Just for you gunslinger

[Econ101]

Great point, the best bang for the buck is to help improve beef demand. Every one dollar increase in per captia spending on beef brings $298 million additional dollars to the beef industry. Now that is an accomplishment to be proud of and benefits everyone within the beef industry. All the other stuff is virtually a total waste of time that provides little if any benefit to anyone.

Since the packers get the buck first, Agman, why are they not doing that?

Sorry, but the retailer is first in line to get the dollars from the consumer, not the packer. Your comment shows how truly removed you are from the marketing system, par for an R-CAlf member though.

Packers are investing millions to imporve beef demand but you are either too ignorant of the positive things they are doing or you are too biased to give them credit. I believe it is combination of both on your part. You waste too much time looking for negatives to ever see the positives.

BTW, you must believe Bullard's statement that producers did not share in the beef demand gains from 1999-2002. You collected $100 from SH with my assistance. Any bets on Bullard's statement?

Agman, between the cattleman and the packer who gets the dollar first?

I am glad packers are investing in their business. They might not have it long if they didn't. If I can find positives in you and SH, I can find positives in anything. I am working on it.

I don't know what Bullard says. I am not a member of R-CALF and you must have me confused with Sandhusker.

 

[agman]

OK guys,
Quote wars aside. I am not saying that R-Calf is bad or that the Packers are right or wrong. But in the pickett case obviously the war cannot be won with that argument. Argue something else and don't waste producer money, got knows we don't have it to waste. New fight Sandhusker, why stay on the sinking ship. So flame away I can take it

Great point, the best bang for the buck is to help improve beef demand. Every one dollar increase in per captia spending on beef brings $298 million additional dollars to the beef industry. Now that is an accomplishment to be proud of and benefits everyone within the beef industry. All the other stuff is virtually a total waste of time that provides little if any benefit to anyone.

Since the packers get the buck first, Agman, why are they not doing that?

Sorry, but the retailer is first in line to get the dollars from the consumer, not the packer. Your comment shows how truly removed you are from the marketing system, par for an R-CAlf member though.

Packers are investing millions to imporve beef demand but you are either too ignorant of the positive things they are doing or you are too biased to give them credit. I believe it is combination of both on your part. You waste too much time looking for negatives to ever see the positives.

BTW, you must believe Bullard's statement that producers did not share in the beef demand gains from 1999-2002. You collected $100 from SH with my assistance. Any bets on Bullard's statement?

Agman, between the cattleman and the packer who gets the dollar first?

I am glad packers are investing in their business. They might not have it long if they didn't. If I can find positives in you and SH, I can find positives in anything. I am working on it.

I don't know what Bullard says. I am not a member of R-CALF and you must have me confused with Sandhusker.

I am truly sorry you do not even know the present marketing system. The packer has nothing to invest or share unless it comes directly from the retailer. The retailer is first in line with the consumer. The mere fact that a packer is one step up the ladder from a producer does not mean the packer is first in line.

 

[rkaiser]

Scuuse my ignorance Agman, but are you saying that the packers are simply price takers like their dumb cousins out on the ranch?

 

[rkaiser]

Seriously Agman. Does it work differently in the USA? When our marketer buys product from Cargill, he is presented with a price list. Is this not the American model?

 

[Econ101]

Agman:

I am truly sorry you do not even know the present marketing system. The packer has nothing to invest or share unless it comes directly from the retailer. The retailer is first in line with the consumer. The mere fact that a packer is one step up the ladder from a producer does not mean the packer is first in line.

I know the present marketing system.



Agman, between the cattleman and the packer who gets the dollar first?

The above question is pretty darn simple yet you try to make it into an argument you can win by changing the question and then answering it while claiming I don't know the present marketing system, an element of your addition to the question.

Is this how you fool all your clients?

 

[Anonymous]

R. Kaiser: "When our marketer buys product from Cargill, he is presented with a price list. Is this not the American model?"

Randy,

Beef is a PERISHABLE PRODUCT. The packer sells it or he smells it. Now tell me conspiracy man, who has the leverage in that situation?

There is competition at all levels of this industry until a protectionist organization like R-CULT keeps you from accessing the U.S. market and places you in a situation of more cattle than slaughter capacity handing the Canadian packer the knife to gouge you with. Because NW plants had more cattle than slaughter capacity, you Canadians carried the weight.

Is it any wonder why Canadian producers have that little decal pissing the words R-CALF?


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

R. Kaiser: "When our marketer buys product from Cargill, he is presented with a price list. Is this not the American model?"

