pappy
Member
~SH~ said:
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.
Help Support Ranchers.net:
A
Anonymous
Guest
No Pappy, the majority of U.S. cattle producers do not support R-CULT.
Why?
Because they are a lying, deceptive, conspiracy driven organization that thinks government mandates are the solution to their "PERCEIVED" problems.
They do not form opinions based on facts, they base their opinions on someone else's opinions.
Sandhusker,
DOES THE WTO MAKE LAWS?
YES OR NO?
Just answer the question and quit diverting.
~SH~
Why?
Because they are a lying, deceptive, conspiracy driven organization that thinks government mandates are the solution to their "PERCEIVED" problems.
They do not form opinions based on facts, they base their opinions on someone else's opinions.
Sandhusker,
DOES THE WTO MAKE LAWS?
YES OR NO?
Just answer the question and quit diverting.
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Pappy, R-CALF membership has grown by over 8000 this past year. What does that tell you?
Sandhusker
Well-known member
SH, NO, the WTO does not make laws.
I believe you must of overlooked these questions I posed to you, I'll post them again; How can there be consequences if there is no power? If the WTO can only make recommendations, why would it even exist?
I believe you must of overlooked these questions I posed to you, I'll post them again; How can there be consequences if there is no power? If the WTO can only make recommendations, why would it even exist?
pappy
Member
Not sure this was done right. So I will do it again...............Could somebody explain to me(Canadian), if the American Rancher supports R-Calf or not :? Why?
pappy
Member
~SH~ said:No Pappy, the majority of U.S. cattle producers do not support R-CULT.
Why?
Because they are a lying, deceptive, conspiracy driven organization that thinks government mandates are the solution to their "PERCEIVED" problems.
They do not form opinions based on facts, they base their opinions on someone else's opinions.
THEN WHY IS THERE NO MEDIA OUTCRY IN THE STATES. OUR PERCEPTION IS THAT R-CALF ARE GETTING MORE POWERFUL?? :shock:
Sandhusker,
DOES THE WTO MAKE LAWS?
YES OR NO?
Just answer the question and quit diverting.
~SH~
A
Anonymous
Guest
Sandman, I'm not going to wait around for you to not answer my question.
The answer to my question is NO, the WTO does not make laws.
Edit: I see you did answer my question as I was typing this.
The WTO is a body of representatives from various nations that make recommendations to various countries regarding trade issues or unfair trade practices.
Their power is limited to whether or not the various countries involved in the WTO abide by the recommendations of the WTO.
If the WTO's recommendations are followed, yes that can mean negative consequences at times BUT THAT IS ONLY PART OF TRADE NEGOTIATIONS. You still have three choices in that matter. Stand your ground and face trade sanctions, abide by the recommendation, or don't trade.
Two of those choices defeat your stupid argument about "giving up our sovereignty to foreign rule".
Many of the examples that Mike presented were WTO recommendations in favor of the U.S.
You forgot to mention that didn't you? Of course you did.
There is a simple way to avoid any chance of having to abide by a WTO "RECOMMENDATION" Sandman. DON'T TRADE!!!!!
Bullard wants "isolationism", is that what you want?
I can't believe how you guys will grab on to some mindless concept like "GIVING UP OUR SOVEREIGNTY" and feed on it like sharks in a feeding frenzy when "giving something up" during trade negotiations is only half the equation.
When you trade, at times you have to compromise. That means giving one thing up TO GAIN SOMETHING ELSE.
YOU STILL HAVE A CHOICE IN THE MATTER.
Your position on trade negotiations ("giving up our sovereignty") is just like R-CULT's focus on the import side of the beef trade equation. You don't talk about exports nor do you talk about what we gain in trade negotiations. ALL YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT IS WHAT WE GIVE UP.
What's your damn point anyway Sandman or don't you have one again?
You don't want to trade because you might have to give something up ("give up our sovereignty") to get something in return during negotiations. IS THAT YOUR POINT?"
