• 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?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anonymous
  • Start date Start date
SH, "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."

You want to name the Nebraska plants that had to close their doors for lack of Canadian cattle?
 
Sandman: "You want to name the Nebraska plants that had to close their doors for lack of Canadian cattle?"
Click to expand...

Northeast plants (NE) (Washington), not Nebraska (NE) plants Sandman.


ONCE AGAIN........

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?
Click to expand...

Your answers?

Explain yourself and back it up with supporting facts for once.



~SH~
 
~SH~ said:
Northeast plants (NE) (Washington), not Nebraska (NE) plants Sandman.



~SH~
Click to expand...

northeast (Washington):???: -- remind me not to go out in the boonies with you-- How do you find your way out of those prairie dog towns? :lol: :lol:
 
Why do I subject myself to this Chinese water torture method of SH's time and time again?

SH, you've jumped to so many wild conclusions and made so many dumb-ash comments that I have no idea now where you're even at. What do you want now? How did this evolve from you thinking I was a hypocrite for being concerned on several different fronts? I reread the posts on this thread again and can't follow what the heck you're talking about now.
 
OT, you're right, I meant NW plants! My mistake!


Sandman: "How did this evolve from you thinking I was a hypocrite for being concerned on several different fronts? I reread the posts on this thread again and can't follow what the heck you're talking about now."
Click to expand...

NICE DIVERSION AGAIN SANDMAN!

Let me make it easy for you. You admitted that you are concerned about competing with Canadian cattle and Canadian beef. Still with me?

On the other hand, you suggest that R-CULT's lawsuit against USDA has nothing to do with the Canadian producer.

THAT IS A DIRECT CONTRADICTION AND A LIE!

BEING CONCERNED ABOUT COMPETING WITH CANADIAN BEEF AND CANADIAN LIVE CATTLE HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE CANADIAN PRODUCER.

You cannot suggest a concern for Canadian cattle imports and support keeping the Canadian border closed for that reason without realizing that this will have a negative impact on Canadian producers. You cannot seperate a concern for Canadian cattle from Canadian producers.

Your problem and Leo's problem is that you are both too dishonest and too deceptive to admit that you don't care whether you hurt Canadian producers financially to a large degree if it means U.S. producers benefit to a small degree.

You both try to toss out conscience cleansing lies like, "this is not about the Canadian cattlemen" when you just got done admitting your concern with Canadian imports.

You are a two bit liar ("Canadian beef is unsafe") and a hypocrite ("we have the safest beef in the world but Canadian beef is contaminated and high risk" or "I'm concerned about Canadian imports but this has nothing to do with the Canadian producer") who is unwilling to admit that you don't care if you hurt Canadian producers financially or not.

Be honest with yourself!

Quit dancing and diverting!




~SH~
 
SH, I don't like being called a two-bit liar and a hypocrite. You sure get tough and mouthy when you're behind a computer screen. In these parts, that would qualify as being a chickensh%%.

Your logic defies all common sense. It is possible to be concerned about Canadian imports without having a vendetta against Canadian producers. I'm concerned about imports from all over the world - geeeze, according to you, I harbour distain for the entire planet.

Your idiotic post justifies no other comments.
 
Sandman: "SH, I don't like being called a two-bit liar and a hypocrite. You sure get tough and mouthy when you're behind a computer screen. In these parts, that would qualify as being a chickensh%%."
Click to expand...

I'm stating a fact!

You flat out lied when you said "this (R-CULT's legal actions) is not against the Canadian producer" when you know it is. You cannot seperate your actions against Canadian imports from the impact it will have on Canadian producers. How stupid can anyone be?

The truth is, you R-CULTers do not want to face the consequences that your actions against Canadian imports have had on Canadian producers.

You are a hypocrite by supporting R-CULT's actions to suggest Canadian beef is "high risk" and consider our beef "the safest in the world" after we have had BSE in our domestic herd and we have taken the same precautionary measures as Canada.

You are also a hypocrite to support the statement that "we have the safest beef in the world" after saying that "USDA has not gone far enough to assure the safety of our beef". You cannot have it both ways.

If you can't handle the truth about your own hypocrisy, I really don't care. I am not saying anything here that I wouldn't tell you in person.

You're also a hypocrite for calling me an "flippin idiot" than giving me a lecture on name calling.

I stand by what I said.


Sandman: "It is possible to be concerned about Canadian imports without having a vendetta against Canadian producers."
Click to expand...

You did more than "show concern". You supported legal action to stop Canadian imports based on your concern for Canadian imports using lies about the safety of Canadian beef as your excuse then told Canadian producers that this is nothing against them.

You cannot seperate banning Canadian imports from how it affects Canadian producers.

Keep trying to divert and discredit but you are only digging yourself in deeper trying to defend your hypocrisy.

If you were totally honest with yourself you would admit that you care more about stopping Canadian imports than you care about how that action will affect Canadian producers.

Keep dancing Sandman but your pants have already been pulled down to your ankles.



~SH~
 
Sandman, A THIRD TIME............

Explain how opening the Canadian border will strengthen packers?

Are packer margins better now that the border is open?