Randy,

Beef is a PERISHABLE PRODUCT. The packer sells it or he smells it. Now tell me conspiracy man, who has the leverage in that situation?

There is competition at all levels of this industry until a protectionist organization like R-CULT keeps you from accessing the U.S. market and places you in a situation of more cattle than slaughter capacity handing the Canadian packer the knife to gouge you with. Because NW plants had more cattle than slaughter capacity, you Canadians carried the weight.

Is it any wonder why Canadian producers have that little decal pissing the words R-CALF?


~SH~

Fat cattle are somewhat of a perishable product as well - economically perishable. If they aren't offered an honest bid, they wait until next week - eating more corn, losing grade, and eventually putting more weight in the system, which drives prices down. And then they might wait next week. Who has leverage in that system? The one who has a product that declines in profitabilty each day, or the one who can wait it out by bringing product in from another country?

R-CALF did not keep Canada out of our market, the USDA did - by an act every other country in the world did as well. The very same act Canada did themselves when other countries of the world became BSE positive. Your "truth only" bias should realize this.

Your "truth only" bias should also realize R -CALF did not put Canada in the position of being dependant on the US for not only buying their beef but processing it as well. The blame for that lies in Ottowa, not Billings. R-CALF has nothing to do with Canada's industry infrastructure nor trade partners. :roll:

Now R-CALF is responsible for the packers gouging the Canadians because they gave them the knife? And your "only bias is the truth"? You're just a hate-filled babbling fool, SH. Yep, it's all R-CALF's fault - they're controlling the USDA, the Canadian Government, and the packers. :roll: And you have the gall to preach that your "only bias is the truth". Good grief.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "Fat cattle are somewhat of a perishable product as well - economically perishable. If they aren't offered an honest bid, they wait until next week - eating more corn, losing grade, and eventually putting more weight in the system, which drives prices down. And then they might wait next week. Who has leverage in that system? The one who has a product that declines in profitabilty each day, or the one who can wait it out by bringing product in from another country?"

First, if beef demand goes down or supplies go up, the price packers pay for cattle goes down. IS THAT A DISHONEST BID?

Secondly, cattle do not lose grade with more days on feed you idiot, they lose yield.

If the feeders refuse the price and the price goes down further, WAS THE FIRST BID REALLY DISHONEST?

Who has the leverage when packing plants are not running at capacity?

You and Conman are so full of packer blame that you cannot even reason.

Sandbag: "R-CALF did not keep Canada out of our market, the USDA did - by an act every other country in the world did as well. The very same act Canada did themselves when other countries of the world became BSE positive."

Yeh and I suppose USDA filed the dumping case too huh?

Keep cleansing that filthy conscience.

Sandbag: "Your "truth only" bias should also realize R -CALF did not put Canada in the position of being dependant on the US for not only buying their beef but processing it as well. The blame for that lies in Ottowa, not Billings. R-CALF has nothing to do with Canada's industry infrastructure nor trade partners."

That's right but R-CULT was the pathetic deceptive organization that used BSE as a convenient excuse to keep the border closed while risking the integrity of the U.S. beef supply by lying about BSE.

Sandbag: "Now R-CALF is responsible for the packers gouging the Canadians because they gave them the knife? And your "only bias is the truth"? You're just a hate-filled babbling fool, SH. Yep, it's all R-CALF's fault - they're controlling the USDA, the Canadian Government, and the packers. And you have the gall to preach that your "only bias is the truth". Good grief."

DID R-CULT FILE AN INJUCTION AGAINST USDA TO KEEP THE CANADIAN BORDER CLOSED OR NOT? YES OR NO?

DID R-CULT TAKE AN ADD OUT IN THE WASHINGTON POST STATING THAT CANADIAN BEEF WAS CONTAMINATED DUE TO BSE IN THEIR NATIVE HERD? YES OR NO?

Watch the pathetic deceptive Sanddance folks.................


Cleanse that filthy conscience Sandbag!


~SH~

 

[rkaiser]

-Quote:
R. Kaiser: "When our marketer buys product from Cargill, he is presented with a price list. Is this not the American model?"


SH Wrote - Randy,

Beef is a PERISHABLE PRODUCT. The packer sells it or he smells it. Now tell me conspiracy man, who has the leverage in that situation?

There is competition at all levels of this industry until a protectionist organization like R-CULT keeps you from accessing the U.S. market and places you in a situation of more cattle than slaughter capacity handing the Canadian packer the knife to gouge you with. Because NW plants had more cattle than slaughter capacity, you Canadians carried the weight.

