R-CALF, the democratic party of the cattle/beef industry.

[Anonymous]

Sandman: "Example after example has been provided you, including a direct quote from Newt Gingrich stating it plain and simple. If you choose to put your head in the sand, so be it. Knowledge is power, and your refusal to face the facts only weakens you. Your choice and no skin off of mine."

You offered no examples of substance.

You offered "theory", "speculation" and "opinion" just like always.



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandman: "Example after example has been provided you, including a direct quote from Newt Gingrich stating it plain and simple. If you choose to put your head in the sand, so be it. Knowledge is power, and your refusal to face the facts only weakens you. Your choice and no skin off of mine."

You offered no examples of substance.

You offered "theory", "speculation" and "opinion" just like always.



~SH~

Like I said, SH, knowledge is power and your refusal to face the facts only weakens you. If you want to be a fool, fine with me.

 

[Anonymous]

Knowledge is not based on "speculation", "theory", "conjecture" and "opinion", knowledge is based on facts.

Stay in your comfort zone of making statements rather than providing facts to back your position Sandman. You and your beloved R-CULT can keep getting your collective heads handed to you in a court of law where facts rule the day.

The only sovereignty we give up with NAFTA or CAFTA is what we CHOOSE to give up for a greater good.

NAFTA has been positive for cattle/beef trade and CAFTA will simply add to that.

You cannot offer anything to the contrary other than unsupported allegations and rhetoric.




~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "The only sovereignty we give up with NAFTA or CAFTA is what we CHOOSE to give up for a greater good."

So are you finally admitting that we are giving up sovereignity with these trade agreements?

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman: "So are you finally admitting that we are giving up sovereignity with these trade agreements?"

Not at all.

I'm stating that in trade negotiations you may choose to compromise your position FOR A GREATER GOOD.

That is not giving up your sovereignty.

You want to focus only on what we CHOOSE to give up.

I am focused on what we GAINED by what we CHOSE to give up.

Bottom line, we have a choice and you will offer nothing to the contrary.



~SH~

 

[Mike]

I'm stating that in trade negotiations you may choose to compromise your position FOR A GREATER GOOD.

So why did you not agree to testing for the Japs? That would have been for a greater good. In fact, a hell of a lot gooder than what we have now.

 

[Sandhusker]

I"m confused, SH. You say, "The only sovereignity we give up...." and then you say we don't give up sovereignity. Which way is it?

Second question; What position are we compromising?

 

[Anonymous]

Mike: "So why did you not agree to testing for the Japs? That would have been for a greater good."

You are wrong Mike!

Consumer deception is not "the greater good".

When "BSE TESTED" imples "BSE FREE" but does not guarantee "BSE FREE", that is placing money over honesty and integrity.

If we had a BSE test that would RELIABLY detect BSE in cattle under 24 months of age, I would consider it.

Sandman: "I'm confused, SH."

That has already been established a long time ago.

Sandman: "You say, "The only sovereignity we give up...." and then you say we don't give up sovereignity. Which way is it?"

"Giving up our sovereignty" as you state is for the U.S. to give up any and all control of any decision making to foreign rule.

"Compromising" in a trade negotiation is giving up A DEGREE OF SOVEREIGNTY during negotiations for a greater good WILLINGLY.

For example, if Japan would agree to import cattle less than 24 months of age without testing, we would give up A DEGREE OF SOVEREIGNTY to segregate cattle less than 24 months of age so we wouldn't have to conduct expensive, unnecessary testing on cattle less than 24 months of age.

If Japan had agreed to that, did we give up our sovereignty in that situation or did we "compromise" and give up "A DEGREE OF SOVEREIGNTY" for a greater good?

I don't expect an R-CALFer to understand what "compromise in trade negotiations" means when you support lying about the safety of Canadian beef to stop Canadian imports.

You and I will never agree because you are deceptive and I am not.



~SH~

 

[Mike]

SH:"I'm stating that in trade negotiations you may choose to compromise your position FOR A GREATER GOOD. "

Mike:"So why did you not agree to testing for the Japs? That would have been for a greater good. In fact, a hell of a lot gooder than what we have now."


