More questions about BIG

[Bill]

SCRUPLES MIKE This comeing from a guy that supports what a Group of US Beef Producers are doing to Canadian producers in light of BSE. Talk about salt.

Mike the problem is that some of those 600 thought they were buying shares in the BIG C Plant not memberships to Big C so Cam could travel around Canada and try get support for the levy they wanted put on ALL CATTLE SOLD IN CANADA to pay for thee plant. Randy claimed 95% of the producer that BIG C spoke to agreed with the BIG C plan, Great Sales Pitch but if that is true why doesn't BIG C have a Producer owner levy paid for plant. Because when the MAJORITY of the Canadian Producer understood what their plan really was they DIDN"T SUPPORT IT. And that is why the BIG C members that thought they were buying shares don't have a plant, they have memberships to a IDEA GROUP who's IDEA DIDN"T FLY. As you have supported the lies and loosing lawsuits of R-CALF in the US I can't see you wanting to point out that throwing good money after bad is not a good Idea. I would expect you to go after me when I question what BIG C has actually done for their membership. :roll:

One correction Tam. The form that I signed at the meeting I paid my $100 at clearly stated I was buying a membership in Beef Initiative Group-Canada not shares in a plant.

I believe it was money well spent as the meetings BIG-C held if nothing else displayed the discontent in the direction (or lack of it) by CCA and this was one of the reasons Alberta Beef Producers and Ontario Cattlemen's Association finally spoke out.

Bill I'm glad you knew and you think it was well spent, but does that take away my right to wonder if ALL Members knew? as I said a neighbor told us he thought he was buying shares. :???: And does it take away my right to wonder what they have done for their membership in light of their Idea of a plant has gone by the wayside? :???: You seem to beable to question the SSGA and what they are doing for their membership and others so why can't I wonder what BIG-C has done?
And Bill the SSGA also have spoken up to the CCA I've been at meeting where resolutions were passed that were going against the CCA stand. I was also in a room where the conversation on the issues between the CCA and the SSGA was not a polite one.

Never said you did or didn't have the right Tam. I know I have the right when I belong to the org. whether it be BIG-C or SSGA.

I also didn't say that SSGA hasn't spoken out against CCA but in this instance ABP and OCA were the two that led the way. If you re-read my post it is quite clear.

 

[rkaiser]

Like I said Tam, give me a call, I will answer your questions. I call the ABP and CCA offices regularly. And let me know the number of the neighbor who you think was stupid enough to think he/she was buying a share in a plant for $100.00.

(403) 783 - 8872

 

[Tam]

Like I said Tam, give me a call, I will answer your questions. I call the ABP and CCA offices regularly. And let me know the number of the neighbor who you think was stupid enough to think he/she was buying a share in a plant for $100.00.

(403) 783 - 8872

Sorry but I don't think I would care to hear what you have to call me in private as the names you call me in public are bad enough. :wink: You are a public organization asking the public for support so does that not give the public the right to know what you have done on behalf of your membership. That is my only question at this time and If you don't care to answer in public fine. But it speak highly of your organization accomplishments.

 

[rkaiser]

I have posted the accomplishments of BIG C on this forum for months Tam, and like the person who thought He/She bought a share in a plant for $100.00, you only hear what you want to hear.

If you feel it is benefitial to your agenda to keep bad mouthing BIG C, go for it. If you have a few folks on ranchers.net who want to go along with your conspiracy theories of Cam and I using membership money for wine and women in Debden Saskatchewan, go for it.

You don't have time to waste on me Tam, and I don't have time to waste on you.

It would not matter what I said that BIG C has or will do in the future, your stand is obvious and your comprehension is selective.

If you want answers to your "question" call the lady who runs our office out of her home in Calgary. (403) 239 - 8343 She is extremely cordial and assures us at each meeting that she does not use BIG C money to buy man whores.

 

[Tam]

I have posted the accomplishments of BIG C on this forum for months Tam, and like the person who thought He/She bought a share in a plant for $100.00, you only hear what you want to hear.

