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

Hey Sandman, why not address your Canadian border hypocrisy?

Help Support Ranchers.net:

A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandman,

Why don't you decide what your motive for keeping the Canadian border closed is going to be?

One day it's protection of our market and the next day it's the food safety argument.

That's the problem with hypocrites like you, you can't keep your arguments straight.


Remember this....................


SH: "What's wrong with the U.S. market for Canadian beef?"


Here was your response...........


Sandman: "What a totally assinine thing for a US cattle producer to say.

Imagine the following;
Ford dealership owner, "What's wrong with the US market for Japanese cars?"

Boeing Executive, "What's wrong with the US market for Airbus?"

Compaq CEO, "What's wrong with the US market for Japanese chips?"

US farmer, "What's wrong with the US market for Brazilian beans?"

Target store owner, "What's wrong with Walmart for US shoppers?"

Good grief!"

Even though my above statement was from a Canadian producer's perspective, once again you expose your hypocritical self as you try to cleanse your conscience with your "this has nothing to do with the Canadian producer" rhetoric.

The truth is, from R-CULT's perspective, this has nothing to do with food safety and has everything to do with protecting our markets from Canadian cattle.

Why not admit it?

Why try to divert to food safety?

The end (stopping Canadian live cattle imports) clearly justifies the means (lying about the safety of Canadian beef).

You are totally comfortable to hurt all Canadian producers financially to a large degree for U.S. producers to benefit to a small degree.

You plainly admitted it was about competition in your above rant. You can't deny it now.

You are such a pathetic little man!



~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Oh, Geeeeeeeeeeeze. SH, before your fingers start dancing on the keyboard, do you ever stop to actually think? :???:

First of all, let me confirm that yes, I am concened with the economic impact of Canadain cattle on the US markets. Happy? Think you had something? I've said a lot more than what you've posted, I don't deny that one bit. Show me one businessman who is not concerned about his competiton and I'll show you a businessman who won't be in business much longer.

Now you think I'm a hypocrite for bringing up the food safety issue? SH, go buy a dictionary and look up the meaning of "hypocrite." Hint: Calling others "blamers" and then blaming others yourself fits the description.

Yes, I am concerned about the economics Canadian beef down here.
Yes, I am concerned about the USDA blowing off the health concerns so the big packers can make a buck. Is it hard for you to understand that a person could actually have multiple concerns on one topic?

Let's use you as an example (kids at home, DON'T ever use SH as an example, this is for his benefit ONLY). The topic is "M-COOL". SH, have you voiced more than one concern on this topic? Are you a hypocrite because one day you say it exempts too much product, and then the next you say it is not needed as we already have V-COOL? Can't you keep your arguements straight? So what is your motive for being against M-COOL?

Feel like a fool now? You should.

PS. Still in denial over losing sovereignity with these trade deals that we HAVE to have?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandman: "I am concened with the economic impact of Canadain cattle on the US markets."

THEN WHY DO YOU LIE AND SAY THAT THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CANADIAN RANCHER??????

OH, I SEE, IT HAS TO DO WITH THE CANADIAN RANCHER'S CATTLE, NOT THE CANADIAN RANCHERS THEMSELVES. LOL! SILLY ME!

There, I just handed you and Leo your next "RED HERRING" to cleanse your guilty consciences with. You can say the lawsuit was about Canadian cattle, not Canadian ranchers. That would probably make sense to you deceivers.

At the recent blamer's convention in Reno, Leo McDonnell stated that "R-CULT's lawsuit is not against the Canadian rancher".

That's a lie anyway you look at it.

R-CULT's lawsuit is absolutely against the Canadian rancher.

WHO DO YOU GUYS ACTUALLY THINK IS STUPID ENOUGH TO BELIEVE OTHERWISE?

At least be honest with yourselves and face the consequences of your isolationist position.


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
Sandman: "I am concened with the economic impact of Canadain cattle on the US markets."

THEN WHY DO YOU LIE AND SAY THAT THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CANADIAN RANCHER??????

OH, I SEE, IT HAS TO DO WITH THE CANADIAN RANCHER'S CATTLE, NOT THE CANADIAN RANCHERS THEMSELVES. LOL! SILLY ME!

There, I just handed you and Leo your next "RED HERRING" to cleanse your guilty consciences with. You can say the lawsuit was about Canadian cattle, not Canadian ranchers. That would probably make sense to you deceivers.

