Silence please

[agman]

I have noted with interest that the ardent R-Calf supporters on this forum have been completely silent per the ruling to rescind Judge Cebull's order and reopen the border immediately. Where are their spinmisters?

Am I correct in assuming they are in mourning or are they in conference with none other than their fearless leaders and legal advisors and the legal staff of The Organization for Competitive Markets.

This is two strikes already, three if you count the failed dumping case. The next shoe to drop will be on the phony legal case brought against the packers by none other than Herman and a few of his phony cohorts. I can only hope when that charge gets shot out of the saddle that the companies whom they have charged will turn around and sue them for everything they are worth. Using the legal system at every whim as they now have chosen can become a two edged sword. Personally, I hope they get their day in court which they so ardently seek.

 

[redriver]

Amen. The day of reckoning is at hand.

 

[Grandad]

When the time comes, should those named in the lawsuits be restricted the the executive of r-calf or should the net be cast a little wider so as to include the voting members of this upstanding organization as well?

 

[the chief]

Perhaps agman, we don't come on to bitch and whine about crap like you do. And maybe we don't wait to shout "told you so" when we win.

You're such a BIG man, aren't you, when you have corporate interests and money on your side.

Your momma must be proud! :shock:

Hey, those of us fighting FOR the producer have learned over the years to accept defeat and move on. We have learned how to live with break even prices. We have learned how to live with unfair competitive practices. We will survive to fight another day for independence in the agricultural world.

Y'all be good to someone today.

 

[Anonymous]

What you R-CALFers never learn is that lies will not hold up in court!

R-CALF loses because they lie!

Did you actually think the legal system would allow Canadian beef to be considered "high risk" and U.S. beef to be considered "the safest beef in the world" UNDER THE SAME DAMN CIRCUMSTANCES????

The legal system isn't based on "OPINIONS", it's based on "FACTS".

You lost another one and as long as you continue to fabricate bullsh*t conspiracy theories, you will continue to lose.




~SH~

 

[Tam]

Perhaps agman, we don't come on to bitch and whine about crap like you do. And maybe we don't wait to shout "told you so" when we win.

You're such a BIG man, aren't you, when you have corporate interests and money on your side.

Your momma must be proud! :shock:

Hey, those of us fighting FOR the producer have learned over the years to accept defeat and move on. We have learned how to live with break even prices. We have learned how to live with unfair competitive practices. We will survive to fight another day for independence in the agricultural world.

Y'all be good to someone today.

I'm glad you have learned how to live with Defeat as by the looks of most of R-CALF's court cases you have had some practice at it. Maybe if you tried the truth you would have to live with defeat so often. :? :wink: That said, Does your statement mean you will not be appealling the court ruling if it happens to be against you on the 27th. Will you just accept the ruling and learn to live with it.

Y'all be good to someone today

I have every intention of be good to myself today as after the news of yesterday I think a celebration is in order.

 

[redriver]

R-cult's fat lawyer said that they would appeal all the way to the Supreme Court, but who says that the Supreme Court would even hear their appeal after such a solid defeat of cebull's obviously crooked ruling.
US ranchers can continue funnelling cash into r-cult, but all they're doing is supporting a bunch of greedy rich boys. They don't give a rat's behind about american producers in general, when are you all going to wake up?

 

[Sandhusker]

Hey, I'm here and haven't dropped my R-CALF membership. Don't plan to, either. So we lost a battle. That happens in a war, and the war will be ongoing.

Before some of you get wound up, the war is NOT against the Canadian producer. It's simply an effort to balance out the AMI's weight and influence with some of the US producer's.

We can all learn something here if we didn't know it already - economics trumps everything.

It would be nice to hear the court's reasoning. Has anybody come across it yet?

 

[ml]

Yep, I'm in mourning, or something similar to it. Trying to figure out how "I'll" make a living when the packers and Johans(sp) successfully drive prices back down to where it was before Atkins (not NCBA) brought the prices up. The packers (and the NCBA&USDA it appears) will only be happy when my 650lb weaned calves bring, once again, $500, as they gleefully import cattle from around the world into my market, the packers and NCBA will once again be thumping their chests saying how great life is and this is the way it should be for people to make a profit. Those of you making money from those corporate entities will continue lining your pockets while telling us cattlemen that we just need to tighten our belts and be more efficient. Before this good market came along there was nothing left to tighten and the only way to be more efficient was to quit ranching. Yeah, I'm looking forward to those days again.