SH:

You are wrong Mike!
Consumer deception is not "the greater good".

When "BSE TESTED" imples "BSE FREE" but does not guarantee "BSE FREE", that is placing money over honesty and integrity.

If we had a BSE test that would RELIABLY detect BSE in cattle under 24 months of age, I would consider it.

No, I'm not wrong, BSE testing only implies BSE tested. SRM removal does not guarantee "BSE FREE" either. It's just that the odds are lowered - as is in testing. You don't really think that "ALL" CNS material is removed from cattle do you?

Prionics Check Western Test has a 100% reliability factor in detecting animals with prions, AT ANY AGE - as the USDA recently found out. How much more "RELIABLE" do you want? :???:

Let's see.........We have established that you agree to "CAVING" on; 1- sovereignty on the Cafta agreement, 2- the SRM removal differences for the Japs, 3- age differentiation for the Japs but you don't agree with testing in order to save 5-7 BILLION dollars? and maybe the future of some smaller packers who have built their business based on overseas trade?

 

[HAY MAKER]

SH:"I'm stating that in trade negotiations you may choose to compromise your position FOR A GREATER GOOD. "

Mike:"So why did you not agree to testing for the Japs? That would have been for a greater good. In fact, a hell of a lot gooder than what we have now."


SH:

You are wrong Mike!
Consumer deception is not "the greater good".

When "BSE TESTED" imples "BSE FREE" but does not guarantee "BSE FREE", that is placing money over honesty and integrity.

If we had a BSE test that would RELIABLY detect BSE in cattle under 24 months of age, I would consider it.

No, I'm not wrong, BSE testing only implies BSE tested. SRM removal does not guarantee "BSE FREE" either. It's just that the odds are lowered - as is in testing. You don't really think that "ALL" CNS material is removed from cattle do you?

Prionics Check Western Test has a 100% reliability factor in detecting animals with prions, AT ANY AGE - as the USDA recently found out. How much more "RELIABLE" do you want? :???:

Let's see.........We have established that you agree to "CAVING" on; 1- sovereignty on the Cafta agreement, 2- the SRM removal differences for the Japs, 3- age differentiation for the Japs but you don't agree with testing in order to save 5-7 BILLION dollars? and maybe the future of some smaller packers who have built their business based on overseas trade?

That is the funniest goddamn thing I have heard all week,~SH**~using the words integrity and honesty,sorry damn packer lover would'nt know either one if they bit him in his packer loving ass............good luck

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, ""Giving up our sovereignty" as you state is for the U.S. to give up any and all control of any decision making to foreign rule."

Wrong. I never stated we give up any and ALL. I will state that giving up ANY should be unacceptable to any US citizen or constitutionalist.

SH, ""Compromising" in a trade negotiation is giving up A DEGREE OF SOVEREIGNTY during negotiations for a greater good WILLINGLY."

It sounds like you are telling us the ends justify the means. Who was emphaticlly stating "WRITE IT DOWN" just a few weeks ago. You flip-flopped from complete denial to justification.

SH, "For example, if Japan would agree to import cattle less than 24 months of age without testing, we would give up A DEGREE OF SOVEREIGNTY to segregate cattle less than 24 months of age so we wouldn't have to conduct expensive, unnecessary testing on cattle less than 24 months of age."

:lol: :lol: You obviously don't even know the definiton of "sovereignity". Look it up.

SH, "If Japan had agreed to that, did we give up our sovereignty in that situation or did we "compromise" and give up "A DEGREE OF SOVEREIGNTY" for a greater good?"

Sovereignity has nothing to do with it! :lol: That would of simply been a trade agreement bound by a paper document.

SH, "You and I will never agree because you are deceptive and I am not."

Yep, deception is my middle name! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

Hayseed, go wake your mom.

When you have the intelligence to PROVE where anything I have stated is untrue, BRING IT.

Until then, keep talking because that's all you'll ever have in BOARNE, TX BY GAWD, is cheap talk and cheap whiskey!

Mike: "No, I'm not wrong, BSE testing only implies BSE tested."