If you feel it is benefitial to your agenda to keep bad mouthing BIG C, go for it. If you have a few folks on ranchers.net who want to go along with your conspiracy theories of Cam and I using membership money for wine and women in Debden Saskatchewan, go for it.

You don't have time to waste on me Tam, and I don't have time to waste on you.

It would not matter what I said that BIG C has or will do in the future, your stand is obvious and your comprehension is selective.

If you want answers to your "question" call the lady who runs our office out of her home in Calgary. (403) 239 - 8343 She is extremely cordial and assures us at each meeting that she does not use BIG C money to buy man whores.

Randy where did I say the BIG C guys were buying wine and women in Debden Sask. all I asked was what have you done for your members.. I don't have any theories of what you have done just questions that all to often go unanswered.

 

[rkaiser]

Call the office sweatheart.

 

[Tam]

Call the office sweatheart.

Sounds like an answer I would expect from an R-CALFer Randy. but I should add it may be the only information you have ever given me that might be worth listening to as you sure don't seem to know how to answer the questions. :wink:

 

[mrj]

Call the office sweatheart.

Sounds like an answer I would expect from an R-CALFer Randy. but I should add it may be the only information you have ever given me that might be worth listening to as you sure don't seem to know how to answer the questions. :wink:

Tam, do you see that Rcalf made a real blunder or tactical error in working to close, and keep closed, the Canada/USA border to your beef and cattle?

Had they not done that, angering so many Canadian cattle producers, it seems almost logical from what several have posted on this site over the time period since that happened, that there would be a few Rcalf members in Canada.

Why, they could call themselves an international, rather than just a 'national' organization. How did they miss such a feather for their cap????

You also seem 'blessed' with cattle producers with that "someone has to be to blame and it may as well be packers" attitude prevalent in rcalf circles.

Wouldn't be surprised if they are working on such a deal, anyway, the way they keep pulling myths out of the hat.

It's rather sad to think of all that money spent with so little visible benefit to anyone other than lawyers.

MRJ

 

[Econ101]

Call the office sweatheart.

Sounds like an answer I would expect from an R-CALFer Randy. but I should add it may be the only information you have ever given me that might be worth listening to as you sure don't seem to know how to answer the questions. :wink:

Tam, do you see that Rcalf made a real blunder or tactical error in working to close, and keep closed, the Canada/USA border to your beef and cattle?

Had they not done that, angering so many Canadian cattle producers, it seems almost logical from what several have posted on this site over the time period since that happened, that there would be a few Rcalf members in Canada.

Why, they could call themselves an international, rather than just a 'national' organization. How did they miss such a feather for their cap????

You also seem 'blessed' with cattle producers with that "someone has to be to blame and it may as well be packers" attitude prevalent in rcalf circles.

Wouldn't be surprised if they are working on such a deal, anyway, the way they keep pulling myths out of the hat.

It's rather sad to think of all that money spent with so little visible benefit to anyone other than lawyers.

MRJ

MRJ, you will never be able to see the benefits of fighting for one's rights or fighting to make sure laws protecting people are enforced, unless they directly affect you. In that respect you are very short sighted.

 

[Tam]

Sounds like an answer I would expect from an R-CALFer Randy. but I should add it may be the only information you have ever given me that might be worth listening to as you sure don't seem to know how to answer the questions. :wink:

Tam, do you see that Rcalf made a real blunder or tactical error in working to close, and keep closed, the Canada/USA border to your beef and cattle?

Had they not done that, angering so many Canadian cattle producers, it seems almost logical from what several have posted on this site over the time period since that happened, that there would be a few Rcalf members in Canada.

Why, they could call themselves an international, rather than just a 'national' organization. How did they miss such a feather for their cap????

You also seem 'blessed' with cattle producers with that "someone has to be to blame and it may as well be packers" attitude prevalent in rcalf circles.

Wouldn't be surprised if they are working on such a deal, anyway, the way they keep pulling myths out of the hat.

It's rather sad to think of all that money spent with so little visible benefit to anyone other than lawyers.

MRJ

MRJ, you will never be able to see the benefits of fighting for one's rights or fighting to make sure laws protecting people are enforced, unless they directly affect you. In that respect you are very short sighted.

