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

R CALFs decline?????

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
HAY MAKER said:
I believe you are over reacting MISS TAM,like you used to on AG ON LINE when some one would post some thing you didnt like you would call the web police.You hollered so loud over there you finally had them censor the site so bad some of us come over here,and guess who followed????.........good luck

I think you are sippin a little to much Whiskey this morning Haymaker why don't you just put the glass down and go upstairs and sleep it off. Maybe when you get up your mind will be a little clearer and you will remember that I was not the one that was name calling and caused the censorship. I have never changed the way I post and I bet you will not find a post where I used filthy language and name calling but I have be on the receiving end a few times haven't I Haymaker?
By the way the only time I email the Ag on line was to say I thought the censors were going a little over board taking off some of the post they did.
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
Just a couple months ago NCBA stated their membership was over 26,000. Now they are saying it is more than 25,000. That is one thousand in just a couple months. Looks like they are losing members daily and at a pretty good rate. Won't be long at this rate R-CALF will overtake them

Might be a stupid question, but is 26,001 over 26,000 and also 25,999 is over 25,000?

They might have only lost two members, I'm sure that many could have passed away in two months!

Some people make the biggest deal out of the smallest of statements!
 

frenchie

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
564
Reaction score
0
Location
nw manitoba
HAY MAKER said:
Manitoba_Rancher said:
HAY MAKER said:
manitoba rancher ,not every one is married to a transvestite,like you and franchie are,I know you canuckle heads like to get into this kinky stuff, but around here we like em all woman................good luck PS and when I said "you" Miss Tam I meant you as a canadian rancher it was a general description,not you personally,I believe # 1 you knew that and are trying to garner a lil sympathy? and or you are dumber than I thought?........good luck


lifes to short to drink cheap whiskey or chase ugly woman " LOL

Then whats your husbands excuse Rosie.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Murgen said:
Just a couple months ago NCBA stated their membership was over 26,000. Now they are saying it is more than 25,000. That is one thousand in just a couple months. Looks like they are losing members daily and at a pretty good rate. Won't be long at this rate R-CALF will overtake them

Might be a stupid question, but is 26,001 over 26,000 and also 25,999 is over 25,000?

They might have only lost two members, I'm sure that many could have passed away in two months!

Some people make the biggest deal out of the smallest of statements!

But we all know how R-CALFers like to round numbers up when they are talking about themselves but round down when they talk about the other guy. Just look at the testing 45,000 head average according to R-CALF when the US never tested over 42,269 a month yet and Canada's average is 5258 and have decided to reduce testing when Canada tested 23550 in 2004 and in 4 months have tested 21347 head in 2005 and that didn't include the number tested in the last week of April even so 21347 divided by 4 is 5336.75. Rounded up by 2,731 for US round down by 78 head for Canada
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
5
Location
Texas
Tam said:
Murgen said:
Just a couple months ago NCBA stated their membership was over 26,000. Now they are saying it is more than 25,000. That is one thousand in just a couple months. Looks like they are losing members daily and at a pretty good rate. Won't be long at this rate R-CALF will overtake them

Might be a stupid question, but is 26,001 over 26,000 and also 25,999 is over 25,000?

They might have only lost two members, I'm sure that many could have passed away in two months!

Some people make the biggest deal out of the smallest of statements!

But we all know how R-CALFers like to round numbers up when they are talking about themselves but round down when they talk about the other guy. Just look at the testing 45,000 head average according to R-CALF when the US never tested over 42,269 a month yet and Canada's average is 5258 and have decided to reduce testing when Canada tested 23550 in 2004 and in 4 months have tested 21347 head in 2005 and that didn't include the number tested in the last week of April even so 21347 divided by 4 is 5336.75. Rounded up by 2,731 for US round down by 78 head for Canada

Je n'y crois pas à ces conneries.............BONNE CHANCE!!!!!
 

Manitoba_Rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,117
Reaction score
0
Location
Canada
haymaker your even dumber than OT. I think if you came to Canada you'd be a marked man, as Tam would likely kick the snot outta you!!! As many posts as i read about you and whiskey I think your a drunk who likes to sit around and dream up things! :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
Je n'y crois pas à ces conneries.............BONNE CHANCE!!!!!

Once again, this would be one of those meaningless statements.

Haymaker, please translate your bad french. Us people who live in igloos, don't understand, we speak Inuit!

That was an insult against our heritage, wasn't it! We also have native Indians up here in Canada, why don't you go ahead and insult them too?
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
5
Location
Texas
Manitoba_Rancher said:
haymaker your even dumber than OT. I think if you came to Canada you'd be a marked man, as Tam would likely kick the snot outta you!!! As many posts as i read about you and whiskey I think your a drunk who likes to sit around and dream up things! :lol: :lol: :lol:

If and when I come to canada,you better hide all your whiskey and women,as far as MISS Tam it would take me every bit of 3 minutes to have her following me like a puppy dog,pullin my boots off and mixin
my whiskey.She would be the only female R CALFER in town,LOL.........good luck
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
She'd probably have to pull your boots off first thing, cause you've been wading in R-calf Bull sheet too long! (rubbers are probably rotten) I'd probably want to deal with your whiskey permeated socks too, instead of the R-calf bull sheet.
 

