NCBA

[Econ101]

Porker, when you say "Nobody messes with them (ScoringAg) or they will be Labeled for life as don't trade with THEM period!!!", doesn't it seem the least bit dangerous for ScoringAg to have that kind of power? What if they get mad at a company and decide for whatever reason to blacklist them?

I really have no problem with ScoringAg and they sound like a great company, and was speaking somewhat in jest, but according to how some on this site seem prone to claiming or hinting; that such great power breeds contempt/corruption/controlling-the-world-for-greed! What is making ScoringAg immune from those evil traits?

Poor Econ, I almost forgot to address your ridiculous accusations!

Darn, I thought we all had the "right" on this site to point out what we see, read, hear, etc. I know you have done that and seem to me to be acting as though you have that right. Why would you deny me the same right.

Now just how is what I said about ScoringAg possibly becoming suspect by some of you conspiracy theorists different or worse than you saying "we are all concerned about USDA...."? Who is "we"? Some of us prefer to give USDA the benefit of the doubt until such time as they are PROVEN guilty of actual mis-conduct, or some crime, rather than casting doubts, innuendo, etc. What proof, or even logical example, have you to show us how USDA is putting packers over producers on policy issues?

Why should anyone ask NCBA why there haven't been hearings on GIPSA????
Last I heard from any credible source, Congress and the President have control over USDA, and Congress gave them 90 days to get GIPSA back on track. Why shouldn't we allow that process to play out before condemning them without a fair trial? BTW, who is that "small group of policy makers" to which you refer, just teasing us to guess, or what?

MRJ

MRJ

MRJ, Congressional Hearings are the only "trial" that they get. The problem with your reasoning is that you don't seem to want the "trial" to take place. Ironically, this is the same reason the OIG report was critical of JoAnn Waterfield and GIPSA--there were no investigations. The Congressional Hearings are the investigation into GIPSA's workings.

Do you know who Scooter Libby is? Do you see how that case is being handled? The allegation is that JoAnn Waterfield was using her position to squash producer investigations into fraud by those it regulates. There is a strong parallel here to what actions Could be taken to get to the truth. Do we need a special prosecutor to get to the bottom of these allegations? Allowing JoAnn and GIPSA to have a free ride on this one is protecting the ones they were doing the frauds for.

Why do you keep posting on things you should know about but obviously do not? Your bias is apparent.

Quite the contrary! My bias is that I want the facts and truth brought out. You are not in possession of an accurate crystal ball when you claim that I "do not seem to want the "trial" to take place". Nothing I said indicated that in any way.

BTW, I did happen to notice the charges leveled at Scooter Libby. It sounds as if much of the press has him painted as guilty without a trial, just like you do to people and corporations and USDA on this site. What in the process, to date, in his case do you specifically find is being handled improperly, and by whom? What evidence do you have access to to verify your claim and charge that Waterfield actually was "using her position to squash producer investigations..."? I suppose you will fail to answer these questions just like you didn't answer the ones in my previous post. It's sad, but revealing of your character that all you have is allegation, innuendo, and accusations to support your premise of "fraud and bias against USDA" and even of your assumption of my personal biases and that I do not know anything about subjects on which I post.

MRJ

My mentioning of Scooter Libby was only to show that federal agents can and do have leverage on issues when the people in charge of investigations want to give it to them. It was nothing about his guilt or innocense. They should use that same leverage on JoAnn Waterfield to get her talk.

The OIG investigation was pretty clear. Have you read it yet?

 

[mrj]

MRJ, "Why should anyone ask NCBA why there haven't been hearings on GIPSA???? "

Ummmm, MRJ, it is because it was producers getting the short end of no investigations - the very people NCBA claims to represent. :shock:

NCBA's deafening silence reveals who they represent.

The fact is that the MEMBERS did not request the leaders to make those demands. Maybe not ALL cattle producers believe there is a conspiracy to cheat us!!!!!

I sure would like to see the accusations or problems that were brought before GIPSA and not investigated. Maybe, just maybe it is possible that a cursory investigation revealed that there was nothing worthy of investigating???? MAYBE it is time to put this "evil empire of GIPSA" mantra on hold until the new guy has a chance to do his work and report back to Congress and the public.

