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

OT mis-information re. Beef Checkoff Refuted

Help Support Ranchers.net:

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
I'm not sure which thread it was on that OT posted claims that NCBA was "raking in" millions of checkoff dollars, but HE WAS ABSOLUTELY WRONG!

Monte Reese stated "NO Beef Checkoff dollars whatsoever go to the Policy/Dues division of NCBA. NCBA does NOT receive a percentage of ANY contract with ANY ad agency or ANY other Checkoff contractor."

Reese further stated: "The implementation authorization requests approved for NCBA by the Operating Committe of the CBB, and USDA oversight, cover ACTUAL COSTS ONLY. They include certain indirect costs such as staff time and overhead incurred by staff managing checkoff projects. NCBA is required to keep detailed records to DOCUMENT such costs. CBB hires independent auditors to conduct an annual contract compliance audit to assure that ONLY actual checkoff project costs are reimbursed with Checkoff dollars. Those same rules apply to all organizations, currently six of them other than NCBA, conducting checkoff projects at the national level."

BTW, the only "LA PR firm" (disparagingly mentioned by OT) ever used for Checkoff originated the "Beef, It's What's For Dinner" campaign. Who wants to argue over the success of that one????

Many anti-NCBA groups are eligible to do contract work, but few ever apply. Could it be because of the "no profit" nature of the contracts? Or maybe because of the intense scrutiny of the financial records of the organizations receiving the contracts by independent auditors and "outsiders ???

Sure, NCBA probably has more employees than would be needed if it were not for the fact that the Federation division manages some checkoff programs, just as would be the fact for the various organizations other than NCBA contracting with the CBB to do contractual work. There are employees who work for the Federation division, and others who work for the Policy/Dues division, and some who work for both. Those employees account for their time in 15 minute increments according to what they are working on, and there is NO overlap allowed.

The cattle producers who volunteer their time serving on the Beef Promotion Operating Committee of the CBB review EVERY proposal presented to them approve or deny proposals based on the merits for building beef demand as well as on budget constraints. It is very likely any reasonably competent person observing a working meeting of the Operating Committee soon understands that it is NOT a rubber stamp process by any stretch of the imagination. There are 6 to 8 different organizations other than NCBA bringing proposals to the Operating Committee that are approved. Those members of the many organizations represented on the Operating Committee (BTW, NCBA members do NOT dominate the committee) deserve sincere thanks for their work rather than accusations of mis-use of the money or failures to choose the best projects, certainly when no supporting facts are presented.

Also, NCBA nor any other contractor gets ANY money up front. Costs are reimbursed ONLY after completion of the contracted work and verification that all is according to contract stipulations before receiving reimbursement for approved costs.

OT, do you understand that the Federation division of NCBA actually is the national organization of the State Beef Councils, and is NOT the Policy/Dues/Membership division of NCBA........and that the two are effectively separate organizations with strict firewalls and accounting systems to assure that separation between Policy and Program (Checkoff/CBB) systems? The offices and staffs of the two sides of NCBA, and the CBB are combined for economy, coordination of efforts, and ability to address cattle and beef industry questions such as about beef safety, nutrient info, and BSE (naming only a few) with a unified voice. Your claims that NCBA profits from the checkoff sound as though you either do not know the facts of that separation, or choose not to believe them. Which is it?

I believe OT owes the members of the Operating Committee and NCBA an apology for giving out such gross mis-information about them.

MRJ
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
The NCBA logo appears on most printed checkoff material. What is the value of having a logo on the material. If somebody had to pay to have their logo on the material what would they be charged.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Maxine- I have the budget plan for the Beef Promotion Committee lying right here--It requests $3,830,000 for NCBA for Promotion Implementation.....In all the government grants and contracts I have been involved with the implementation costs are the costs and payment you get for carrying out and fullfilling the job.......What do they pay those secretaries? Does Terry Stokes get paid ( even partially) with checkoff money to make his political statements? He is listed as staff that was present at a meeting....I object to my checkoff money going to pay for his political statements which promote lying to consumers by passing off imported beef as a US product......