Manitoba_Rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,117
Reaction score
0
Location
Canada
Murgen said:
She'd probably have to pull your boots off first thing, cause you've been wading in R-calf Bull sheet too long! (rubbers are probably rotten) I'd probably want to deal with your whiskey permeated socks too, instead of the R-calf bull sheet.

Murgen,
HAve you heard the joke about Haymaker and his rubbers?


Why are haymaker and gay R-calfers alike? I m not going to say anymore... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
5
Location
Texas
Manitoba_Rancher said:
Murgen said:
She'd probably have to pull your boots off first thing, cause you've been wading in R-calf Bull sheet too long! (rubbers are probably rotten) I'd probably want to deal with your whiskey permeated socks too, instead of the R-calf bull sheet.

Murgen,
HAve you heard the joke about Haymaker and his rubbers?


Why are haymaker and gay R-calfers alike? I m not going to say anymore... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

MR I can answer that ,because we ----- canuckle heads?LOL .......good luck PS you know there aint any gays in R CALF they are all in canada
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Tam said:
Sandhusker said:
Tam said:
How many will still be members if they lose the lawsuits to NMA and Fair Market Beef and have to come up with the bond to cover damages to the US slaughter industry and the Canadian cattle industry because of their court actions. By what has been stated the members will have to come up with that bond. You better hope that the membership hits about 2 million fast or you are going to have a pretty heavy debt to pay Haymaker. :wink:

I offered to bet you whether or not R-CALF will have to pay a dime, Tam, a week or so. That offer still stands.

If you ask me Sandhusker they have already started to pay maybe not in dimes but better yet CREDIBILITY with statements like
R-CALF USA [has] never argued that there was a great risk to human health from resumed imports of cattle and beef from Canada."
Just what did that little Statement cost them in credibility? I don't care if I ever get back the $20 I gave Fair Market Beef That statement alone was worth $20. It proved to me they are lieing to a Judge in a court of law in Montana, three Judges in California, the US consumers, more than a few Congressmen, a few consumer groups and their membership. They have been telling anyone and everyone that will listen to them, that Canadian beef is tainted and a risk to human and animal health if allowed to be imported for months.
Sandhusker what do you think Judge Cebull thinks of his comment about Canadian beef presents a genuine risk of death to US consumers after R-CALF told the Court of Appeals "R-CALF USA [has] never argued that there was a great risk to human health from resumed imports of cattle and beef from Canada." AND On top of that R-CALF leadership defended R-CALF supporters rights to buy Canadian cattle and sell the processed meat into the US. Wouldn't that R-CALF owned beef present the same genuine risk of death Sandhusker?

I've been looking all over the net to find that quote from Bullard, and guess what? The only place I can find it is on the website of a paid hack.
I should of realized the first time I saw it that it needed verified. Until you can show me another source, I'll consider where it came from and consider it pure BS as the rest of the "foundation's" "releases".

R-CALF doesn't own any Canadian beef, Tam. Never has. If a R-CALF MEMBER bought Canadian cattle with the idea of bringing it down here, it would be their right. It is absolutely rediculous to demand that a member of any trade org, political party, etc... toe the party line. Do you do exactly as your political party suggests? What happens if two orginizations that you belong to take opposite stands on an issue?

I think Reader has it right. So many of you hate R-CALF so much, you lose all rational thought whenever they are concerned.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
When one of the primary donaters to R-CULT and his son who is a director of that organization are buying Canadian cattle that are "SUPPOSEDLY" a risk to human health, that is the epitomy of hypocrisy and only a complete idiot would defend it.

Then again, R-CULT has never been known for their integrity nor have you in your blind defense of their actions.



~SH~
 

TimH

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,421
Reaction score
0
Location
Southwest Manitoba
Hoooooo-Hummmm!!!!! Wake me up when R-calf represents more than 4% of American cattlemen!!!!!! Until then.... you do the math!!!!
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
When one of the primary donaters to R-CULT and his son who is a director of that organization are buying Canadian cattle that are "SUPPOSEDLY" a risk to human health, that is the epitomy of hypocrisy and only a complete idiot would defend it.

Then again, R-CULT has never been known for their integrity nor have you in your blind defense of their actions.



~SH~

That would make those members hypocrites, not the organization.

If you want an example of an organization taking a hypocritical stand, try one that supposedly supports private enterprise, but then supports banned private BSE testing.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
No Sandhusker,

It would make you and Leo McDonnel hypocrites for defending this action.