That would directly contradict your willingness to throw Japan a bone with your consumer deception plan with BSE tested beef.
It never ceases to amaze me how much "fools gold" you chase after. This is just one more example.
~SH~
The answer to my question is NO, the WTO does not make laws.
Edit: I see you did answer my question as I was typing this.
The WTO is a body of representatives from various nations that make recommendations to various countries regarding trade issues or unfair trade practices.
Their power is limited to whether or not the various countries involved in the WTO abide by the recommendations of the WTO.
If the WTO's recommendations are followed, yes that can mean negative consequences at times BUT THAT IS ONLY PART OF TRADE NEGOTIATIONS. You still have three choices in that matter. Stand your ground and face trade sanctions, abide by the recommendation, or don't trade.
Two of those choices defeat your stupid argument about "giving up our sovereignty to foreign rule".
Many of the examples that Mike presented were WTO recommendations in favor of the U.S.
You forgot to mention that didn't you? Of course you did.
There is a simple way to avoid any chance of having to abide by a WTO "RECOMMENDATION" Sandman. DON'T TRADE!!!!!
Bullard wants "isolationism", is that what you want?
I can't believe how you guys will grab on to some mindless concept like "GIVING UP OUR SOVEREIGNTY" and feed on it like sharks in a feeding frenzy when "giving something up" during trade negotiations is only half the equation.
When you trade, at times you have to compromise. That means giving one thing up TO GAIN SOMETHING ELSE.
YOU STILL HAVE A CHOICE IN THE MATTER.
Your position on trade negotiations ("giving up our sovereignty") is just like R-CULT's focus on the import side of the beef trade equation. You don't talk about exports nor do you talk about what we gain in trade negotiations. ALL YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT IS WHAT WE GIVE UP.
What's your damn point anyway Sandman or don't you have one again?
You don't want to trade because you might have to give something up ("give up our sovereignty") to get something in return during negotiations. IS THAT YOUR POINT?"
That would directly contradict your willingness to throw Japan a bone with your consumer deception plan with BSE tested beef.
It never ceases to amaze me how much "fools gold" you chase after. This is just one more example.
~SH~
A
Anonymous
Guest
Pappy: "THEN WHY IS THERE NO MEDIA OUTCRY IN THE STATES. OUR PERCEPTION IS THAT R-CALF ARE GETTING MORE POWERFUL??"
That's an excellent question Pappy!
The media should have taken R-CULT to task on their lies and hypocrisy regarding their position on the safety of Canadian beef and live cattle.
I can only believe the reason the media has not picked up on R-CULT's lies and deception is because the media is usually interested in sensationalism, not righting the wrongs.
Much of the media is liberal and shares the same anti corporate victim mentality of the R-CULTers.
Another reason may be that the media is simply complacent on this issue as BSE has not been a big problem.
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
This will be my last post. Like I've said before, it's your choice to live in denial and stupidity if you choose. First some parting shots;
You've twisted yourself so tight in denial, you can't even remember what your position is. Check out this
Quote:
Sandman: "If not sovereignity, what are we giving up with the WTO?"
Your answer, "Nothing!", followed by this statement, "When you trade, at times you have to compromise. That means giving one thing up TO GAIN SOMETHING ELSE. "
We give NOTHING up, but then we give up ONE THING? How many times did I ask you what we give up? Six? You danced and danced and finally said, "nothing", but now there is one thing? What is that "one thing", SH? WHAT IS IT? WHAT IS IT? WHAT IS IT?
You say the WTO can only offer suggestions, but then admit there are "consequences"! I've been chuckling over that assinine statement all day! I"ll ask you this for the THIRD TIME; HOW CAN THERE BE CONSEQUENCES IF THERE IS NO POWER?
