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

MRJ- Whats a Philosophical Difference?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anonymous
  • Start date Start date
I guess a lame policy founded on lame reasoning should be expected to be justified with a lame excuse.... :roll:

MRJ, must I remind you that the "science" USDA used and NCBA backed hasn't been proven, either?

Also, let me inform you that we're not trying to win a science fair here, we're trying to make money selling cattle in the form of beef. That policy cost producers a heck of a lot of money, is still costing us money, alienated our customers, put is in a bad light of trying to hide something, violated the first rule of sales (give the customer what they want), contradicted previous policy estabilished with the also-not-based-on-science-according-to-the-USDA Hormone Free beef, placed the US Government in the role of a Soviet era Central Planner, violated the concept of free enterprise, contradicted NCBA's support of value addition of product, and favored big packers over small.

You and NCBA didn't have the sense to see what you were actually backing nor the foresight to see what would happen. Now that it has been proven to be a collosial costly and stupid blunder, you don't have the courage to admit it was wrong. The closest thing we get is "not every policy is successful". But - we'll hear the same 'ol "NCBA does wonderful things for producers..." :roll:
 
Sandhusker it's your OPINION, nothing more, that policy to stand by the INTERNATIONALLY ACCEPTED science re. BSE. isn't the best policy for a cattle producer organization.

Can you disprove my assertion that USDA policy re. BSE is accepted internationally?

I don't know why you are whining about this, anyway. Some of your guru's in R-CALF have long stated that we in the USA do not NEED to export any beef products. Oh, I know, they don't say that out loud very often the past couple of years, but they surely have said it.

If you blame NCBA and USDA for losing export markets, you surely should, at the least, accept the blame for R-CALF comment that US beef is processed by people that will deliberately sell contaminated and diseased beef (remember MPA packaging allegations shouted to the world?) and that they try to cheat cattle producers. What consumer would want to trust them to provide safe beef after you claim such horrible things as fact?

Good grief! Have you never heard "what's good for the goose is good for the gander"? It means don't expect more of others than of yourself.....and maybe also that punishments should be equal.

You have a lot of gall, considering the R-CALF, and your own, fearmongering to consumers about beef produced in US packing plants! Worse, is equating that policy with "the role of a Soviet era Central Planner" for supporting the science based ban on private BSE testing, when your outfit is working to give government the final say in who can and who cannot own cattle, who can sell cattle to packers when, and who knows how much more???

What has R-CALF done to promote value addition to beef products???

Get a grip on reality! There is no favoritism of large over small packers in this issue since NONE of them is allowed to privately test for BSE.

I guess I'd have to be flattered that you believe NCBA and I can (or should) be able to see into the future and read minds of Asian politicians.

It sure is embarrasing to have a self described cattle producer and banker saying it is wrong for cattle producer group to have policy that supports the best science available on an issue.

If this is the best you can do in claiming NCBA does nothing for producers, it's about as lame as trying to solve cattle industry problems by filing lawsuits and blaming crooked judges every time you lose another case!!!!

mrj
 
MRJ, "Sandhusker it's your OPINION, nothing more, that policy to stand by the INTERNATIONALLY ACCEPTED science re. BSE. isn't the best policy for a cattle producer organization."

#1, the "science" you tout is NOT internationally accepted; #2, that policy has cost US producers billions of dollars, is still costing us, and will cost us.

Can you disprove my assertion that USDA policy re. BSE is accepted internationally?

Quite easily - Japan and Korea.

I don't know why you are whining about this, anyway. Some of your guru's in R-CALF have long stated that we in the USA do not NEED to export any beef products. Oh, I know, they don't say that out loud very often the past couple of years, but they surely have said it.

Bring the quote. A nickel says you can't find one.

If you blame NCBA and USDA for losing export markets, you surely should, at the least, accept the blame for R-CALF comment that US beef is processed by people that will deliberately sell contaminated and diseased beef (remember MPA packaging allegations shouted to the world?) and that they try to cheat cattle producers. What consumer would want to trust them to provide safe beef after you claim such horrible things as fact?

When meat companies are bypassing their own safety rules, how can you argue that they aren't deliberately selling contaminated meat?

Read Ben's book on cheating.

Good grief! Have you never heard "what's good for the goose is good for the gander"? It means don't expect more of others than of yourself.....and maybe also that punishments should be equal.

You have a lot of gall, considering the R-CALF, and your own, fearmongering to consumers about beef produced in US packing plants! Worse, is equating that policy with "the role of a Soviet era Central Planner" for supporting the science based ban on private BSE testing, when your outfit is working to give government the final say in who can and who cannot own cattle, who can sell cattle to packers when, and who knows how much more???

Point out what R-CALF has said that is incorrect.

When has the government banned a practice because competitors would have to do the same? Do you think that is consistant with having a free market?