MRJ

 

[Sandhusker]

I thought leaders were supposed to actually LEAD. :shock:

NCBA leadership had no problems reversing your 11 points without the directives of membership. What's their problem now?

GIPSA got 90 days to fix what wasn't worthy of investigation.

What's NCBA's ideas going forward when changes are made after the 90 days are up? Are they just going to call the past "water under the bridge" or do they think it wise to find out WHY Waterford did what she did?

 

[Econ101]

MRJ, "Why should anyone ask NCBA why there haven't been hearings on GIPSA???? "

Ummmm, MRJ, it is because it was producers getting the short end of no investigations - the very people NCBA claims to represent. :shock:

NCBA's deafening silence reveals who they represent.

The fact is that the MEMBERS did not request the leaders to make those demands. Maybe not ALL cattle producers believe there is a conspiracy to cheat us!!!!!

I sure would like to see the accusations or problems that were brought before GIPSA and not investigated. Maybe, just maybe it is possible that a cursory investigation revealed that there was nothing worthy of investigating???? MAYBE it is time to put this "evil empire of GIPSA" mantra on hold until the new guy has a chance to do his work and report back to Congress and the public.

MRJ

MRJ, or the umpteenth time, have you read the OIG report or are you just taking up for GIPSA without knowing what you are talking about?

Maybe you should get your facts straight before your cheerleading begins.

HAVE YOU READ THE OIG REPORT YET?

 

[mrj]

I thought leaders were supposed to actually LEAD. :shock:

NCBA leadership had no problems reversing your 11 points without the directives of membership. What's their problem now?

GIPSA got 90 days to fix what wasn't worthy of investigation.

What's NCBA's ideas going forward when changes are made after the 90 days are up? Are they just going to call the past "water under the bridge" or do they think it wise to find out WHY Waterford did what she did?

Sandhusker, when you continually lie about the "11 point directive" why should we believe you about anything else? AGAIN: it was the directors and leaders from the 37 state affiliates of NCBA representing their members, along with directors of NCBA representing our members, who agreed via teleconference that enough of the material in the 11 points had been agreed to that it was worth proceeding. NCBA has good governance rules and we do not require every decision to be held off till a national membership meeting takes place. Unless you are a member, you have no voice in NCBA, so please refrain from telling lies about our leaders.

And, if you are not a member of NCBA, why does it matter to you what we members and/our our leaders say or do?

BTW, there is no one named "Waterford" involved in the GIPSA investigation. If that is as close as you can come to getting her name, maybe you could be wrong about other aspects of that situation.

Econ, if you provide that link to the OIG report again, I may get time to read it next weekend.

MRJ

 

[Sandhusker]

I thought leaders were supposed to actually LEAD. :shock:

NCBA leadership had no problems reversing your 11 points without the directives of membership. What's their problem now?

GIPSA got 90 days to fix what wasn't worthy of investigation.

What's NCBA's ideas going forward when changes are made after the 90 days are up? Are they just going to call the past "water under the bridge" or do they think it wise to find out WHY Waterford did what she did?

Sandhusker, when you continually lie about the "11 point directive" why should we believe you about anything else? AGAIN: it was the directors and leaders from the 37 state affiliates of NCBA representing their members, along with directors of NCBA representing our members, who agreed via teleconference that enough of the material in the 11 points had been agreed to that it was worth proceeding. NCBA has good governance rules and we do not require every decision to be held off till a national membership meeting takes place. Unless you are a member, you have no voice in NCBA, so please refrain from telling lies about our leaders.

And, if you are not a member of NCBA, why does it matter to you what we members and/our our leaders say or do?

BTW, there is no one named "Waterford" involved in the GIPSA investigation. If that is as close as you can come to getting her name, maybe you could be wrong about other aspects of that situation.

Econ, if you provide that link to the OIG report again, I may get time to read it next weekend.

MRJ

MRJ, you've been hanging around the likes of SH too much, you're starting to throw the word "lie" around just a little loosely. I'll ask you to post my lie.

