cater to the critics who don't like the affiliation between the CBB and NCBA.
Same way with "M"COOL. They can espouse the importance of Country of Origin Labeling with a "born, raised, and slaughtered" designation while they prohibit "M"ID from "M"COOL making the law unenforceable. They support USDA labeling beef to where it was "born, raised, and slaughtered" but they oppose the means necessary to accomplish that, "M"ID. Where's the logic? There is none!
Their inability to take a position is glaringly obvious.
The only solid positions R-CALF has taken on controversial issues involves their lawsuits. They believed Canada was dumping on us and they lost that one. Now they claim Canadian beef is unsafe as a means to keep the Canadian border closed to live cattle. Time will tell whether the judge buys the beef fear mongering "what ifs" of their arguments or supports a presidence that we can live with in the event that BSE is discovered here.
Pay attention to how R-CALF caters to the pros and cons of every major controversial issue they deal with. The more of their information I read, the more apparent it becomes.
The way they divert from their inability to take a position on these issues is "bwaming NCBA" and "bwaming USDA".
What a lesson in human behavior!
~SH~
The more I read from Bullard and Leo, the more I am figuring out their style of providing "something for everyone" without committing to an official position.
When Bullard made the statement "because you don't produce enough beef to satisfy your own domestic market, you don't need an export market to distribute your production", he followed it with "instead, you can view export markets as an opportunity......" which is clear double talk and a direct contradiction to what he just stated.
When Bullard was asked in Colorado what it would be like without any trade, he responded, "we would be in a very favorable position because we don't produce enough beef to satisfy our own domestic market now".
In contrast, Leo McDonnel has talked about the importance of expanding our export markets and how "M"ID could provide opportunities with our export markets.
With these contradicting statements and double talk, these guys can always cover their butts with any audience without ever committing to an official position on trade. When in doubt, parrot the rhetoric of "fair trade".
It's no different with "M"ID. By pointing out the pros and cons of "M"ID, Leo rallys his troops to support "M"ID but still caters to those who oppose it never actually committing to an official position.
Same way with their checkoff rhetoric. They can espouse the positive things about beef research, promotion, and education while they cater to the critics who don't like the affiliation between the CBB and NCBA.
Same way with "M"COOL. They can espouse the importance of Country of Origin Labeling with a "born, raised, and slaughtered" designation while they prohibit "M"ID from "M"COOL making the law unenforceable. They support USDA labeling beef to where it was "born, raised, and slaughtered" but they oppose the means necessary to accomplish that, "M"ID. Where's the logic? There is none!
Their inability to take a position is glaringly obvious.
The only solid positions R-CALF has taken on controversial issues involves their lawsuits. They believed Canada was dumping on us and they lost that one. Now they claim Canadian beef is unsafe as a means to keep the Canadian border closed to live cattle. Time will tell whether the judge buys the beef fear mongering "what ifs" of their arguments or supports a presidence that we can live with in the event that BSE is discovered here.
Pay attention to how R-CALF caters to the pros and cons of every major controversial issue they deal with. The more of their information I read, the more apparent it becomes.
The way they divert from their inability to take a position on these issues is "bwaming NCBA" and "bwaming USDA".
What a lesson in human behavior!
~SH~
