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

Pig Wrestling, part 3

Sandhusker

Well-known member
SH, we had this exchange on Dec. 5

SH, "What has Dittmer stated that is not true Sandbag? Any parasite can make discrediting allegations but it takes integrity to back them. Dittmer just displayed R-CULT leader statements for everyone to see and the positions of their "anti beef" consumer group cohorts.


My reply, "Why, SH, are you tring to discredit me by calling me "Sandbag"? Maybe a little school yard bullying? I'm not sure which staff member of the "foundation" came up with these gems; whether is was the President, Vice President, Head Reporter or subordinate, or even the janitor - no wait, isn't Dittmer all of these? Oh, yeah, he IS the "foundation"!

OK, Mr. "My only bias is the truth", direct from the "foundation's" website;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Banned would be:

Alliances of ranchers, feeders, breed associations, packers and retailers

Branded beef

Packer/feeder contracts and grids

A group in the drastic minority like R-CALF that wants to see the above kinds of things come to pass has to find some way to get leverage.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More gems on what R-CALF supposedly is going along with;

Only "sustainable" agriculture would be permitted. This means selling only fresh food locally, not out of state and not internationally, using organic methods -- no herbicides, pesticides, antibiotics, feed additives or genetically modified plants or animals allowed.

USDA and other government agencies would be run by those with no agricultural experience to "bias" their decisions. Representatives from consumer activist groups, environmental groups, faith-based groups and unions would run USDA. People who had worked for NCBA or food corporations would be considered unfit for service.

Packing companies and retailers would become union shops.

Foreign trade would be discouraged, since they see it taking away jobs, especially union jobs, in this country. The U.S. should just provide increased government aid to poor countries to help their economies, rather than trade with them. They feel trade with us damages farmers in poor countries.

Corporate trading companies should be broken up and government trading agencies created to sell America's agricultural products. The large food, agricultural, drug and ag chemical companies would be broken up in favor of small non-corporate companies, government marketing agencies and local food coops.

Large feedyards - defined as more than 1,000 head - are termed "factory farms" and would be banned as too damaging to the environment and too inhumane for animals
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Now, just 5 months past, your comments, "Diversion! What have you brought to the table to prove Dittmer wrong? "ILLUSIONS" I presume!
DIVERSION! What did Dittmer say, about R-CALF, that is not true?"

To refresh your memory, I posted, " I have posted Dittmer's inaccuracies here several times. SH knows this as he even replied to several of my posts."

And, again, you squealed, "DIVERSION! "


Now I ask you and anybody who has the displeasure to read this, is the reason you kept asking for proof again because you simply forgot our previous exchange? Are these direct quotes taken from his website (which anybody can check to see if my post is correct) more of these "ILLUSIONS" you accuse me of constantly? Exacatly what was I diverting from? Can you even spell "credibility".

Stay tuned for more, I've got more of your gems to show those that think anything you say can be taken seriously.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
The problem with SH's logic is that only he knows when it is "opposite day".

Maybe there is a codebook he shares with his packer pals as to when it is. They seem to not take offense at the indescrepancies he offers.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Thank you for the reminder on what statements of Dittmer's you were referring to.

I didn't say Dittmer was always right did I? I simply asked you for proof of where he is wrong.

In fairness to R-CALF, "IF" Dittmer does not differentiate between R-CALF's agenda and the agenda of the "anti beef" consumer groups that R-CALF aligned with during their BSE fear mongering campaign, Dittmer paints with too broad of a brush and his statements can easily be taken out of context which you have done.

I agree that R-CALF's anti packer agenda and short sighted communist packer ban legislation could hurt certain branded beef programs through USPB and similar producer owned alliances due to the legalities of packers owning cattle UNLESS THE LAW WAS REWRITTEN FROM THE ORIGINAL PACKER BAN.

I do not agree that R-CALF would ever do anything to hurt breed associations. On that, Dittmer is wrong and an explanation would be in order.

The balance of Dittmer's statements, WHERE HE DOES NOT DIRECTLY REFER TO R-CALF, refers to the agendas of the organizations that R-CALF aligned themselves with during their BSE fear mongering. In affect, Dittmer was stating that by aligning themselves with these groups, R-CALF was giving credence to the agenda's of those groups which is true.

That's why much of the nations cattlemen stood in awe as R-CALF lied about the safety of Canadian beef while standing hand in hand with groups that wanted to remove beef from the school lunch menu.


More gems on what R-CALF supposedly is going along with;

Only "sustainable" agriculture would be permitted. This means selling only fresh food locally, not out of state and not internationally, using organic methods -- no herbicides, pesticides, antibiotics, feed additives or genetically modified plants or animals allowed.

USDA and other government agencies would be run by those with no agricultural experience to "bias" their decisions. Representatives from consumer activist groups, environmental groups, faith-based groups and unions would run USDA. People who had worked for NCBA or food corporations would be considered unfit for service.

Packing companies and retailers would become union shops.

Foreign trade would be discouraged, since they see it taking away jobs, especially union jobs, in this country. The U.S. should just provide increased government aid to poor countries to help their economies, rather than trade with them. They feel trade with us damages farmers in poor countries.