So tell me, what does NCBA recommend be done about any blocked investigations that might of uncovered unfair practices against producers? Have they ever asked WHY investigations were blocked? Do they care?

 

[Mike]

Sandhusker, What I think MRJ is saying........The entire membership can initiate and pass a directive, but the 37 state directors can overturn it at will.

:lol: :???: :lol: :roll: :???: :lol: :roll: :???: :shock: :???: :roll:

 

[Econ101]

I thought leaders were supposed to actually LEAD. :shock:

NCBA leadership had no problems reversing your 11 points without the directives of membership. What's their problem now?

GIPSA got 90 days to fix what wasn't worthy of investigation.

What's NCBA's ideas going forward when changes are made after the 90 days are up? Are they just going to call the past "water under the bridge" or do they think it wise to find out WHY Waterford did what she did?

Sandhusker, when you continually lie about the "11 point directive" why should we believe you about anything else? AGAIN: it was the directors and leaders from the 37 state affiliates of NCBA representing their members, along with directors of NCBA representing our members, who agreed via teleconference that enough of the material in the 11 points had been agreed to that it was worth proceeding. NCBA has good governance rules and we do not require every decision to be held off till a national membership meeting takes place. Unless you are a member, you have no voice in NCBA, so please refrain from telling lies about our leaders.

And, if you are not a member of NCBA, why does it matter to you what we members and/our our leaders say or do?

BTW, there is no one named "Waterford" involved in the GIPSA investigation. If that is as close as you can come to getting her name, maybe you could be wrong about other aspects of that situation.

Econ, if you provide that link to the OIG report again, I may get time to read it next weekend.

MRJ

MRJ, I will take this post as confirmation that you have been spouting the NCBA line before researching the subject. I don't mind you taking the NCBA line when you have actually thought about it and have studied the questions. My opposition is that you take the NCBA line ALL THE TIME WITHOUT QUESTION. I almost always respect a well thought out and reasoned approach, even if it differs than my own conclusions.

I happen to believe in predetermination--------but only from God's perspective.

 

[mrj]

You boys are surely being silly here!

Mike, are you an NCBA member? If not, why is it your business, and what do you know about the procedures governing actions by the board and the members that gives you the right to make your ridiculous comment?

You guys are reaching rally far in order to stir up trouble, it is apparent. Why bother? IF there is a problem, the members will change the leadership. That we have not done that excepting on the usual schedule should show you that the leaders are acting according to members wishes.

Econ, maybe you can't understand the structure of NCBA. I'm not on the Live Cattle Marketing committee. I trust the members of that committee to act in the best interests of all members, just as those people trust the members of committees I have served on to do so. I do not have to have first hand knowledge or micro-manage my fellow members' activities between the two yearly meetings of full membership participation.

BTW, Econ, you have little reputation for accuracy, IMO, so your accusations re. GIPSA are suspect at best, so far as I'm concerned. AND, as I've stated before, it just seems reasonable for honest people who have no predetermined agenda to trash USDA are willing to allow this new guy to do his thing before calling them guilty without a trial.

Why would you claim you know what I have thought about, Econ. That is the height of arrogance. Your crystal ball needs to be traded in, at the least. It has failed you time after time when it tells you what I'm thinking. BTW, I have little concern about your respect or lack thereof for my thought processes. Anyone so zealously hiding their identity, stating you will reveal all "when the time is right" and all the other innuendoes, word games, mind games, and trick questions you employ, along with the anti-corporate conspiracies you promote seem so self-serving, mean spirited and devious, who could respect YOU?

Sandhusker, you posted your lie yourself when you said "NCBA leadership had no problems reversing your 11 points without the directives of membership". That is not true. Leaders followed proper procedures and members did approve the action. Again, unless you are a member, it isn't your business.

MRJ

 

[Anonymous]

Again, unless you are a member, it isn't your business.

MRJ

Thats the arrogant attitude I came to know and dislike about the NCBA- hell with anyone else or any other group- if it doesn't fit ours and the Packer supported agenda :roll: ...The reason NCBA is becoming a dying breed.......