Did your support for keeping the Canadian border closed, which created a situation of more cattle than slaughter capacity in Canada, weaken the packers?

Common sense says it would have had to if opening the border strengthened packers.


You make statements about the opening of the Canadian border "strengthening packers" but you can't back that statement with any supporting facts. You can't even make an attempt to explain it by answering my questions.

You R-CULTers are all the same from that standpoint. You just repeat what you hear without even thinking about it.

Look on the bright side, you can divert facing your hypocrisy of taking action against Canadian imports that is supposedly "not about Canadian producers" with your attempt to side step these questions.

Hahaha!

Poor Sandman, it must get frustrating tracking yourself around in the snow trying to cover one lie (the safety of Canadian beef) with another lie(this is not against the Canadian producer).


~SH~
 
Being called a hypocrit by someone with your track record is a virtual compliment. SH, you ARE a flipping idiot. :lol: Maybe I should post a poll and see who agrees. :?

I've tried to rationally explain things, but you can't accept rationale.
 
Sandman: "I've tried to rationally explain things, but you can't accept rationale."
Click to expand...

You haven't even come close to explaining how you can take action against Canadian imports and suggest that this action is not against the Canadian producer. There is no rationalizing that.

It's clear hypocrisy!

You are simply too much of a coward to admit that a small financial gain for U.S. producers is worth a large financial loss for Canadian producers.

That's the honest rationale behind the legal actions you support to keep the Canadian border closed.

You diverted my questions on your position of the opening of the Canadian border "strengthening packers" FOUR TIMES!

Par for the Cody diversion course!

You are living proof why R-CULT continues to lose in court. Statements and opinions cannot miraculously become fact without being fact.

Keep dancing Sandman!

Saying I am an idiot is much easier than proving it. You and your R-CULT buddies can't touch the truth so you resort to your childish antics.



~SH~
 
SH, "You haven't even come close to explaining how you can take action against Canadian imports and suggest that this action is not against the Canadian producer. There is no rationalizing that."

This is absolutley the last time I will try to address you with logic, knowing full well that I'm wasting my time. You're trying to fan the flames and turn this into a personal attack, which it was never meant to be. You are simply a sh$# instigator.

Yes, I supported taking action against Canadian imports.
Yes, I realize those actions that I supported put Canadian producers in a bad position.
That still does NOT mean Canadian producers were the target of the actions that I supported. To put it unsensitively, the Canadian producers were simply collateral damage in addressing the problem. If their government had any balls, they would of countered the situation.

The actions I supported was closing the border to Canadian imports until the USDA did their job and had proper reasoning for reversing standing policy - IF they had proper reasoning. Now what the hell did Canadian producers have to do with that? VERY LITTLE, SH! IT WAS THE USDA WORKING WITH THE AMI THAT WANTED THE BORDER OPEN. Sure, the Canadians did too, but they have no pull with the USDA compared to the AMI. The target was the USDA and AMI. I you can't get that thru your skull, good luck with life.

SH, remember a small conflict we were engaged in at a place called Vietnam? Who was the US fighting? (Communist soldiers) Was it civilians? (No). Did Civilians get hurt (Yes). With your back-assward reasoning, since the Vietnamese civilians were hurt, the US government clearly was against them.

I'm thru with you on this, SH.
 
Sandman: "The actions I supported was closing the border to Canadian imports until the USDA did their job and had proper reasoning for reversing standing policy - IF they had proper reasoning."
Click to expand...

You are still lying through your teeth Sandman.

The motive behind R-CULT's court actions was TO STOP CANADIAN IMPORTS it was not out of food safey concerns. The USDA BSE protocol issue was nothing more than a convenient excuse to accomplish stopping Canadian imports.

YOU KNOW, I KNOW IT, AND EVERYONE ELSE KNOWS IT!

The BSE precautionary measures that Canada has taken assure the safety of their product just as these same firewalls assure the safety of our product. If it didn't, you'd be warning consumers about the safety of our beef since we now have a case of BSE in our native herd. Instead, you try to justify a difference between Canada and the U.S. based on the number of BSE occurances in each country or bird feathers and dropping in Canadian feed or any other cheesy excuse you can come up with to stop Canadian imports.

You R-CULTers are only fooling yourselves. Everyone else can see right through you.

All the talk about the economic impact of Canadian imports and you want people to believe that your court actions were based on BSE protocols WHICH WOULD AFFECT OUR EXPORT MARKETS TO JAPAN AND SOUTH KOREA.

Go lie to someone else you phony!



~SH~
 
Ah Sandman, don't take it so personal. This wasn't the first time you were deceptive and it won't be the last.

R-CULT's primary motive behind their court action was to stop Canadian imports. Any one of them will eventually admit it when they are cornered.

Pretty hard to argue against that when R-CULT's initial court action was a dumping case against Canada.

R-CULT's food safety concerns are as obvious as R-CULT prohibiting "M"ID from "M"COOL because producers who demanded proof of where cattle were "born, raised, and slaughtered" didn't want to be burdened with traceback.

You've never been so treed and that's why you are lashing out.

That's ok, I understand!

You have ocm the debate judge but non participant there to cheer you up.


~SH~
 

Latest posts

Back
Top