Sandhusker
Well-known member
Hmmmmmm, very interesting. :shock:
My call to R-Calf
- Thread starter feeder
- Start date
Help Support Ranchers.net:
Just to make this clear, I used these notes to make a point. Although factual, I only pointed out the facts that I wanted to use. I didn't present the good things I've found in the NCBA history. As I've previously stated, one can find anything they are looking for to back a point. I could easily write a couple of more pages on "packer blaming & protectionists' in the organization's past. I could also write many pages on the good things they have done. I didn't like doing this but wanted to make a point. This is the type of posting that Tam does, & I know not to bother reading them. Here is what I find as a perfect example of one of her posts.
"The Pope is visiting DC and President Bush takes him out for an afternoon on the Potomac...sailing on the presidential yacht. They're admiring the sights when, all of a sudden, the Pope's hat (zucchetto) blows off his head and out into the water. Secret service guys start to launch a boat, but Bush waves them off, saying "Wait, wait. I'll take care of this. Don't worry."
Bush then steps off the yacht onto the surface of the water and walks out to the Holy Father's little hat, bends over and picks it up, then walks back to the yacht and climbs aboard. He hands the hat to the Pope amid stunned silence.
The next morning, the Washington Post carries a story, with front page photos, of the event. The banner headline is: "Bush Can't Swim." LOL!
I guess I'm going to be sent to the nicey-nicey forum because I don't like name calling, labels, and slanted bs stories.
"The Pope is visiting DC and President Bush takes him out for an afternoon on the Potomac...sailing on the presidential yacht. They're admiring the sights when, all of a sudden, the Pope's hat (zucchetto) blows off his head and out into the water. Secret service guys start to launch a boat, but Bush waves them off, saying "Wait, wait. I'll take care of this. Don't worry."
Bush then steps off the yacht onto the surface of the water and walks out to the Holy Father's little hat, bends over and picks it up, then walks back to the yacht and climbs aboard. He hands the hat to the Pope amid stunned silence.
The next morning, the Washington Post carries a story, with front page photos, of the event. The banner headline is: "Bush Can't Swim." LOL!
I guess I'm going to be sent to the nicey-nicey forum because I don't like name calling, labels, and slanted bs stories.
HAY MAKER said:Tam said:Well in R-CALFs case I'm with you Haymaker there is nothing hidden about their agenda. It is stop Canadian imports with what ever it takes failed lawsuits, over turned injunctions, holding press conferences with anti beef groups, half truths and out and out lies . But as least you can be proud Haymaker they do it all out in the open and it is well domumented :wink:HAY MAKER said:Maybe you can tell us what that hidden agenda is,and remember be careful that big mouth of yours has already cost you $100
Where has R CALF "out and lied" I seemed to have missed that part,maybe you are the one lieing ?.............good luck
R-CALF President Leo McDonnell said "we know Canada is still processing downer animals, the United States does not process downers". Bull we can't even haul downers Haymaker and where was the positive cow in Texas found, wasn't it dead on a truck at a slaughter house? If the trucker didn't think he could drop her there why did he take her there?
Leo McDonnell said "We test annually over 150,000 more cattle than Canada tests." I've proven this to be a lie several times Haymaker.
Leo McDonnell has told U.S. consumers and producers that "Canada has a chronic problem with their Meat and Bone Meal (MBM) feed ban and that it is ineffective." Gee to bad the USDA came to Canada and looked for themselves to see this one was a LIE.
Dennis McDonald was and maybe is still the Trade Committee Chairman when he was quoted in a North Dakota paper as saying this about BSE, "If there is a positive case again in the U.S., we as a beef producing nation shouldn't market beef in cattle older that 20 months". Now Haymaker has R-CALF ever spouted these words again since the Texas cow was found. No because they know just what that would do to your beef industry if they couldn't market beef from over 20 month old animals don't they.
Leo said So if for some reason we did find a case we can stand and look our consumers right in the eye and say, don't worry we have had these firewalls in place for years, the only country prior to having a case of BSE to have these firewalls in place for so many years. And we did it to make sure if a case was ever found it was a non-issue. If we look them right in the eye and say that I will guarantee they will keep eating beef". First of all the US and Canada have put the precautionary measures in place about the same time to bad Canada saw to put a few more in that the US didn't think were necessary like stronger feed bans and a National ID so cattle can be found in a reasonable length of time.