I do not have the final awards- just the requests....The entire document is 527 pages thick. I did find a letter from Monte Reese to the CBB dated Aug. 24, 2005 adding verbiage to the contract to make it clear that the contractors shall not profit from activities managed on behalf of the Board or Operating Committee...Was that wording not in the contracts before?

How many of the current cattle organizations were organized prior to 1987 to be able to fall under the law to be allowed to bid? NCBA, ANCW, NLPA- these are the only groups I see bidding or being awarded management contracts-most of which are not done by them, but subcontracted....Could OCM, R-CALF, CCMP or any of the new modern groups contract?

Did Monte mention to you the problems he is having with NCBA putting their name on Checkoff funded press releases and Checkoff funded functions and promotions? He did to me....But what can he do to counter this when they are his boss?

All this shows is what a muddled mess the checkoff is when mixed into an organization that is made up of two divisions, dozens of committees and subdivisions with overlapping personnel, funding and responsibility...This is the type of snakepit that lends itself to an enviroment that promotes and allows outright fraud....With TAXPAYER dollars....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
OT,

Provide for me one example of a misappropriation of checkoff dollars. Just one.

Any idiot can sit on the sideline and throw grenades.

Terry Stoke's political position of not being a whiny packer blamer like you has nothing to do with how checkoff dollars are being spent.

ONE EXAMPLE OT!

Show us what ya got.............


~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
~SH~ said:
OT,

Provide for me one example of a misappropriation of checkoff dollars. Just one.


~SH~

The biggest very apparent misappropriation of checkoff (Tax) dollars is the NCBA's use of checkoff funded materials, projects, and gatherings as a promotional and recruitment tool for themselves...I object to the fact that my checkoff dollars are anyway connected with an organization like NCBA- which now goes against everything I have ever believed in the honesty and truthfullness of ranchers, cattlemen and people of the west... Any group that can actively promote, lobby, and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to help the beef industry continue to defraud consumers by passing off imported meat as a domestic product is not my idea of someone that accurately portrays the old code of the west....

I am not against the checkoff- in fact I have and do very much support the checkoff, but not in its current form... It was set up 20 years ago in an ever changing world - and has not changed to keep up... I think it needs to be brought into the 21st Century....
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
~SH~ said:
OT,

Provide for me one example of a misappropriation of checkoff dollars. Just one.

Any idiot can sit on the sideline and throw grenades.

Terry Stoke's political position of not being a whiny packer blamer like you has nothing to do with how checkoff dollars are being spent.

ONE EXAMPLE OT!

Show us what ya got.............


~SH~

Who has taken credit for keeping up beef demand during the BSE "crisis" ? The NCBA. How was it done? With checkoff money.

So if it was done with checkoff money through ads and promotion and such, how is it legitimate for NCBA to be saying "we" did it?

Last I heard the CBB was quite unhappy about that situation, among others.

Also at our local grocery store there is an audio ad at the meat counter promoting beef with checkoff money. The ad also sings the glories of the NCBA.


No checkoff money should EVER be used to promote NCBA at all. They are supposed to be a contractor--period. If I contracted with somebody to advertize my business and the ads they produced promoted themselves, they would be FIRED.

How about checkoff money used to produce a beef industry long range plan. Not just a long range plan for the checkoff--beef promotion-- that would be legitimate. Checkoff money was used to help produce a long range plan for the beef industry. That long range plan includes plans to promote certain governmental actions, including legislative and trade ones.
 

Tommy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
755
Reaction score
0
Location
South East Kansas
Have any of the other organizations that get a checkoff contract ever taken credit for their research or promotions like the NCBA has?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
OCM: " Who has taken credit for keeping up beef demand during the BSE "crisis" ? The NCBA. How was it done? With checkoff money."

NCBA, AS AN ORGANIZATION, was front and center going to the media with the truth about BSE while R-CULT/OCM was busy blaming USDA and using BSE as a catalyst to stop Canadian imports. Thank God the media didn't go to R-CULT as a credible source of information on BSE or they would have taken this industry into the tank after we had a native born case of BSE. Using BSE as a convenient excuse to stop 4% of our domestic beef consumption (Canadian live cattle imports) was the most insane political move I have ever witnessed.