~SH~
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Sandhusker said:
Tam said:
Sandhusker said:
I offered to bet you whether or not R-CALF will have to pay a dime, Tam, a week or so. That offer still stands.

If you ask me Sandhusker they have already started to pay maybe not in dimes but better yet CREDIBILITY with statements like
R-CALF USA [has] never argued that there was a great risk to human health from resumed imports of cattle and beef from Canada."
Just what did that little Statement cost them in credibility? I don't care if I ever get back the $20 I gave Fair Market Beef That statement alone was worth $20. It proved to me they are lieing to a Judge in a court of law in Montana, three Judges in California, the US consumers, more than a few Congressmen, a few consumer groups and their membership. They have been telling anyone and everyone that will listen to them, that Canadian beef is tainted and a risk to human and animal health if allowed to be imported for months.
Sandhusker what do you think Judge Cebull thinks of his comment about Canadian beef presents a genuine risk of death to US consumers after R-CALF told the Court of Appeals "R-CALF USA [has] never argued that there was a great risk to human health from resumed imports of cattle and beef from Canada." AND On top of that R-CALF leadership defended R-CALF supporters rights to buy Canadian cattle and sell the processed meat into the US. Wouldn't that R-CALF owned beef present the same genuine risk of death Sandhusker?

I've been looking all over the net to find that quote from Bullard, and guess what? The only place I can find it is on the website of a paid hack.
I should of realized the first time I saw it that it needed verified. Until you can show me another source, I'll consider where it came from and consider it pure BS as the rest of the "foundation's" "releases".

R-CALF doesn't own any Canadian beef, Tam. Never has. If a R-CALF MEMBER bought Canadian cattle with the idea of bringing it down here, it would be their right. It is absolutely rediculous to demand that a member of any trade org, political party, etc... toe the party line. Do you do exactly as your political party suggests? What happens if two orginizations that you belong to take opposite stands on an issue?

I think Reader has it right. So many of you hate R-CALF so much, you lose all rational thought whenever they are concerned.
Taken from Cow Calf Weekly.
R-CALF Backs Away From Food Safety Claim
The National Meat Association (NMA) filed with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals its response brief in R-CALF v. USDA. NMA argues there is ample evidence in the record to sustain a finding that USDA's Final Rule presented no substantial risk to human health and that the preliminary injunction should never have been entered.

But, R-CALF's response filed with the Ninth Circuit last week makes this surprising admission, NMA says: "R-CALF USA [has] never argued that there was a great risk to human health from resumed imports of cattle and beef from Canada."

In the aftermath of this statement, NMA is asking: "If R-CALF has never argued there's a great risk to human health from resumed imports, what was the purpose of the advertisement it took out in the Washington Post, which clearly linked the Canadian BSE situation to U.S. beef safety? Don't they believe their own rhetoric?"

NMA says no one may be more surprised than the Billings, MT, District Court that delayed the border reopening on the basis of "an increased risk to human health," even describing a "genuine risk of death for U.S. consumers" in its decision.

"R-CALF's latter-day admission that there is no great risk to human health from resumed imports of Canadian cattle and beef utterly undermines the basis for the District Court's decision," NMA says.

Instead, NMA says R-CALF now claims USDA didn't do a proper quantitative analysis.

"Apparently R-CALF failed to read the Harvard Risk Assessment. Authored by leading world experts, that assessment is the quantitative analysis of risk with which USDA supported its Rule," NMA says.

See the brief at www.nmaonline.org/html/pr4_4_05.htm.
-- NMA's Lean Trimmings newsletter
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
R-CALF doesn't own any Canadian beef, Tam. Never has. If a R-CALF MEMBER bought Canadian cattle with the idea of bringing it down here, it would be their right. It is absolutely rediculous to demand that a member of any trade org, political party, etc... toe the party line.

Where did I say R-CALF owned anything I said RCALF supporters do and Leo and others defend it and this is whos family owns the most

Brett DeBruycker International Trade Committee Co-Chair

No wonder he is the international trade committee Co Chair could he be doing a little international trading of his own in the name of Canadian cattle. It is a joke that Leo defended these guys and then turn around and told the US consumer that the Canadian beef is tainted and unsafe for human consumption. Why wasn't he saying well we can't do anything about what some of our supporters do but no he said I don't see anything Ironic about it and So they have been doing it for years. Sound like he didn't have a problem with it to me.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Taint said:
TimH said:
Hoooooo-Hummmm!!!!! Wake me up when R-calf represents more than 4% of American cattlemen!!!!!! Until then.... you do the math!!!!
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I guarantee that while they are only 4% those 4% control a hell of a lot more cattle than the average NCBAer.

Probably more Canadian cattle too :wink: :lol: :lol:
 

Latest posts

Top