You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
R-CALF on Hong Kong talks
- Thread starter Sandhusker
- Start date
Help Support Ranchers.net:
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Jose and Juan have assured me they are from Texas.
Probably are, and they are probably just a good of workers as their American counterparts.
But do they have a "US Born, raised" stamp? You know their no good if they don't have that! That would mean they are imports, and imports are baaaaadd!
But do they have a "US Born, raised" stamp? You know their no good if they don't have that! That would mean they are imports, and imports are baaaaadd!
Sandhusker said:Bill said:How many injunctions did R-Calf apply for? :roll:Sandhusker said:What injunction are you talking about, Bill?
You're the one who brought it up, Bill. What injunction were you talking about?
Take a step back there Sandy. Actually BMR brought it up
Leo said" We would prefer the U.S. government spend more time working to harmonize BSE standards around the globe, and less time on the now stalled WTO negotiations. That sort of adjustment would actually help U.S. cattle producers."
Isn't that what the USDA and Canada were doing when R-CALF filed the injunction?
To which you replied
Duh.........d'ya think that was the injunction I was talking about?First of all, R-CALF's injunction was not directed towards the US and Canada's dealings with the WTO on BSE. The injunction was filed in Billings, but Brussels. I realize they both begin with the letter "B", but the similarities end there.
Secondly, the US and Canada were stumping the WTO to LOWER standards. My thesaurus doensn't link "lower" with "harmonize".
Now I bet you will tell me it's all in the archives. :lol: :lol: Your pattern is pretty predictable but your powder was wet on page 1.
Sandhusker
Well-known member
I don't think you two know what "the injunction" was about. You want to refresh my memory?
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Murgen said:Probably are, and they are probably just a good of workers as their American counterparts.
But do they have a "US Born, raised" stamp? You know their no good if they don't have that! That would mean they are imports, and imports are baaaaadd!
Actually, I know where they are from so I can make an educated decision on whether to hire them or not.
the joking is all fine and good but,
I'm starting to feel that there is the diversion conspiracy that SH, Sandhusker and Econ talk about. Sandhusker what is your answer?
Very rarely are my questions answered on this forum, but I'm willing to learn, so I'm counting on your integrity Sandhusker!
You state the terms!
I'm starting to feel that there is the diversion conspiracy that SH, Sandhusker and Econ talk about. Sandhusker what is your answer?
Sandhusker, just thinking?
If I prove that since the border has been closed, that Tyson lost more in the US than they made in Canada, at prior agreed upon plants.
Will you send SH's $100 back and send me a cheque for $100 also?
Double or nothing, I guess you would call it?
Very rarely are my questions answered on this forum, but I'm willing to learn, so I'm counting on your integrity Sandhusker!
You state the terms!
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Murgen said:the joking is all fine and good but,
I'm starting to feel that there is the diversion conspiracy that SH, Sandhusker and Econ talk about. Sandhusker what is your answer?
Sandhusker, just thinking?
If I prove that since the border has been closed, that Tyson lost more in the US than they made in Canada, at prior agreed upon plants.
Will you send SH's $100 back and send me a cheque for $100 also?
Double or nothing, I guess you would call it?
Very rarely are my questions answered on this forum, but I'm willing to learn, so I'm counting on your integrity Sandhusker!
You state the terms!
My terms are simple - Prove SH's "original statement" that he KNOWS is right. I've said before enough times to wear out a keyboard that the information to KNOW that is not available.
Big Muddy rancher
Well-known member
using SH's famous words "Sandhusker is TREED"
I hope everybody reads this thread,leave out the bong part and see how Sandhusker dances around the truth just like the true blue R-CALFer that he is.
You talk big about truth but when we point out inconsistancies in a article you post you still dance around . old Cassius Clay had nothing on you.
I hope everybody reads this thread,leave out the bong part and see how Sandhusker dances around the truth just like the true blue R-CALFer that he is.
You talk big about truth but when we point out inconsistancies in a article you post you still dance around . old Cassius Clay had nothing on you.
My terms are simple - Prove SH's "original statement" that he KNOWS is right. I've said before enough times to wear out a keyboard that the information to KNOW that is not available.
For my benefit, please PM them to me! I will try my darnest to find out the info. you request. If there is any confidential info. I will share that with you and you can let it be known on the forum that you have recieved it, but can't divulge it. Is that fair?
Well you know what they say about bankers and lawyers........Big Muddy rancher said:using SH's famous words "Sandhusker is TREED"
I hope everybody reads this thread,leave out the bong part and see how Sandhusker dances around the truth just like the true blue R-CALFer that he is.