Why is BSE testing banned because it is not based on science, but the USDA even argued at the WTO that hormone free is not based on science, but it is allowed?

I've asked you half a dozen times what law will ban who from owning cattle and you never respond - just come back with the same allegations.
What has R-CALF done to promote value addition to beef products???

We've supported Creekstone's efforts to add value, NCBA fought it.
What has NCBA done without checkoff money?

Get a grip on reality! There is no favoritism of large over small packers in this issue since NONE of them is allowed to privately test for BSE.

Small packers wanted it, big packers didn't. Part of the reasons given was that "everybody would have to do it". Figure it out.

I guess I'd have to be flattered that you believe NCBA and I can (or should) be able to see into the future and read minds of Asian politicians.

Part of being a good leader is having vision. Guess that tells us about NCBA's leadership. Heck, RM, Mike, OT and I called that one correctly.

It sure is embarrasing to have a self described cattle producer and banker saying it is wrong for cattle producer group to have policy that supports the best science available on an issue.

It's wrong for a cattle producer group to support a biased non-factual based policy that costs it's members billions of dollars.

If this is the best you can do in claiming NCBA does nothing for producers, it's about as lame as trying to solve cattle industry problems by filing lawsuits and blaming crooked judges every time you lose another case!!!!

And it's better to roll over and allow our livlihoods to be put in jeapordy so Tyson and Cargill can make a buck?

I thought you were going to Omaha? May I suggest you stay around there through the third week of this month for the R-CALF convention - it will be a great opportunity for you to learn what is really going on in the industry.
 
Ernie, don't you KNOW that NCBA does not get checkoff money for POLICY issues?

Don't you KNOW that NCBA has two divisions, and one is the dues payer policy division........which does not use checkoff money;

And the other is the Federation of State Beef Councils which CONTRACTS with the CBB to do work for the Beef Checkoff.........and that the money ONLY goes to expenses necessary to carry out the work?

Do you KNOW and UNDERSTAND that there is NO PROFIT to NCBA for contractual work?

You are not serving effectively as a SD BIC board member if you do not know those things, and you do not TELL OTHER CATTLE PRODUCERS THE TRUTH about it.

mrj
 
By golly you`re right!! All work done is on cost recovery only. That`s the reason for the: " implementation fee".

Yes Mrs Jones I really do understand and the truth is there are two divisions of NCBA and the policy side deals with the dues division and the Federation deals with checkoff. And both sides have the same CEO and have individuals working on both side. "But they keep track of time spent on each division " This is documented so it must be a justified expense. Also I do understand the fact that NCBA is allowed to initiate the "implementation fee" AFTER the bid is awarded.

If being effective SDBIC member means go along with all the wims and wishes and saying yes to everything, you`ve got the wrong guy. This is checkoff money paid by the producers and believe it or not; some producers feel we can be effective with our money spent at home and still get our bang for the buck on national and international scene.
 
You know, EJ, MRJ is constantly extolling NCBA's efforts to add value, increase demand, etc.... and then chides others for not being able to seperate dues div. from checkoff div. from BS div. from buy-a-senator div. etc... but yet she can't come up with anything NCBA has done without checkoff dollars - I'd say SHE's the one that can't seperate all the divisions. :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
EJ said:
By golly you`re right!! All work done is on cost recovery only. That`s the reason for the: " implementation fee".

Yes Mrs Jones I really do understand and the truth is there are two divisions of NCBA and the policy side deals with the dues division and the Federation deals with checkoff. And both sides have the same CEO and have individuals working on both side. "But they keep track of time spent on each division " This is documented so it must be a justified expense. Also I do understand the fact that NCBA is allowed to initiate the "implementation fee" AFTER the bid is awarded.

If being effective SDBIC member means go along with all the wims and wishes and saying yes to everything, you`ve got the wrong guy. This is checkoff money paid by the producers and believe it or not; some producers feel we can be effective with our money spent at home and still get our bang for the buck on national and international scene.
Click to expand...

AMEN EJ-- and then Maxine and the folks at NCBA won't be able to run around to every cattlemans or consumers meeting- or follow the beefmobile- and proclaim --"look what NCBA has done for you"- when they are actually talking about things the CHECKOFF dollars done for us- like the, clod derived flat iron steaks, beef bacon, beef ham, Tom Selleck ads, etc. etc.- in using the checkoff funded projects to toot the NCBA horn and recruit membership-- which I've seen too many times... :( :( :mad:

In talking to Monte Reese, before he retired as the head of the Checkoff, he flat out told me that his biggest concern/worry for losing the beef checkoff did not come from any anti-beef groups or from any foreign countries challenges-- but from the continued use/misuse by NCBA as a promotional/recruiting tool....He said if the court ever rules against the Checkoff- or the producers ever vote against the Checkoff- it will be because of NCBA's continued misuse...
 

Latest posts

Back
Top