 

[Econ101]

You boys are surely being silly here!

Mike, are you an NCBA member? If not, why is it your business, and what do you know about the procedures governing actions by the board and the members that gives you the right to make your ridiculous comment?

You guys are reaching rally far in order to stir up trouble, it is apparent. Why bother? IF there is a problem, the members will change the leadership. That we have not done that excepting on the usual schedule should show you that the leaders are acting according to members wishes.

Econ, maybe you can't understand the structure of NCBA. I'm not on the Live Cattle Marketing committee. I trust the members of that committee to act in the best interests of all members, just as those people trust the members of committees I have served on to do so. I do not have to have first hand knowledge or micro-manage my fellow members' activities between the two yearly meetings of full membership participation.

BTW, Econ, you have little reputation for accuracy, IMO, so your accusations re. GIPSA are suspect at best, so far as I'm concerned. AND, as I've stated before, it just seems reasonable for honest people who have no predetermined agenda to trash USDA are willing to allow this new guy to do his thing before calling them guilty without a trial.

Why would you claim you know what I have thought about, Econ. That is the height of arrogance. Your crystal ball needs to be traded in, at the least. It has failed you time after time when it tells you what I'm thinking. BTW, I have little concern about your respect or lack thereof for my thought processes. Anyone so zealously hiding their identity, stating you will reveal all "when the time is right" and all the other innuendoes, word games, mind games, and trick questions you employ, along with the anti-corporate conspiracies you promote seem so self-serving, mean spirited and devious, who could respect YOU?

Sandhusker, you posted your lie yourself when you said "NCBA leadership had no problems reversing your 11 points without the directives of membership". That is not true. Leaders followed proper procedures and members did approve the action. Again, unless you are a member, it isn't your business.

MRJ

MRJ,

Do you have ANY experience with the past or present GIPSA administrator or any of the investigation aspects?

Have you read the OIG report yet? Please put down your pom poms, do a little research before you defend, and start THINKING without someone you trust telling you what to think.

"BTW, Econ, you have little reputation for accuracy..."

When I hear a statement like this from someone who defends what is happening at GIPSA and doesn't know any of the facts that have been laid out, I really start to wonder if S.Dakota has something wrong with their water or if it is just a genetic thing. I am pretty sure it is the latter.

Please bring up some of the points that substantiate your claim for "little reputation for accuracy".

 

[Sandhusker]

MRJ, "Sandhusker, you posted your lie yourself when you said "NCBA leadership had no problems reversing your 11 points without the directives of membership". That is not true. Leaders followed proper procedures and members did approve the action. Again, unless you are a member, it isn't your business."

Are you telling me that the same folks who voted for the directive voted to reverse it? I don't think that was the case. I don't believe that they appproved the action. I know of a rather large group in Texas that did not and were very, very upset about the change.

 

[Econ101]

Again, unless you are a member, it isn't your business.

MRJ

Thats the arrogant attitude I came to know and dislike about the NCBA- hell with anyone else or any other group- if it doesn't fit ours and the Packer supported agenda :roll: ...The reason NCBA is becoming a dying breed.......

Nothing on GIPSA frauds on producers? No push for hearings?

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter"---Martin Luther King, Jr.

Maybe you and MLK are right about this one, OT.

 

[Tommy]

mj...Again, unless you are a member, it isn't your business.


MJ I will remind you of your quote here the next time you say something about R-CALF and their policies. I do recall you saying things about them.

 

[mrj]

Econ, I have no "experience" with GIPSA. I said on an earlier post that if you would post the link again, so I can find it and access it, I might read that report. Show me where I "defended what is happening" at Gipsa. I've repeatedly stated that I believe the new people should complete their investigation and the results should be made public before we execute Ms. Waterfield and friends. You know, that old concept of "innocent until proven guilty"? Why don't you want that to apply to GIPSA?

Econ, you say "when I her a statement like this....." makes me wonder why you aren't honest enough to say: "when I hear a statement disagreeing with me......just a genetic thing, and you are wrong!"