If this next quote is not a lie then explain how it can be true if you have these firewall to protect the US consumers.
R-CALF said that importing UTM (under thirty month) cattle and meat from OTM (over thirty month) cattle would put the U.S. feed system in danger.
And Leo also claimed on TV that "No R-CALF members owned cattle in Canada." Bull even the Billings Gazette ran a piece on the Members and Leo was quoted to have said he did see anything Ironic about they have been doing it for years.
Oh gee I almost forgot the biggest three lies. That the border closure to Canadian cattle and beef was responible for your high cattle prices then there is when the border opens the Canadians will flood our markets with the huge back log of cattle that just waiting at the border and one more for good measure once the border opens our cattle prices will crash and our markets will be destroyed.
Gee Haymaker why do you want to have all these dirt little lies brought up for everyone to see again. :wink:
Tommy
Well-known member
You are so right fedup2 about the name calling and labels. I wish we could have intelligent debates on here without it always becoming a name calling, labeling event. We, for the most I am sure, are adults, but it is hard to tell that by a lot of the posts on here.
fedup2 said:
Interesting history there. The packers were far stronger back then, apparently pretty much controlling stockyards, railroads and terminals (likely the only way to ship cattle back then), market newspapers, public cold storage warehouses, retail and wholesale meat businesses.
Obviously, we have learned from the history. Some mistakes, and some successes from the past help us to grow and improve in the future. NCBA is not re-inventing the wheel, fighting the same old fights, but looking forward and working with other segments to improve the cattle producers position in the modern day beef business.
One of the predecessor groups was fighting the feeder pretty strongly, too, as I recall. Ending that foolishness has helped all of us, IMO.
MRJ
Northern Rancher
Well-known member
When hasn't R-Calf lied would be more like it-Leo's just a big spoiled kid riding his daddies coattails-if his Dad wouldn't of built the Midland Test up Leo would be checking coats at the Laurel Ballet.
I find the history of the cattlemen/women very interesting MRJ. There have been some tough times. I do believe that a good working relationship is needed between those involved in the industry and that includes all involved.
Besides that relationship, each organization must never forget that its main responsibility is to its membership. There is such a thing as getting to comfortable or cozy with the other groups that goes past a good working relationship.
Too many concessions can be made by one group and to much power gained from it by another. A good relationship must be balanced. Getting a group of independent ranchers to work together is a miracle in itself! LOL! This group, no matter how organized, can easily be overshadowed by most multi-national segments of the industry as long as they have unlimited resources. (unrestricted imports or darn close to it, to name one)
The early NCBA understood that for most of its years in existence. Somehow along the way it seems to be losing sight of the main reasons for its existence. To represent & fight for the cattleman. If it means standing up to the USDA or packers rather than more concessions, that's what it has to do. I understand that one has to look to the future while making these decisions. That's the problem I have with R-Calf. No cattlemen's group should be saying that the product they raise is unsafe! Not for any reason. To cast a shadow on beef for a short term gain is wrong!
Mostly rambling here MRJ, while trying to sort things out. As always, I have a hell of a lot more questions than I have answers.
Besides that relationship, each organization must never forget that its main responsibility is to its membership. There is such a thing as getting to comfortable or cozy with the other groups that goes past a good working relationship.
Too many concessions can be made by one group and to much power gained from it by another. A good relationship must be balanced. Getting a group of independent ranchers to work together is a miracle in itself! LOL! This group, no matter how organized, can easily be overshadowed by most multi-national segments of the industry as long as they have unlimited resources. (unrestricted imports or darn close to it, to name one)
The early NCBA understood that for most of its years in existence. Somehow along the way it seems to be losing sight of the main reasons for its existence. To represent & fight for the cattleman. If it means standing up to the USDA or packers rather than more concessions, that's what it has to do. I understand that one has to look to the future while making these decisions. That's the problem I have with R-Calf. No cattlemen's group should be saying that the product they raise is unsafe! Not for any reason. To cast a shadow on beef for a short term gain is wrong!
Mostly rambling here MRJ, while trying to sort things out. As always, I have a hell of a lot more questions than I have answers.
Tam said:
Because your dirt little lies as you call them are pure dee bool sheist,Miss Tam you are as bad as that damn wind bag SH,post a bunch of two bit opinionary BS and claim it to be fact.I cant recall once that you have proven anything except you are a packer lover...........good luck PS "R CALF THE CATTLEMANS CHOICE" :wink:
A
Anonymous
Guest
I learned from my mistake. Never allow your chickensh*t allegations that you cannot back force me to conduct your research for you.