Here is my point, SH. In order for the WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA, etc... to be enforceable, they have to have power. In order for them to get power, we have to recognize their authority and give them that power. In giving up power (remember your definition?), we are giving up sovereignity. It's that %$#***& simple, SH. I challenged you several times to ask your hero, Agman, on this forum where we all could see your question and his answer if we give up sovereignity or not. You refuse, you ignore, you duck and dodge the challenge. You're just a mouthy coward, SH.
In your rantings, you've claimed that R-CALF justifies the ends of higher profits by the means of hurting Canadians, and then you follow that with
" ALL YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT IS WHAT WE GIVE UP." The ends of what we get justify the means. You, SH, are a hypocrite.
Anybody hurting enough for entertainment has followed this thread and has seen the depths of your denial and thick head. Once again, you've done a nice job recruiting more R-CALF members. Don't ask me to provide any more facts on anything as you've shown here facts mean nothing to you if you don't like them. Enjoy your stupidy, SH. You'll get far.
My apologies to everybody else, but sometimes you've got to call a spade a spade.
You've twisted yourself so tight in denial, you can't even remember what your position is. Check out this
Quote:
Sandman: "If not sovereignity, what are we giving up with the WTO?"
Your answer, "Nothing!", followed by this statement, "When you trade, at times you have to compromise. That means giving one thing up TO GAIN SOMETHING ELSE. "
We give NOTHING up, but then we give up ONE THING? How many times did I ask you what we give up? Six? You danced and danced and finally said, "nothing", but now there is one thing? What is that "one thing", SH? WHAT IS IT? WHAT IS IT? WHAT IS IT?
You say the WTO can only offer suggestions, but then admit there are "consequences"! I've been chuckling over that assinine statement all day! I"ll ask you this for the THIRD TIME; HOW CAN THERE BE CONSEQUENCES IF THERE IS NO POWER?
Here is my point, SH. In order for the WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA, etc... to be enforceable, they have to have power. In order for them to get power, we have to recognize their authority and give them that power. In giving up power (remember your definition?), we are giving up sovereignity. It's that %$#***& simple, SH. I challenged you several times to ask your hero, Agman, on this forum where we all could see your question and his answer if we give up sovereignity or not. You refuse, you ignore, you duck and dodge the challenge. You're just a mouthy coward, SH.
In your rantings, you've claimed that R-CALF justifies the ends of higher profits by the means of hurting Canadians, and then you follow that with
" ALL YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT IS WHAT WE GIVE UP." The ends of what we get justify the means. You, SH, are a hypocrite.
Anybody hurting enough for entertainment has followed this thread and has seen the depths of your denial and thick head. Once again, you've done a nice job recruiting more R-CALF members. Don't ask me to provide any more facts on anything as you've shown here facts mean nothing to you if you don't like them. Enjoy your stupidy, SH. You'll get far.
My apologies to everybody else, but sometimes you've got to call a spade a spade.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Sandman: "Like I've said before, it's your choice to live in denial and stupidity if you choose."
You'd be the one who would know about denial and stupidity. That basically describes your whole being.
What am I denying?
You won't answer that because it's more your style to simply make the allegation. Why the hell start backing anything you say now, YOU NEVER HAVE BEFORE?
Sandman: "We give NOTHING up, but then we give up ONE THING? How many times did I ask you what we give up?"
We don't give up anything unless we chose to give something up to gain something in negotiations.
What's so hard to understand about that?
Why do you insist on being such a complete idiot all the time?
WE HAVE A CHOICE!
If we don't want to give anything up, we don't have to trade.
Sandman: "What is that "one thing", SH? WHAT IS IT? WHAT IS IT? WHAT IS IT?"
If we do decide to negotiate something to get something else, WHAT WE GIVE UP WOULD DEPEND ON WHAT WE WERE NEGOTIATING SO HOW THE HELL COULD I POSSIBLY ANSWER YOUR STUPID QUESTION WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT IS BEING NEGOTIATED?????
Quit acting like such an idiot.