Were checkoff dollars involved? Probably! BUT SO WAS NCBA DUES MONEY MORE THAN JUSTIFIYING NCBA'S POSITION.

If NCBA is taking FULL CREDIT for checkoff successes when dues were not involved, rather than giving the CBB credit, that is wrong.

If checkoff dollars and NCBA dues were both involved, the NCBA needs to address it as assisting the CBB to get the truth about BSE to the media to offset the "protectionist" lies of R-CULT/OCM. That would be far more accurate.

R-CULT's use of BSE as a catalyst to stop Canadian imports ABSOLUTELY defined the ignorance of that organization. Luckily for R-CULT, USDA and NCBA were there to tell the media the truth about BSE. R-CULT was not in the picture to restore consumer confidence in U.S. beef. They were too busy blaming USDA to stop Canadian imports. Absolutely pathetic antics and unexcusable.


OCM: checkoff money should EVER be used to promote NCBA at all."
I agree with this statement but NCBA should be able to take credit when dues are involved. I would vomit if I heard my checkoff dues paying for R-CULT/OCM promotions. This needs to be handled carefully.


OCM: "How about checkoff money used to produce a beef industry long range plan. Not just a long range plan for the checkoff--beef promotion-- that would be legitimate. Checkoff money was used to help produce a long range plan for the beef industry. That long range plan includes plans to promote certain governmental actions, including legislative and trade ones."

How about some details?

You're not going to go down the Conman road of unproven empty statements are you?



~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
You're not going to go down the Conman road of unproven empty statements are you?

Anything is better than the yellow brick road you are following, SH. You have so many empty statements (see bottom of this post for an example) that it is hypocritical for you to call anyone on that.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman,

Do you honestly think anyone here believes a word you say anymore?

You define cheap talk.

All you have to do is take any statement that I have stated and bring the facts that prove me wrong. How difficult can that be? Just one! Considering what an "illusionist" you are, you could and would use that one incorrect statement to discredit everything I have ever stated.

What seems to be the holdup?

Why can't you correct me with opposing facts Conman?

I'll tell you why, because you are a complete phony and you're the only one who hasn't figured that out.


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
Conman,

Do you honestly think anyone here believes a word you say anymore?

You define cheap talk.

All you have to do is take any statement that I have stated and bring the facts that prove me wrong. How difficult can that be? Just one! Considering what an "illusionist" you are, you could and would use that one incorrect statement to discredit everything I have ever stated.

What seems to be the holdup?

Why can't you correct me with opposing facts Conman?

I'll tell you why, because you are a complete phony and you're the only one who hasn't figured that out.


~SH~

Why don't you do as you ask others to do? HYPOCRIT! It is interesting that you call everyone else an "illusionist" when it is the craft you employ.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman: "Why don't you do as you ask others to do? HYPOCRIT! It is interesting that you call everyone else an "illusionist" when it is the craft you employ."

Ok, which stupid statement would you like me to correct AGAIN?

Let's take your stupid statement regarding "prices can't go up unless supplies go down". I'll pick that one becaues you can't deny saying it or claim that I took you out of context because I asked you if you said it and you said "yes".

That statement is absolutely false. The price of beef can be determined by two factors that have nothing to do with a change in supply.

1. The value consumers give to beef relative to competing meats.
2. The amount of discretionary income that consumers have to spend.

NEITHER HAS A DAMN THING TO DO WITH AVAILABLE SUPPLIES.

Consumers can and do pay more or less for beef daily without any change in supplies.


DISCLAIMER: I DID NOT SAY THAT A CHANGE IN SUPPLIES HAS NO AFFECT ON THE PRICE OF BEEF, I SAID BEEF PRICES CAN CHANGE WITH NO CHANGE IN SUPPLY.

Sorry readers, knowing how deceptive Conman is, I had to make that clarification or risk being taken out of context again.


You want to try to prove me wrong, be my guest.