Econ just how many investigations and lawsuits will it take to prove to you that there was not evidence to back up the packer blaming claims? Yes the Packers profited. But show me one producer that would not take advantage of a high dollar market to line his pockets so he could survive the next low dollar market. Have you ever heard of one Pure Bred Breeder tell his customer that the bull he just bought should have only brought $5000 after the customer just paid $10,000 and then refund the other $5000 to him. No the Seller banks the money and calls it a Great Day to have a sale. Because next year that bull might be worth $2000.

And MRJ I can see your point R-CALF maybe shot themselves in the foot for the time being but don't count them out, some situations find the strangest bed fellows. Who ever thought a Beef organization would climb into bed with a anti beef group to fight a fight against the beef industry. The need to blame could be the issue that binds. :roll:

 

[Econ101]

Tam, do you see that Rcalf made a real blunder or tactical error in working to close, and keep closed, the Canada/USA border to your beef and cattle?

Had they not done that, angering so many Canadian cattle producers, it seems almost logical from what several have posted on this site over the time period since that happened, that there would be a few Rcalf members in Canada.

Why, they could call themselves an international, rather than just a 'national' organization. How did they miss such a feather for their cap????

You also seem 'blessed' with cattle producers with that "someone has to be to blame and it may as well be packers" attitude prevalent in rcalf circles.

Wouldn't be surprised if they are working on such a deal, anyway, the way they keep pulling myths out of the hat.

It's rather sad to think of all that money spent with so little visible benefit to anyone other than lawyers.

MRJ

MRJ, you will never be able to see the benefits of fighting for one's rights or fighting to make sure laws protecting people are enforced, unless they directly affect you. In that respect you are very short sighted.

Econ just how many investigations and lawsuits will it take to prove to you that there was not evidence to back up the packer blaming claims? Yes the Packers profited. But show me one producer that would not take advantage of a high dollar market to line his pockets so he could survive the next low dollar market. Have you ever heard of one Pure Bred Breeder tell his customer that the bull he just bought should have only brought $5000 after the customer just paid $10,000 and then refund the other $5000 to him. No the Seller banks the money and calls it a Great Day to have a sale. Because next year that bull might be worth $2000.

And MRJ I can see your point R-CALF maybe shot themselves in the foot for the time being but don't count them out, some situations find the strangest bed fellows. Who ever thought a Beef organization would climb into bed with a anti beef group to fight a fight against the beef industry. The need to blame could be the issue that binds. :roll:

Tam, we have a law in the U.S. called the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921. It is meant to protect producers from abuses of market power. The regulatory agency that is supposed to be regulating the industry is not doing it. That is one of the reasons there is an imbalance between beef and chicken consumption. It is not about "blame" it is about the economic protections of the P&S Act. I don't care if a foreigner like you does not understand the law, why it was written, or what type of frauds could and should be prevented with its competent enforcement, unless that lack of understanding hurts people in this country. If you were smart, you would make sure producers in your country had such a law and make sure that it could be enforced. Instead you call those asking for the enforcement names. I have called you on your comprehension of the act because if you are married to BMR and he has been in the leadership positions in the Canadian beef industry, you and he should have been trying to protect the average producer with enforcable laws instead of catering to whomever is the buyer of beef and their market power. I am sorry if you don't understand that position.

As I said before, it is much like the family who allows the uncle into the house to rape their daughter. The father and mother both know that the uncle is doing something wrong, but due to their circumstances of the uncle being the only breadwinner and a dominant personality for the family, they put up with it. You seem to be in the same position. The least you could do is not support the uncle in someone else's family problems of the same sort.

I find you have the strangest bedfellows. The need to get along with those in power could be the issue that binds you. Personally, I feel the need to speak out against injustices.

 

[Beefman]

Econ; You've had a busy day. You reference MLK and the protestant movement, and mention to Jason following the golden rule of Jesus, and use a signature line of "Dad, what is the real truth? Life is short. Eternity is forever."

Then you use the horrible analogy reference to packers / Tam and BMR of allowing an incestious relationship under their roof, and how they should "be ashamed" for a lack of leadership.