At the recent blamer's convention in Reno, Leo McDonnell stated that "R-CULT's lawsuit is not against the Canadian rancher".

That's a lie anyway you look at it.

R-CULT's lawsuit is absolutely against the Canadian rancher.

WHO DO YOU GUYS ACTUALLY THINK IS STUPID ENOUGH TO BELIEVE OTHERWISE?

At least be honest with yourselves and face the consequences of your isolationist position.


~SH~

My gawsh. How do you ever reach the conclusions you do without a predetermination?

I make the statement that I'm concerned about the effects of Canadian beef on US markets and you interpret that to mean that I have a vendetta against Canadian Cattlemen? You know, I've chastised you about your juvinile habit of name calling, but I'm going to be a hypocrite and stoop to your level. SH, you're a flipping idiot.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandman: "I make the statement that I'm concerned about the effects of Canadian beef on US markets and you interpret that to mean that I have a vendetta against Canadian Cattlemen?"

BWAHAHAHAHA!

Translation: I have nothing against the Canadian cattlemen, I just don't want to compete with their beef and if that means economic ruin for them by shutting off their historical market, so be it. It's nothing personal!

BWAHAHAHAHA!

Say it with me Sandman......

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CANADIAN PRODUCERS
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CANADIAN PRODUCERS
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CANADIAN PRODUCERS
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CANADIAN PRODUCERS

Keep telling yourself that over and over.

Eventually you'll cleanse your conscience and justify your actions in your hypocritical mind.

First you support taking away the Canadian producer's primary export market, then you insult their intelligence by suggesting that it's "NOTHING PERSONAL".

You are one sick individual!



~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
I repeat. SH, you're a flipping idiot. Not much else that can be said. You'll inteprit statements the way you want to, regardless of actual intent a rational individual could discern. The above is a prime example. Why take this any further?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Be honest with yourself Sandman!

Just admit that you are willing to hurt all Canadian cattle producers significantly so U.S. cattle producers can benefit to a small degree.

Be honest with yourself and quit skirting the truth.

You can't handle the truth can you?

You and Leo can't face the consequences of your actions so you insult the intelligence of Canadian producers by suggesting that this has nothing to do with Canadian cattlemen.

Why lie about it? You can't seperate their beef from them.

There is no misinterpretation, you admitted that you don't want to compete with Canadian beef. Your support for R-CULT's short sighted Canadian border position confirms it. Just face the consequences of your actions instead of trying to Bill Clinton your way around it.



~SH~
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
At the very least Sandman, you must admit that Rcalf's tactics backfired in the end.

The American mutinational packers in Canada made billions, and now have more power than they had before the fight over the border began.

Is that what Rcalf planned all along. I don't think so, but maybe you could answer that for me.

Equity loss for producers in Canada has been devastating, you might say that was not your purpose, but was it your purpose to strengthen the stanglehold Cargill and Tyson have over the Canadian beef industry?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Good question Sandman!

Why would you allow Tyson and Cargill the kind of leverage you gave them over the Canadian cattle producer?

Too ignorant to understand the consequences of your actions?



~SH~
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
Easy SH,"leverage over Canadian cattle producers". If I used that harsh of language, I would be quickly slapped with that label I don't like.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
Good question Sandman!

Why would you allow Tyson and Cargill the kind of leverage you gave them over the Canadian cattle producer?

Too ignorant to understand the consequences of your actions?



~SH~

What do you mean leverage, SH? You've been the one who, for years, has said that as long as there are two buyers, there is competition. How can there be leverage over the Canadian cattle producer if here is competition for their cattle?

Get back up in your tree, you know the way.


Randy, I'll give your civil post the answer it deserves. Momma is ringing the supper bell and you don't keep her waiting.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Don't try to divert the topic again Sandman!

Be honest with yourself and admit that you don't care if you hurt Canadian producers financially.

Show some courage!



~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
rkaiser said:
At the very least Sandman, you must admit that Rcalf's tactics backfired in the end.

The American mutinational packers in Canada made billions, and now have more power than they had before the fight over the border began.

Is that what Rcalf planned all along. I don't think so, but maybe you could answer that for me.

Equity loss for producers in Canada has been devastating, you might say that was not your purpose, but was it your purpose to strengthen the stanglehold Cargill and Tyson have over the Canadian beef industry?