Now watch, Conman will try to con readers into believing his statement was taken out of context, or he'll make an unrelated statement to divert the issue to something else, or he'll ignore this post completely, or any one of the many diversionary tactics he employs daily.

Observe..............

Did you notice how he already turned this from him proving me wrong to me proving him wrong? I played his game knowing that he'll weasel out of defending his statement somehow because he's a complete phony.


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
Conman: "Why don't you do as you ask others to do? HYPOCRIT! It is interesting that you call everyone else an "illusionist" when it is the craft you employ."

Ok, which stupid statement would you like me to correct AGAIN?

Let's take your stupid statement regarding "prices can't go up unless supplies go down". I'll pick that one becaues you can't deny saying it or claim that I took you out of context because I asked you if you said it and you said "yes".

That statement is absolutely false. The price of beef can be determined by two factors that have nothing to do with a change in supply.

1. The value consumers give to beef relative to competing meats.
2. The amount of discretionary income that consumers have to spend.

NEITHER HAS A DAMN THING TO DO WITH AVAILABLE SUPPLIES.

Consumers can and do pay more or less for beef daily without any change in supplies.


DISCLAIMER: I DID NOT SAY THAT A CHANGE IN SUPPLIES HAS NO AFFECT ON THE PRICE OF BEEF, I SAID BEEF PRICES CAN CHANGE WITH NO CHANGE IN SUPPLY.

Sorry readers, knowing how deceptive Conman is, I had to make that clarification or risk being taken out of context again.


You want to try to prove me wrong, be my guest.

Now watch, Conman will try to con readers into believing his statement was taken out of context, or he'll make an unrelated statement to divert the issue to something else, or he'll ignore this post completely, or any one of the many diversionary tactics he employs daily.

Observe..............

Did you notice how he already turned this from him proving me wrong to me proving him wrong? I played his game knowing that he'll weasel out of defending his statement somehow because he's a complete phony.


~SH~

You are getting closer to proving my points, SH. You are a little off but I will take what you have given. Of course Agman proably knows where this is going.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman: "You are getting closer to proving my points, SH. You are a little off but I will take what you have given. Of course Agman proably knows where this is going."

ROTFLMAO!

Hahahahaha!
Hahahahaha!

I was wrong readers. He didn't divert to an unrelated topic this time, he didn't claim I took his statement out of context this time, he didn't ignore the post completely, Hahaha, he claimed that I was getting closer to proving his point when I proved him wrong.

Hahahaha!

I have to go wipe me eyes. Oh damn your funny Conman!


Now you got me wondering if you are just disguised as an idiot and really do understand these issues. Nobody can dance like that unless they are just pulling someone's leg. Hmmmmmm?????


~SH~
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
~SH~ said:
OCM: "How about checkoff money used to produce a beef industry long range plan. Not just a long range plan for the checkoff--beef promotion-- that would be legitimate. Checkoff money was used to help produce a long range plan for the beef industry. That long range plan includes plans to promote certain governmental actions, including legislative and trade ones."

How about some details?

You're not going to go down the Conman road of unproven empty statements are you?



~SH~

Read it for yourself! Don't miss the CBB involvement. Don't miss the "proactive government policy"!

http://longrangeplan.beef.org/LongRangePlan.pdf


What do you think of some of your tax money (checkoff dollars) being used for a long range plan for you (as opposed to a plan for how to use checkoff dollars to promote beef--which would be legitimate).
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
Conman: "You are getting closer to proving my points, SH. You are a little off but I will take what you have given. Of course Agman proably knows where this is going."

ROTFLMAO!

Hahahahaha!
Hahahahaha!

I was wrong readers. He didn't divert to an unrelated topic this time, he didn't claim I took his statement out of context this time, he didn't ignore the post completely, Hahaha, he claimed that I was getting closer to proving his point when I proved him wrong.

Hahahaha!

I have to go wipe me eyes. Oh damn your funny Conman!


Now you got me wondering if you are just disguised as an idiot and really do understand these issues. Nobody can dance like that unless they are just pulling someone's leg. Hmmmmmm?????