You talk big about truth but when we point out inconsistancies in a article you post you still dance around . old Cassius Clay had nothing on you.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Murgen said:My terms are simple - Prove SH's "original statement" that he KNOWS is right. I've said before enough times to wear out a keyboard that the information to KNOW that is not available.
For my benefit, please PM them to me! I will try my darnest to find out the info. you request. If there is any confidential info. I will share that with you and you can let it be known on the forum that you have recieved it, but can't divulge it. Is that fair?
How can you prove anything if the info and/or source is confidential- there is no way to check the credibility....
OT, I'm sure you have dealt with confidential info. many times. Have you shared it with anyone?
Did that lower your credibility as an officer of the law?
I know you probably kept many things from your supervisor's over the years, until the video surfaced, but that's not what we are talking about!
I'm trusting that Sandhusker will admit he was wrong when presented with the info.!!!
Did that lower your credibility as an officer of the law?
I know you probably kept many things from your supervisor's over the years, until the video surfaced, but that's not what we are talking about!
I'm trusting that Sandhusker will admit he was wrong when presented with the info.!!!
A
Anonymous
Guest
Murgen said:OT, I'm sure you have dealt with confidential info. many times. Have you shared it with anyone?
Did that lower your credibility as an officer of the law?
I don't know about in Canada- but in the US a confidential informant has to be proven credible thru past actions and there has to be corroborating evidence supporting his current information....
Or should I authorize a search warrant and raid on Murgens house just because a CI said that Murgen is a pothead and has dope in his house? Except I do have that picture of that big Bong :wink: :lol:
And no when I was an officer I wouldn't give up a CI- even if it meant losing a case....
And no when I was an officer I wouldn't give up a CI- even if it meant losing a case....
But you'd still use the info., wouldn't ya? Maybe that's why SH lost his "case"?
My point exactly.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Murgen said:And no when I was an officer I wouldn't give up a CI- even if it meant losing a case....
But you'd still use the info., wouldn't ya? Maybe that's why SH lost his "case"?
My point exactly.
If it was confidential he shouldn't have been flapping his lips in the first place....
Flapping his lips is what some Oldtimer in Montana does, every time the wind blows, a lie through town!!!
Damn that Leo, blows hard!!!
What's that, the sound of RCALF withering on the vine, yep, I think so. And in their infancy, what a shame!!!! (Still babies)
Damn that Leo, blows hard!!!
What's that, the sound of RCALF withering on the vine, yep, I think so. And in their infancy, what a shame!!!! (Still babies)
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Bill said:Well you know what they say about bankers and lawyers........Big Muddy rancher said:using SH's famous words "Sandhusker is TREED"
I hope everybody reads this thread,leave out the bong part and see how Sandhusker dances around the truth just like the true blue R-CALFer that he is.
You talk big about truth but when we point out inconsistancies in a article you post you still dance around . old Cassius Clay had nothing on you.
I'm treed? :lol: :lol: Who is the one talking about this injunction, but can't seem to bring any details on it? I'll ask you again, what injunction are you talking about?
For an seemingly educated person you can't read very well.Sandhusker said:Bill said:Well you know what they say about bankers and lawyers........Big Muddy rancher said:using SH's famous words "Sandhusker is TREED"
I hope everybody reads this thread,leave out the bong part and see how Sandhusker dances around the truth just like the true blue R-CALFer that he is.
You talk big about truth but when we point out inconsistancies in a article you post you still dance around . old Cassius Clay had nothing on you.
I'm treed? :lol: :lol: Who is the one talking about this injunction, but can't seem to bring any details on it? I'll ask you again, what injunction are you talking about?
Take a step back there Sandy. Actually BMR brought it up
Quote:
Leo said" We would prefer the U.S. government spend more time working to harmonize BSE standards around the globe, and less time on the now stalled WTO negotiations. That sort of adjustment would actually help U.S. cattle producers."
Isn't that what the USDA and Canada were doing when R-CALF filed the injunction?
To which you replied Quote:
First of all, R-CALF's injunction was not directed towards the US and Canada's dealings with the WTO on BSE. The injunction was filed in Billings, but Brussels. I realize they both begin with the letter "B", but the similarities end there.
Secondly, the US and Canada were stumping the WTO to LOWER standards. My thesaurus doensn't link "lower" with "harmonize".
Duh.........d'ya think that was the injunction I was talking about?
Now I bet you will tell me it's all in the archives. Your pattern is pretty predictable but your powder was wet on page 1.
No time to play patty-cake with you today Sandhusker. We all know your M.O. and how you spin and twist in the wind.
Sandhusker
Well-known member
What injunction? I don't there is any relationship between any injunction filed by R-CALF and US/Canadian discussions with the WTO.