Of course the purpose was not to strengthen the big packers. But what was R-CALF to do? The border opening clearly was a move for the big packer's wallets, so you sit on your hands and just let it happen? They had two choices, let it happen and get hosed again or take their chances at doing something.

People crabbing at R-CALF reminds me of a story when I was a kid. We were supposed to be playing soccer, and the big kids turned it into a version of hockey and were knocking the little kids on their arse every time they got close to the ball. One of the little kids went and told the teacher and she made all of sit down the rest of PE since "we couldn't play by the rules". Then all of a sudden, it was the little kid's fault we couldn't play because he had had enough and told the teacher! It's the same thing here. A guy can't win!
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
Sandhusker -
Of course the purpose was not to strengthen the big packers. But what was R-CALF to do? The border opening clearly was a move for the big packer's wallets, so you sit on your hands and just let it happen? They had two choices, let it happen and get hosed again or take their chances at doing something.

Not good enough man. You knew from the start what kind of profits were occuring here in Canuckleland in favour of Cargill and Tyson. An open border would not have come close to providing that kind of income south of the 49th. In fact the border has been open for a couple weeks now, and I don't see any profits for packers south of the line.

Can you admit that Rcalf really didn't have a clue what would happen, and then simply saw it as a way to take advantage of some lucrative cull prices?

Kinda like Georgey gowing into Iraq and Dick cleanin up on the construction bill???? :roll:
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
I suspect you're talking about Rcalf, and not Georgey boy Sandhusker.

I don't think challenging the USDA was out of order, however connecting that to the border was out of line.

The border had, and has, nothing to do with nothing. Cattle have passed across this border since cattle replaced the border crossing buffalo. The one and only thing that Rcalf showed by jumping on the border issue was a protectionist agenda.

Keep on the USDA, and we'll keep on the CFIA. In fact personally I will keep on anyone who wants to protect the interest of multinationals and governments by following the useless trail of feed contamination period.

Okay, that last one will put me out to lunch in most of your minds, so I'll jump past it.

Rcalf may have had a place in the industry had they not shown their extremist agenda.

I think you might as well jump ship with Leo, and look for some credibility in some other organisation that truely looks out for producers, but is not stuck in the protectionist dark ages.

There are lots of issues that producers need to watch, and like I have said numerous times, lobby for change. Laws are changed every day by democracy, money, and power in our society. And producers looking out for producers could could weild power and expand laws to make it viable for survival of the family farm/ranch in both Canada and the USA.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
You still didn't answer my question, Randy. What do you think they should of done? You can't attack the USDA without attacking their actions, and the border opening was a huge action.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandman: "Of course the purpose was not to strengthen the big packers. But what was R-CALF to do? The border opening clearly was a move for the big packer's wallets, so you sit on your hands and just let it happen? They had two choices, let it happen and get hosed again or take their chances at doing something."

Hahaha!

We've went full circle from not wanting Canadian beef competition, to blaming USDA for not following R-CULT's rules, now the motive's back to not wanting to strengthen the big packers.

Hahaha!


Why not be honest with yourself Sandy, you don't want to compete with Canadian cattle so you are willing to hurt Canadian producers significantly for a small financial gain for U.S. producers.

Be honest with yourself and quit dancing around the truth.

As far as your latest and greatest cheesy excuse about not wanting to strengthen the packers, how does leaving the Canadian border open strengthen packers? We have the borders open now, are packer margins better? Does creating a situation in Canada of having more cattle than slaughter capacity weaken the packers?

Randy would tell you that you gave Cargill and Tyson leverage in Canada DUE TO CANADA HAVING MORE CATTLE THAN SLAUGHTER CAPACITY.

Didn't want to strengthen packers......BWAHAHAHAHA!

I bet if you and Leo get your heads together, you will actually convince yourselves that you did Canada a favor.

Meanwhile, smaller plants in NE states that relied on Canadian cattle had to close their doors creating further concentration in the packing industry. Exactly what R-CULT "CLAIMS" to be against.

Unfortunately, the R-CULTers are too ignorant to see the consequences of their actions.

Why not come clean and admit that you don't care that you have hurt Canadian producers financially instead of trying to blame USDA and blaming packers?

Quit skirting the truth!




~SH~
 

Latest posts

Top