I won't soon qualify for sainthood, and neither will you. I can appreciate your passion for christianity. However, it's time for the Jekyl and Hyde routine to cease. Enough of the insults.

 

[Bill]

Econ, your continued comparisons to rape and incest suggest you may have major problems. I suggest you seek professional help.

 

[Econ101]

Thanks Bill and Beefman. Get over the sexual part of the analogy and see where the rest of it fits. It is about someone holding something over your head so they can get away with a wrong. If you have a better analogy, bring it.

I have always been interested in how evil prevails in the world. The analogy I used is one way. The other is just ignorance or a different interpretation of the same events. Of course this is the the same setup in the analogy I used.

In no way was I saying anything sexual about Tam or BMR or meaning to infer it. That interpretation, if you thought it, was all on your own.

Martin Luther was the leader of the protestant movement when he posted his declarations of belief that differed with the Roman Catholic view. During that time period, the Roman Catholic church abused its power over the people in all sorts of ways. The biggest had to do with excommunication from the church (which happened to Martin Luther). Here is a link to his story:

http://www.educ.msu.edu/homepages/laurence/reformation/Luther/Luther.htm

Martin Luther is different than Martin Luther King (MLK) but there are a lot of similarities that can be drawn between the struggle of good vs. evil.

It is also interesting to me that there are many times where we, in our human condition, can not look beyond ourselves to see what eventually becomes the accepted "truth". The further we stray from the "truth", the bigger the battle it takes to get back to it. With all the incomplete knowledge we are allowed to see as mortals, sometimes it is no wonder why we get into the trouble we do.

I hope that Beefman, that you are at least intelligent enough to look through the posts and see what I am saying instead of drawing conclusions that are misplaced.

Either way, I learn a lot about you from your responses and I know those tracks go both ways.

 

[Sandhusker]

MRJ, "You also seem 'blessed' with cattle producers with that "someone has to be to blame and it may as well be packers" attitude prevalent in rcalf circles."

You're wrong, MRJ. R-CALF members aren't BLAMING packers. We just have the common sense to realize that what is good for them isn't necessarily good for producers. We also recognize the power they have with this government and realize that power needs to be balanced with equal power of the cattlemen.

We have packers calling the shots with the USDA, blocking smaller packers from certain niche markets, pressuring the government to change health policies for economic reasons, stomping on the PSA, lobbying to open our borders so they can import beef to replace yours while pressuring the government to deny COOL, etc.... the list goes on and on - and it all happened under the watch of that four-letter organization that supposedly is representing the US producer. We're not blaming, just calling spades spades.

 

[Tam]

Thanks Bill and Beefman. Get over the sexual part of the analogy

GET OVER THEM THAT IS WHAT MAKE THEM THINK ENOUGH IS ENOUGH AND YOU NEED HELP

In no way was I saying anything sexual about Tam or BMR or meaning to infer it. That interpretation, if you thought it, was all on your own.

How many times have you posted this sick analogy in response to BMR and myself and why can't your sick mind realize it is wrong to make these kinds of statement without someone think exactly like Beefman and god only knows how many other poster think it to mean that we would allow it. This is the lowest I think I have ever seen anyone sink to get their point across You are truly a desperate man that has become the lowest form of scum. Your Docter need to tak away your computer time.

 

[Manitoba_Rancher]

Way to go Tam its about time somebody told Econ the con he is. He should be booted!

 

[Econ101]

I would be very glad to stop it and the name calling. Would you, or do you JUST want me to stop? You have to give a little if you want others to. It can not all be one sided. Make your choice. You have been one sided long enough.

 

[Tam]

Way to go Tam its about time somebody told Econ the con he is. He should be booted!

I agree I think anyone that is this desperate to be heard should be talking to a group of docters not us.

 

[Bill]

Econ, not only do you lack credibility you have also now shown the absence of any morals or class.

If as you say "It is about someone holding something over your head so they can get away with a wrong." That is called blackmail.......... not incest............. and most certainly not rape. Your comments are uncalled for and demeaning not only to Tam and BMR but to everyone else with a shred of decency who frequents this site.

As I said before you need some serious professional help.