~SH~

SH, you are the only conman on this site. Everything has to have qualifiers. My original quote did. What you said here is not incongruent with what I said. You may have misunderstood this, but that goes to your reading comprehension and jumping to conclusions, it had nothing to do with me. I do have to admit that I sometimes only scan your posts as they are not worth reading most of the time. While you may be talking about any time period, I was talking about a particular time period that we just went through. Go look up the data that the Pickett case encompassed up till now and you will understand that. You may also keep arguing with yourself if you want. Pretty soon no one will listen to you except may be Jason or some other "followers". Lead them all down the yellow brick road if you want. I hope you have fun. Maybe you can sing a little song as you go along.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Oldtimer said:
Maxine- I have the budget plan for the Beef Promotion Committee lying right here--It requests $3,830,000 for NCBA for Promotion Implementation.....In all the government grants and contracts I have been involved with the implementation costs are the costs and payment you get for carrying out and fullfilling the job.......What do they pay those secretaries? Does Terry Stokes get paid ( even partially) with checkoff money to make his political statements? He is listed as staff that was present at a meeting....I object to my checkoff money going to pay for his political statements which promote lying to consumers by passing off imported beef as a US product......

I do not have the final awards- just the requests....The entire document is 527 pages thick. I did find a letter from Monte Reese to the CBB dated Aug. 24, 2005 adding verbiage to the contract to make it clear that the contractors shall not profit from activities managed on behalf of the Board or Operating Committee...Was that wording not in the contracts before?

How many of the current cattle organizations were organized prior to 1987 to be able to fall under the law to be allowed to bid? NCBA, ANCW, NLPA- these are the only groups I see bidding or being awarded management contracts-most of which are not done by them, but subcontracted....Could OCM, R-CALF, CCMP or any of the new modern groups contract?

Did Monte mention to you the problems he is having with NCBA putting their name on Checkoff funded press releases and Checkoff funded functions and promotions? He did to me....But what can he do to counter this when they are his boss?

All this shows is what a muddled mess the checkoff is when mixed into an organization that is made up of two divisions, dozens of committees and subdivisions with overlapping personnel, funding and responsibility...This is the type of snakepit that lends itself to an enviroment that promotes and allows outright fraud....With TAXPAYER dollars....

OT, looks as if you may be as inept as I at deciphering financials. However, I am not blindly biased by hatred as you seem to be.

What Monte stated still stands true as it was from the beginning of the Beef checkoff: NO money goes to the Policy/Dues division of NCBA, period! NO checkoff money is used for political issues!

I have told you repeatedly, and I'm sure Monte Reese also told you: contracts are on a cost recovery only basis, and payments are not made until the work is completed. I know that no salaries are more than is necessary to get a person with the needed skills to do the job.

You obviously are pushing the R-CALF agenda that packers are inherently evil and taking advantage of us poor, foolish ranchers. I disagree with that idea. Confusing consumers by telling them some of the beef is inferior or unsafe is not good for the US rancher. It is even worse to do so when you and R-CALF don't want your beef identified so it can be traced to help prevent illnesses, IMO. Advertising all the beef sold in the USA has been good for our business, and denying that does not change the facts.

I don't know what "political" statements you are claiming Terry Stokes made, nor which meeting you refer to when saying "he is listed as staff at a meeting", so of course do not know what his responsibility was at that time. What I do know is that he has never been paid with checkoff money to make ANY "political statements", ever!

I believe the "no profit" from contracts has been the case from the start. I will check on that, to see for sure.

I don't know how many cattle groups there were prior to establishment of the Beef Checkoff. I DO know that the producers surveyed while working up the law did not want a new layer of bureaucracy of beef organizations forming to run the checkoff, but wanted it accomplished with existing groups that already were carrying out those types of programs.

The criteria in the law for eligibility of organizations to contract checkoff programs is: "established non-profit industry-governed organizations, defined as (a) non profit organization pursuant to sections 501 (c) (3), (5), or (6) of the Internal Revenue code. (b) are governed by a board of directors representing the cattle or beef industry on a national basis, and (c) were active and ongoing before enactment of the Beef Act.

Wanting an efficient, existing system to manage the Beef Checkoff cost effectively is also the reason for the cap on overhead at 5%.