OT, the real arrogance is when you R-Calf members of friends/mouthpieces insist on putting down NCBA for actions and policies our members initiate, simply because they are different from what your organization wants. I believe we have the right to our beliefs and goals for the cattle industry, just as you do. We have, over long years, built a reputation in this nation, and in the Capitol, for accuracy and honesty. I know that bites some of you, but we did that by being absolutely honest with Congress and Regulatory agencies and had the support of our 26,000+ direct members, plus thousands more affiliated members.

MRJ

 

[Econ101]

Econ, I have no "experience" with GIPSA. I said on an earlier post that if you would post the link again, so I can find it and access it, I might read that report. Show me where I "defended what is happening" at Gipsa. I've repeatedly stated that I believe the new people should complete their investigation and the results should be made public before we execute Ms. Waterfield and friends. You know, that old concept of "innocent until proven guilty"? Why don't you want that to apply to GIPSA?

Econ, you say "when I her a statement like this....." makes me wonder why you aren't honest enough to say: "when I hear a statement disagreeing with me......just a genetic thing, and you are wrong!"

OT, the real arrogance is when you R-Calf members of friends/mouthpieces insist on putting down NCBA for actions and policies our members initiate, simply because they are different from what your organization wants. I believe we have the right to our beliefs and goals for the cattle industry, just as you do. We have, over long years, built a reputation in this nation, and in the Capitol, for accuracy and honesty. I know that bites some of you, but we did that by being absolutely honest with Congress and Regulatory agencies and had the support of our 26,000+ direct members, plus thousands more affiliated members.

MRJ

MRJ, I don't mind a disagreement grounded in facts. If there is no real investigation and the same kind of legal tools that have been held over Scooter Libby's head to get the truth out of JoAnn, you may never know the "facts" as you call them. I have called for that type of investigation to start and you have not. You have just spewed the "do nothing and maybe it will go away" line that NCBA wants to push. Go back and read my MLK quote.

If you want the OIG report, I believe it was in Mike Callicrate's article he posted. There may be a little revisionism in it, as I have seen that happen on some of these things in the past.

The report's findings were pretty clearly spelled out in some of the articles that have been posted on it.

This administration, and the packers, believe that if they can hide the evidence and get rid of it before it is used against them, they can hide behind the innocent until proven guilty motto. When you have people like JoAnn in the regulatory agencies who are supposed to investigate the claims producers bring up and instead they try to do everything they can to hide the evidence and then there is no accountabilty when they get caught at it as JoAnn was, it is government sanctioned fraud.

You and your beloved NCBA believe in allowing that fraud to take place and I do not.

A good analogy is for someone to rob the bank you are involved with, you call the police, they come out, and then they hold the door for the robbers so they can get away and then the police claim that there is no one in the bank so it must have been a false alarm.

I don't know how you can be so incredibly _________. I hope that it is really just that you are a real busy lady and haven't had a chance to look into it carefully. Regardless, you shouldn't be claiming everyone should be considered innocent until proven guilty and then not call for an investigation to get the truth.

That would be like you not calling on an investigation into whether the police were in cahoots with the bank robbers. It would be an incredible lack of responsibilty---especially if someone was telling you in your ear that the police were in with the robbers.

 

[Anonymous]

OT, the real arrogance is when you R-Calf members of friends/mouthpieces insist on putting down NCBA for actions and policies our members initiate, simply because they are different from what your organization wants. I believe we have the right to our beliefs and goals for the cattle industry, just as you do. We have, over long years, built a reputation in this nation, and in the Capitol, for accuracy and honesty. I know that bites some of you, but we did that by being absolutely honest with Congress and Regulatory agencies and had the support of our 26,000+ direct members, plus thousands more affiliated members.

MRJ

MRJ- You never did answer my question about your Hoot chickens- Were they slaughtered in a USDA or state inspected plant or " are you trafficking in illegal chickens?" :???: I wouldn't mention this, but your Guilded Buddas at NCBA seem to figure all other laws and rules pertaining to the slaughter business should not be enforced-- ex. M-COOL and PSA....Unless it fits their Big Packer buddies agenda and they can deny Creekstone the ability to test for their customers that want it :???: ........