Is it any wonder why Canadian producers have that little decal pissing the words R-CALF?

It is certainly in the best interest of some to continue to stir the fire in a fight among tribes that have no need to be fighting. I wonder who that might be. Maybe those who expanded slaughter capacity upward to 85% of the Canadian total and built a war chest of profits while the media followed Rcalf. This was the best technical move of the BSE game folks. If I were on the outside looking in, I would applaud Cargill and Tyson and hand them over the Trophy of the century.

I have always said that Rcalf has pulled a boner that will last in the memories of cattlemen in Canada for years to come. BUT. Rcalf did not close the border. The USDA did. Rcalf did not open the border to boxed beef when the opportunity for American packers to steal cattle from Canadian producers presented itself, the USDA did.
If the USDA had the power to open the border to boxed beef, they certainly had the power to open it to the little dribble of fat cattle that have now followed from Canada.

Rcalf and their big mouths became the perfect scapegoat.

 

[Anonymous]

RK: "I have always said that Rcalf has pulled a boner that will last in the memories of cattlemen in Canada for years to come. BUT. Rcalf did not close the border. The USDA did. Rcalf did not open the border to boxed beef when the opportunity for American packers to steal cattle from Canadian producers presented itself, the USDA did."

You can't understand anything can you Randy?

BSE closed the border. The only reason Boxed beef and live cattle didn't open simultaneously is because R-CULT filed an injunction against USDA to stop the importation of live cattle, NOT BOXED BEEF!

The packers did not inititate the closure to live cattle so they could rape the Canadian producer as you believe in that conspiracy driven brain of yours. Cargill and Tyson wanted that border opened BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE THOSE CATTLE IN THEIR NORTHERN PLANTS.

Something you just cannot get through your thick head.



~SH~

 

[rkaiser]

Well SH, my thick head has not suggested a conspiracy, those are your words.

Timing is everything here SH. I have asked you before. When did Rcalf file the injunction. We all know that boxed beef started to flow in Sept. 2003. Please enlighten us and tell us when Rcalf filed the injunction to stop the USDA from opening the border to Live cattle.

It is your conspiracy to prove or disprove SH. Did the USDA have something in mind when they opened the border to boxed beef and not live cattle?

 

[Tommy]

SH...The only reason Boxed beef and live cattle didn't open simultaneously is because R-CULT filed an injunction against USDA to stop the importation of live cattle, NOT BOXED BEEF!

Get your facts straight Scott, the border was open to boxed beef a long time before the USDA had planned to open it to live cattle.
Your hatred for R-CALF has blinded you to what is the truth.

 

[Anonymous]

The timing between the resumption of boxed beef imports and R-CULT's injunction is a "red herring" to the fact that that R-CULT filed an injunction to stop the imports of Canadian live cattle, not boxed beef. It's also a "red herring" to the fact that the Canadian border being closed to live cattle was prolonged by R-CULT's actions.

A BETTER QUESTION RANDY IS HOW LONG DID THE CANADIAN BORDER STAY CLOSED AFTER IT WOULD HAVE BEEN OPENED DUE TO R-CULT'S INJUNCTION ?????

I can't believe you are so gracious to R-CULT that you would excuse their politically based injunction and blame USDA for something that was out of USDA's hands once it was brought into the court system.

What's your point anyway Randy? That USDA was going along with a Large Packer Conspiracy to screw Canadian producers? Is that what you really believe? In your constant packer blaming conspiracy mindset, you simply cannot accept the fact that Boise, Pasco, and many other northern plants that relied on those Canadian cattle NO LONGER HAD THOSE CANADIAN CATTLE. As has been pointed out by you numerous times, the same companies own plants on both sides of the border. What they gained in Canada they more than lost in the U.S. SO WHERE THE HELL'S THE INCENTIVE TO SCREW THE CANADIAN CATTLEMAN???? There is none. It's all in your conspiring mind.

In contrast, R-CULT certainly had the incentive to deceptively use BSE as a catalyst to stop Canadian live cattle imports

You are such a damn packer blamer that you simply cannot accept the truth

The truth is that R-CULT was successful in stabbing the Canadian producer in the back and using BSE as a catalyst to stop Canadian live cattle imports for an extended period of time due to their total ignorance of the impact of Canadian live cattle imports on our markets.

WE CAN SEE THE TRUTH NOW IN OUR MARKETS WITH AN OPENED BORDER CAN'T WE TOMMY????? Did you tell your R-CULT leaders that they were full of sh*t with their Canadian import blaming predictions or did you try to explain it off like the rest of the deceivers?