There obviously were fears among cattlemen that new groups could spring up to make money off the checkoff if these safe-guards were not included. Possibly now that the fact of NO PROFIT, now way! is established, it might be possible to add later cattle organizations to the list of groups eligible to contract with the CBB. Personally, I believe that when groups see that the NO PROFIT is for real, they lose interest in contracts real fast!

I will ask Monte about those "problems" you claim he told you about, when he is back from meetings. Are you sure you understood him correctly??? It doesn't really jibe, since NCBA is NOT his boss, CBB is, and CBB is entirely separate from NCBA.

The fact is, what you call a "muddled mess" was put together in that manner to be as inclusive of cattle producers from all area, all types of production systems, all sizes, all organizations, giving them equal access for influence in the programs as is possible. It takes lots of work on the part of the cattle producers who VOLUNTEER their time and effort to make it work, with the help and expertise of excellent people on the staffs. Those "overlapping personnel, funding and responsibility" are what makes it work at the least cost possible to do the work properly.

Your calling this a "snakepit that lends itself to an environment that promotes and allows outright fraud" is an outrageous charge to be put into public without A SINGLE BIT OF EVIDENCE to support that charge.

You are the one imagining evil where there is none.......except in your own mind. If there were ANY evidence of ANY wrongdoing with OUR checkoff dollars, I would be among the first to demand an investigation and pray for conviction of anyone cheating cattle producers out of their checkoff dollars.

You know full well that ALL checkoff funds are scrutinized by many entities, including not only the Federal Government, but also people who WANT to find infractions so that they can harm or end the Beef Checkoff and/or NCBA. BTW, when are your organizations going to hire independent, outside audits of their books, and publicly expose the results? R-CALF/OCM/ Resource Councils........

MRJ
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
MRJ, "You obviously are pushing the R-CALF agenda that packers are inherently evil and taking advantage of us poor, foolish ranchers. I disagree with that idea."

That statement actually makes me mad, MRJ. :mad: That is NOT R-CALF's position! I wish you and other R-CALF bashers would take the time to learn what R-CALF's position on packers really is. Maybe you would not be so negetive if you knew the facts.

For the record, R-CALF does NOT believe packers are inherently evil. We simply recognize that their agenda (long term profitability for them) does not necessarily benefit US producers and our agenda (long term profitabilty of the US producer). Like any other industry, they use whatever they can to promote their agenda, including bending the ears in Washington all they can. R-CALF seeks to balance their power and influence in Washington with the power and voice of US producers.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Sandhusker said:
MRJ, "You obviously are pushing the R-CALF agenda that packers are inherently evil and taking advantage of us poor, foolish ranchers. I disagree with that idea."

That statement actually makes me mad, MRJ. :mad: That is NOT R-CALF's position! I wish you and other R-CALF bashers would take the time to learn what R-CALF's position on packers really is. Maybe you would not be so negetive if you knew the facts.

For the record, R-CALF does NOT believe packers are inherently evil. We simply recognize that their agenda (long term profitability for them) does not necessarily benefit US producers and our agenda (long term profitabilty of the US producer). Like any other industry, they use whatever they can to promote their agenda, including bending the ears in Washington all they can. R-CALF seeks to balance their power and influence in Washington with the power and voice of US producers.

Everyone is "inherently evil". That is why we have to have a balance of powers no matter who it is and in what position they are in. A lesson one of the vice presidents of Standard Oil, taught me. He would know.

MRJ, I have been characterized as hating Tyson and the other packers. They are just a bunch of people and I don't hate any one of them individually. When they break the law and on top of that laws of fairness, I do have a problem with them. Their actions are "evil" and need to be checked. When they spin things the way they do, it makes me want to go after them more. Listen to the things I am saying, not the "big evil corporate conspiracy" SH has painted me as having. There are a lot of really good corporations out there. And then there are a lot that make wrong decisions occasionally, and then there are the ones that knowingly make selfish wrong decisions with malice and forethought with the people they are in business with. That, in my opinion, is the worst.
 

Latest posts

Top