I'm glad you take pride in a lying deceptive outfit who thinks they speak for cattlemen when they truly only speak for a handful of industry blamers.
Fedup,
I don't care what NCBA's positions were before the packer blamers who used to be part of NCBA started their own organization, I care what their positions are now. The day that NCBA becomes a blaming "punish achievement" organization like R-CULT is the day I will drop my membership.
As far as the history on the packing industry, isn't it amazing how Morris, Wilson, Cudahey, Swift, and Armour became Monfort, Smithfield, Excel, IBP and National who became Swift, Tyson, and USPB in an industry that was "SUPPOSEDLY" controlled? Once again the obvious becomes too obvious.
For as long as there have been packers, there have been packer blamers. Your point is certainly taken from that standpoint. Some allegations having merit while most allegations were driven by nothing more than a compelling need to blame. Some things never change.
Another obvious is that the cattlemen control this industry until the point where they give up control of their cattle. Anyone could control their product from pasture to plate if they were willing to put their money where their packer blaming mouths were and make those "HUGE PROFITS" themselves.
Yes, as long as there are packers, there will be packer blamers.
~SH~
~SH~ said:
SH, you lost your bet because you could not "prove"something you believed. Tyson was in a similar situation in the Pickett case. They just need to do what you did and pay up. The cattle industry will be a lot better off. Tyson would rather payoff than payup. Recent ruling against their "interpretation" of worker lawsuit with a UNANIMOUS Supreme Court Decision against Tyson. At least Tyson thanked the court (suck up) for their "clarifying" the issue when they lost. Do you think you could do the same with Sandhusker?
HAY MAKER said:
I agree Haymaker these comments are pure dee bool sheist and You may call it two bit opinionary BS if you want but I call them lies either way Leo and Dennis said them and they were both speaking as representative of R-CALF when they said them. :wink:
A
Anonymous
Guest
I was not wrong about the original statement that Sandflea called a lie.
Sandflea brought nothing to the table to prove me wrong.
I could have chose to hide the fact that I was wrong about calendar year 2004 but I openly and readily admitted it. Did Sandflea back his allegation that I lied? Of course not and he never will because he is a parasite that requires others to do his reasearch for him by calling them liars.
Bottom line, Tyson's Boise and Pasco plants lost more money WHILE THE BORDER WAS CLOSED (not in calendar year 2004) THAN TYSON'S LAKESIDE PLANT MADE.
That is a fact!
You will not refute that fact.
The only mistake I made was agreeing to calendar year 2004 in the process of singling out Tyson's data which is more readily available than Excels.
Did you see your buddy Sandflea admit to his inability to prove me wrong? Did you see him admit that he thanked Agman for his honesty when it supported his bias but Agman also admitted that I was right with my original statement. OF COURSE NOT! Sandflea doesn't have the same level of integrity I do. He's a parasite that wants others to conduct his research for him by calling them liars. His day will come for that.
Who the hell made you referee? Want a whistle?
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
You just can't give it up.
SH, if you wanted me to "bring something", why did YOU propose that YOU would bring the proof?
If you were right about ANY timeframe in your original statement, your second, third, etc... why have we not seen a single financial from ANY of the three plants?
SH, if you wanted me to "bring something", why did YOU propose that YOU would bring the proof?
If you were right about ANY timeframe in your original statement, your second, third, etc... why have we not seen a single financial from ANY of the three plants?
A
Anonymous
Guest
You claimed that I lied then you want me to prove that I didn't lie.
You thank Agman for his honesty but you still ask for proof? Are you saying that Agman's honesty only applies when it supports your bias to win a bet?
So typical of your parasitic behavior!
The burden of proof is on you to prove that I lied. You keep spinning it into my having to prove that I didn't lie like the pathetic SOB you are.
~SH~
You thank Agman for his honesty but you still ask for proof? Are you saying that Agman's honesty only applies when it supports your bias to win a bet?
So typical of your parasitic behavior!
The burden of proof is on you to prove that I lied. You keep spinning it into my having to prove that I didn't lie like the pathetic SOB you are.
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Tam said:
Tam, HE bet that HE would provide it. HE didn't seem to be able to do it, either. Judging by the poll, most people think I did prove him a liar.