Hahaha!

How do you figure? If it's "BSE tested", it's "BSE tested" but it sure as heck isn't "BSE free". There's no implication.

Mike: "It's just that the odds are lowered - as is in testing."

The odds are not lowered with a test that will not reveal anything on cattle younger than 24 months of age which is precisely where testing methodology was when Creekstone made their request.

Don't try to drag Creekstone's testing methodology of the past into potential testing methodology of the future.

That would be pretty Sandhusker of you.

Mike: "You don't really think that "ALL" CNS material is removed from cattle do you?"

Your proof that it's not is.....................

NON EXISTANT?

Mike: "Prionics Check Western Test has a 100% reliability factor in detecting animals with prions, AT ANY AGE - as the USDA recently found out. How much more "RELIABLE" do you want?"

That's your opinion. Frankly, I don't believe you.

Mike: "Let's see.........We have established that you agree to "CAVING" on; 1- sovereignty on the Cafta agreement,"

Compromising is not giving up sovereignty.

Any trade negotiation involves compromise. You don't get everything and give nothing in return.

Mike: "The SRM removal differences for the Japs,"

Haven't even commented on that but it sounded good to you didn't it?

Mike: "3- age differentiation for the Japs but you don't agree with testing in order to save 5-7 BILLION dollars?"

We either segregate cattle less than 24 months of age or have no market.

Nobody has ever offered proof that the Japanese parliament would take our beef if it was tested. To the contrary, we have seen where Japan has agreed that testing cattle less than 24 months of age is unnecessary.

You got nothing here!

Mike: "and maybe the future of some smaller packers who have built their business based on overseas trade?"

Like I said, you 100% testing advocates have never offered proof that the Japanese parliament would take our beef if it was tested.

Empty chamber!



~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman: "I will state that giving up ANY should be unacceptable to any US citizen or constitutionalist."

I'll take that as your admission that the U.S. should never negotiate anything to get something greater in return. Figures!

Sandman: "It sounds like you are telling us the ends justify the means. Who was emphaticlly stating "WRITE IT DOWN" just a few weeks ago. You flip-flopped from complete denial to justification."

Typical deceptive spin job!

"WRITE IT DOWN" that the U.S. will never give up our sovereignty to any foreign rule, PERIOD.

If we chose to compromise in one area to gain in another during trade negotiations, that is not giving up our sovereignty to foreign rule, that is WILLINGLY CHOOSING to negotiate for a greater good.

Like I said, I realize you cannot relate to a compromising situation. Deceiving Japan and lying about Canada is more your style.

Sandman: "Yep, deception is my middle name!"

I never had any doubt.



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandman: "I will state that giving up ANY should be unacceptable to any US citizen or constitutionalist."

I'll take that as your admission that the U.S. should never negotiate anything to get something greater in return. Figures!

My Reply; You're putting words in my mouth. I never said nor implied such. I will say that some things are simply not negotiable, and US sovereignity is one of those things.

Sandman: "It sounds like you are telling us the ends justify the means. Who was emphaticlly stating "WRITE IT DOWN" just a few weeks ago. You flip-flopped from complete denial to justification."

Typical deceptive spin job! "WRITE IT DOWN" that the U.S. will never give up our sovereignty to any foreign rule, PERIOD. If we chose to compromise in one area to gain in another during trade negotiations, that is not giving up our sovereignty to foreign rule, that is WILLINGLY CHOOSING to negotiate for a greater good.

My reply; We have to conform to what to what the WTO, NAFTA, and now CAFTA judges hand down to us. You do what they say or you pay a penalty. Telling them to jump in a lake or ignoring the ruling is not an option. That, SH, is submitting to a foreign power, which is a loss of sovereignity. You can paint it up anyway you choose, but you can't (well, YOU can :roll: ) ignore the facts. WRITE IT DOWN, it has already happened.

Like I said, I realize you cannot relate to a compromising situation. Deceiving Japan and lying about Canada is more your style.

My Reply; Post for us the definition of deception and show us how it applies to Japan. On second thought, forget it. It won't do you any good. You still haven't answered my question on what we are giving up for this "greater good".