R-CULT filed an injunction with USDA to stop Canadian live cattle imports not out of a concern for BSE BUT TO STOP CANADIAN LIVE CATTLE IMPORTS.

The standard had already been set with their "LOST" dumping case.

Keep bowing that turbin Tommy! Wear those rose colored glasses so you don't have to view the deceptive truth about the pathetic organization you support.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "What they gained in Canada they more than lost in the U.S."

You are simply unbelievable, SH. Simply unbelievable. You made this statement before, couldn't prove it and even lost $100 in the process we all witnessed - and yet you still spout it every chance you can.

If you have to lie to make your point, you're on the wrong side - figure it out, SH.

Your only bias is the truth? Horsecrap!

You're a dandy.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "If you have to lie to make your point, you're on the wrong side - figure it out, SH."

PROVE THAT I LIED YOU WORTHLESS PARASITE!!!!

You know you can't! All you have is cheap talk!

Fact: Tyson lost more money in their U.S. plants than they gained in Canada WHILE THE U.S. BORDER WAS CLOSED TO CANADIAN LIVE CATTLE IMPORTS.

PROVE ME WRONG CHEAP TALKER!!!

Watch the babble and diversion.......................

I was only wrong within calendar year 2004. That was my only mistake. My original statement stands as written and it will remain standing as written.



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandbag: "If you have to lie to make your point, you're on the wrong side - figure it out, SH."

PROVE THAT I LIED YOU WORTHLESS PARASITE!!!!

You know you can't! All you have is cheap talk!

Fact: Tyson lost more money in their U.S. plants than they gained in Canada WHILE THE U.S. BORDER WAS CLOSED TO CANADIAN LIVE CATTLE IMPORTS.

PROVE ME WRONG CHEAP TALKER!!!

Watch the babble and diversion.......................

I was only wrong within calendar year 2004. That was my only mistake. My original statement stands as written and it will remain standing as written.



~SH~

YOU HAVE BEEN PROVEN WRONG ALREADY, SH! I STARTED A COMPLETELY NOW THREAD THAT WOULD BE EASY TO FIND BECAUSE I GOT TIRED OF REPEATING MYSELF - JUST AS YOU ARE DEMANDING NOW! SCROLL BACK AND FIND THE THREAD TITLE "PROOF FOR SH....AGAIN". IT WAS POSTED ON OCT. 25!

 

[Anonymous]

Bullsh*t! You never provided proof of anything. You simply discounted the proof that I provided to back my statement creating an "ILLUSION" that I lied.

You said that the only proof you would accept from me to support my position is individual plant financial data from Boise, Pasco, and Lakeside. If that is the only data that would be considered as proof that I was telling the truth, how could anything else be proof that I lied? Hmmmm???

BUSTED AGAIN YOU PATHETIC @!%^&$!@&@!%~!

You didn't provide financial information from Tyson that proved that Lakeside made more money than Pasco and Boise lost while the border was closed so how could you have proved I lied?

YOU CREATED YOUR R-CULT "ILLUSION" BY NOT ACCEPTING THE INFORMATION I PROVIDED BUT SOMEHOW THAT MIRACULOUSLY TRANSFORMS INTO PROOF POSITIVE THAT I LIED!

Imagine that! You're such a parasite!



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Dumbass, you didn't provide any information that proved anything BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST!

If your "only bias was the truth", don't you think you would want to actually know what you were spouting as factual actually was? Yet, there is no way to prove that it is factual! NO WAY!

But you still go on and on....

 

[Anonymous]

What's wrong Sandbag?

Still backpeddling on providing the proof that I lied?

Talk is so cheap in your camp!

You can't ever back anything!

BY GAWD WHEN SOMEONE FROM CODY, NE CALLS SOMEONE A LIAR, THEY BETTER SHOR NUFF BE ABLE TO BACK IT?

You bet!

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzz!

"L"!


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

What's wrong Sandbag?

Still backpeddling on providing the proof that I lied?

Talk is so cheap in your camp!

You can't ever back anything!

BY GAWD WHEN SOMEONE FROM CODY, NE CALLS SOMEONE A LIAR, THEY BETTER SHOR NUFF BE ABLE TO BACK IT?

You bet!

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzz!

"L"!


~SH~

Remember that little poll where the board was asked whether I proved you lied or not. If I remember correctly, it was a landslide that I proved you lied. You're the only one who won't accept it. Deal with it.