Corporate trading companies should be broken up and government trading agencies created to sell America's agricultural products. The large food, agricultural, drug and ag chemical companies would be broken up in favor of small non-corporate companies, government marketing agencies and local food coops.

Large feedyards - defined as more than 1,000 head - are termed "factory farms" and would be banned as too damaging to the environment and too inhumane for animals

Those statements are directed at the groups R-CALF aligned themselves with.

In your typical deceptive, slimy slithering ways, you took Dittmer's statements towards R-CALF's BSE allies, out of context, to discredit him ("more gems on what R-CALF supposedly is going along with") just like you do with my statements.

That is why I find you so repulsive!

You know that Dittmer was referring to the organizations R-CALF aligned themselves with in many of those statements but you deceptively spin it to make it appear that Dittmer is referring directly to R-CALF ("more gems on what R-CALF supposedly is going along with").

This is so typical of you and your deceptive ways.

That is the beauty of this forum. I can present the truth behind every one of your deceptive statements and lies.


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
SH, "Thank you for the reminder on what statements of Dittmer's you were referring to. I didn't say Dittmer was always right did I? I simply asked you for proof of where he is wrong."

Which I did - AGAIN. You need to bookmark this post for the next time you demand proof of how Dittmer was wrong. You seem to forget and make the same demands on a regular basis.

How do you know when Dittmer is wrong and when he is right? How was he introduced at your convention? "Our keynote speaker is not always right, he's been known to be wrong and paint with too wide a brush ...."?

You and Dittmer are a pair.... :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
It's good to know that these "so called" inaccuracies of Dittmer's were actually your deceptive spin job of combining his comments about
R-CALF's anti beef cohort's agenda and R-CALF's agenda.

More of the same from the master "illusionist".

He speaks too much truth for you not to make your "steers attempt" to attack his credibility with your deception.



~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Thank you for the reminder on what statements of Dittmer's you were referring to.

I didn't say Dittmer was always right did I? I simply asked you for proof of where he is wrong.

In fairness to R-CALF, "IF" Dittmer does not differentiate between R-CALF's agenda and the agenda of the "anti beef" consumer groups that R-CALF aligned with during their BSE fear mongering campaign, Dittmer paints with too broad of a brush and his statements can easily be taken out of context which you have done.

I agree that R-CALF's anti packer agenda and short sighted communist packer ban legislation could hurt certain branded beef programs through USPB and similar producer owned alliances due to the legalities of packers owning cattle UNLESS THE LAW WAS REWRITTEN FROM THE ORIGINAL PACKER BAN.

I do not agree that R-CALF would ever do anything to hurt breed associations. On that, Dittmer is wrong and an explanation would be in order.

The balance of Dittmer's statements, WHERE HE DOES NOT DIRECTLY REFER TO R-CALF, refers to the agendas of the organizations that R-CALF aligned themselves with during their BSE fear mongering. In affect, Dittmer was stating that by aligning themselves with these groups, R-CALF was giving credence to the agenda's of those groups which is true.

That's why much of the nations cattlemen stood in awe as R-CALF lied about the safety of Canadian beef while standing hand in hand with groups that wanted to remove beef from the school lunch menu.


More gems on what R-CALF supposedly is going along with;

Only "sustainable" agriculture would be permitted. This means selling only fresh food locally, not out of state and not internationally, using organic methods -- no herbicides, pesticides, antibiotics, feed additives or genetically modified plants or animals allowed.

USDA and other government agencies would be run by those with no agricultural experience to "bias" their decisions. Representatives from consumer activist groups, environmental groups, faith-based groups and unions would run USDA. People who had worked for NCBA or food corporations would be considered unfit for service.

Packing companies and retailers would become union shops.

Foreign trade would be discouraged, since they see it taking away jobs, especially union jobs, in this country. The U.S. should just provide increased government aid to poor countries to help their economies, rather than trade with them. They feel trade with us damages farmers in poor countries.

Corporate trading companies should be broken up and government trading agencies created to sell America's agricultural products. The large food, agricultural, drug and ag chemical companies would be broken up in favor of small non-corporate companies, government marketing agencies and local food coops.

Large feedyards - defined as more than 1,000 head - are termed "factory farms" and would be banned as too damaging to the environment and too inhumane for animals

Those statements are directed at the groups R-CALF aligned themselves with.

In your typical deceptive, slimy slithering ways, you took Dittmer's statements towards R-CALF's BSE allies, out of context, to discredit him ("more gems on what R-CALF supposedly is going along with") just like you do with my statements.

That is why I find you so repulsive!

You know that Dittmer was referring to the organizations R-CALF aligned themselves with in many of those statements but you deceptively spin it to make it appear that Dittmer is referring directly to R-CALF ("more gems on what R-CALF supposedly is going along with").

This is so typical of you and your deceptive ways.

That is the beauty of this forum. I can present the truth behind every one of your deceptive statements and lies.


~SH~

SH, Dittmers use of fact and fantasy fits right in with your yellow brick road journey. Are you two holding hands?
 
Top