~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman: "I will say that some things are simply not negotiable, and US sovereignity is one of those things."

So are you suggesting that we should not compromise our position at all. If we want to export cattle less than 30 months of age to Japan and they say we will only take cattle less than 24 months, are you saying we should not give up any sovereignty in that situation?

Yes we should negotiate.
No we should not negotiate.

Time to dance!

Sandman: "We have to conform to what to what the WTO, NAFTA, and now CAFTA judges hand down to us. You do what they say or you pay a penalty. Telling them to jump in a lake or ignoring the ruling is not an option. That, SH, is submitting to a foreign power, which is a loss of sovereignity. You can paint it up anyway you choose, but you can't (well, YOU can ) ignore the facts. WRITE IT DOWN, it has already happened."

We don't have to conform to anything unless we choose to. The WTO told the U.S. to ban the steel foothold trap or we would lose the EU market for our fur. The U.S. trappers told the WTO to go to hell. We lost the EU market. So don't blow your fear mongering smoke at me.

R-CULT's actions to stop the closing of the Canadian border proves you wrong.

This is just one more of your never ending empty unsupported arguments.

Sandman: "You still haven't answered my question on what we are giving up for this "greater good".

I already answered that but, as always, you failed to comprehend the answer.

Again, If Japan was willing to take cattle less than 24 months of age without deceptive testing, then we would have to segregate cattle less than 24 months of age for access to the Japanese market.

What are we giving up? The inconvenience of having to segregate cattle under 24 months of age.


Still no comprende'?


~SH

 

[Sandhusker]

It's pointless to continue until you know what sovereignity means. Go and look it up and then come back. You are using the term totally incorrectly.

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "The WTO told the U.S. to ban the steel foothold trap or we would lose the EU market for our fur. The U.S. trappers told the WTO to go to hell. We lost the EU market"

I did a little quick research on that. It appears you're wrong.

 

[Anonymous]

Sovereignty is defined as "SUPREME RULE". In this case, giving up our "sovereignty" means giving up our power to a foreign government.

Don't try to redefine words with me Sandman.

Sandman: "I did a little quick research on that. It appears you're wrong."

"IT APPEARS", how Bullard of you.

Prove it instead of making one more of your many unsupported allegations.



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Sovereignty is defined as "SUPREME RULE". In this case, giving up our "sovereignty" means giving up our power to a foreign government.

SH, "Don't try to redefine words with me Sandman."

My Reply; I'm not redefining anything. I'm seeking a common definition and now we have one. With that in mind, please read the following and then tell me if Mr. Gingrich is lying or mistaken - or if you are wrong again; Mr. Gingrich said about GATT/WTO, "We are transferring from the United States at a practical level significant authority to a new organization... This is not just another trade agreement. This adopting something which twice, once in the 1940s and once in the 1950s, the U.S. Congress rejected... It is a very big transfer of power."

Notice the words TRANSFER OF POWER and your definition of giving up sovereignity of GIVING UP OUR POWER. Are you still going to tell us we are not losing sovereignity? :roll:

Sandman: "I did a little quick research on that. It appears you're wrong."

Mr. S. Huber, ""IT APPEARS", how Bullard of you. Prove it instead of making one more of your many unsupported allegations."

My Reply; An agreement between the EU, Canada and the US was reached before the dispute went before the WTO as the writing was on the wall that the EU would lose their case. You claim the US told the WTO to "go to hell", when in fact, the case never even made it that far. One would expect that if you put this case up as an example, you would know more about it. How un-Bullard of you.



~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

Sandhusker: "Are you still going to tell us we are not losing sovereignity?"

Yes, I am still going to tell you that we are not losing sovereignty.

If we give something up IT'S TO GET SOMETHING IN RETURN and we make the choice. That is not giving up our sovereignty, that is negotiating terms that are agreeable to both parties.

Newt Gingrich is simply stating caution that we do not give too much up in our efforts to gain.

Being the blamer you are, you would naturally only focus on what we gave up rather than what we gained.



~SH~