If you are going to ask questions, ask something that makes sense.
I already gave you an example and you just can't get it through your skull. If Japan agreed to allow us to import cattle less than 24 months of age, we would be giving up exporting cattle over 24 months of age. I ALREADY TOLD YOU THAT. THAT IS WHAT WE WOULD BE GIVING UP IN THAT SITUATION.
You still can't get it can you?
Sandman: " HOW CAN THERE BE CONSEQUENCES IF THERE IS NO POWER?"
Why should I explain this again?
I already told you if a country takes the WTO's recommendation and issues sanctions against another country, those are the consequences. The WTO did not issue the sanctions, they simply recommended them to a particular country. The recommendation to issue sanctions may come from the WTO but the individual country still has the choice of whether to initiate them or not.
Sandman: " Here is my point, SH. In order for the WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA, etc... to be enforceable, they have to have power. In order for them to get power, we have to recognize their authority and give them that power. In giving up power (remember your definition?), we are giving up sovereignity. It's that %$#***& simple, SH."
The individual countries have the power of negotiation, just like we do. We don't have to recognize their authority beyond what we are willing to compromise FOR SOMETHING WE NEED. WE STILL HAVE THE CHOICE IN EVERY SITUATION SO WE DO NOT GIVE UP OUR SOVEREIGNTY.
NEGOTIATING DURING TRADE IS NOT GIVING UP OUR SOVEREIGNTY
Sandman: "You, SH, are a hypocrite."
No, I would be a hypocrite if I was suggesting that Canadian beef is "high risk" due to BSE in their native herd than stating that "we have the safest beef in the world" when we have BSE in our native herd after stating that "the USDA has not gone far enough to assure the safety of our beef".
Now that is a hypocrite.
Giving up something in a trade negotiation TO GAIN SOMETHING OF MORE VALUE is hardly comparable to lying your butt off about the safety of Canadian beef to stop Canadian imports.
Keeping drinking that R-CULT kool aid. They need more deceptive pathetic individuals like you.
~SH~
pappy said:~SH~ said:No Pappy, the majority of U.S. cattle producers do not support R-CULT.
Why?
Because they are a lying, deceptive, conspiracy driven organization that thinks government mandates are the solution to their "PERCEIVED" problems.
They do not form opinions based on facts, they base their opinions on someone else's opinions.
THEN WHY IS THERE NO MEDIA OUTCRY IN THE STATES. OUR PERCEPTION IS THAT R-CALF ARE GETTING MORE POWERFUL?? :shock:
Sandhusker,
DOES THE WTO MAKE LAWS?
YES OR NO?
Just answer the question and quit diverting.
~SH~
Pappy, when you asked "why is there no media outcry in the states" re. R-CALF not having massive support of ranchers, it seems to me that much of the ag media in the strongest R-CALF states (the Dakotas, MT, WY and western NE) are heavily dependent on auction markets for advertising. They wouldn't want to anger a "sugar daddy" so strongly supportive of R-CALF. It has been reported in some media that the attendance at their annual meetings only runs to a couple of hundred people. The highly promoted "every producer gets a vote on convention issues without attending" seems to me to result in a rubber stamp of voting actions of those attending the conventions. Personally I see it as more a flash-in-the-pan outfit that will run it's course, as have many top-down, single officer dominated, narrowly focused, emotion based organizations of the past. It appears to me that Pat Goggins had a very strong hand in creating this new organization for the sole purpose of punishing NCBA over the members turning down some of his issues and aspirations. R-C....does excell at getting news releases out, and they appear to support private property rights, but I believe their demise will be due to demanding the government say who can and who cannot own cattle and/or how a rancher may or may not market his cattle. Most viable businessmen, including ranchers, can only play the blame game for a while before they see that it gets them further behind, IMO. The blame game is the easy way.....learning and taking action to make ones' business work better is harder, but more rewarding over time.
MRJ