As far as the 9th Circus goes, and I'm not a court watcher by any means, I do believe they've had more overturns than any other circuit so that could happen I suppose. This ruling is akin to the recent Supreme court ruling that gives authority to take people's land if it so desires. Yeah, more power to the govt and the corporations, aren't you all happy now.

 

[agman]

Hey, I'm here and haven't dropped my R-CALF membership. Don't plan to, either. So we lost a battle. That happens in a war, and the war will be ongoing.

Before some of you get wound up, the war is NOT against the Canadian producer. It's simply an effort to balance out the AMI's weight and influence with some of the US producer's.

We can all learn something here if we didn't know it already - economics trumps everything.

It would be nice to hear the court's reasoning. Has anybody come across it yet?

Your opinion regrading th AMI is as incorrect and misleading as believing R-Calf was on solid footing in the border case.

 

[Sandhusker]

Hey, I'm here and haven't dropped my R-CALF membership. Don't plan to, either. So we lost a battle. That happens in a war, and the war will be ongoing.

Before some of you get wound up, the war is NOT against the Canadian producer. It's simply an effort to balance out the AMI's weight and influence with some of the US producer's.

We can all learn something here if we didn't know it already - economics trumps everything.

It would be nice to hear the court's reasoning. Has anybody come across it yet?

Your opinion regrading th AMI is as incorrect and misleading as believing R-Calf was on solid footing in the border case.

Are you telling me that the AMI does not influence policy and/or legislation in Washington?

I still believe Cebull was right on when he said the USDA decided to open the border and then worked backward to justify it. That is pretty obvious.
It is also wrong and a dangerous habit for them to get into.

 

[agman]

Hey, I'm here and haven't dropped my R-CALF membership. Don't plan to, either. So we lost a battle. That happens in a war, and the war will be ongoing.

Before some of you get wound up, the war is NOT against the Canadian producer. It's simply an effort to balance out the AMI's weight and influence with some of the US producer's.

We can all learn something here if we didn't know it already - economics trumps everything.

It would be nice to hear the court's reasoning. Has anybody come across it yet?

I believe two key points will emerge in their opinion. One, the discretion of the USDA and the Secretary of Agriculture to establish guidelines in this case were consistent with existing laws. Second, the USDA defined the risk as low which Cebull rejected. The term low risk is consistent with scientific terminology. The judges basically said that zero risk was impossible which the plaintiff's attorney had to agree with. That immediately put R-Calf's position in a box. If zero could not be achieved then low risk was in order. That is the exact position the government had initailly taken.

 

[agman]

Yep, I'm in mourning, or something similar to it. Trying to figure out how "I'll" make a living when the packers and Johans(sp) successfully drive prices back down to where it was before Atkins (not NCBA) brought the prices up. The packers (and the NCBA&USDA it appears) will only be happy when my 650lb weaned calves bring, once again, $500, as they gleefully import cattle from around the world into my market, the packers and NCBA will once again be thumping their chests saying how great life is and this is the way it should be for people to make a profit. Those of you making money from those corporate entities will continue lining your pockets while telling us cattlemen that we just need to tighten our belts and be more efficient. Before this good market came along there was nothing left to tighten and the only way to be more efficient was to quit ranching. Yeah, I'm looking forward to those days again.

As far as the 9th Circus goes, and I'm not a court watcher by any means, I do believe they've had more overturns than any other circuit so that could happen I suppose. This ruling is akin to the recent Supreme court ruling that gives authority to take people's land if it so desires. Yeah, more power to the govt and the corporations, aren't you all happy now.

Your opening comment is hilarious. If the Atkins diet caused prices to advacne, why now that it is no longer the "in-thing" do you blame packers and the Secretary of Ag for lower prices? Is that not a complete contradition?

 

[Sandhusker]

Agman, "believe two key points will emerge in their opinion. One, the discretion of the USDA and the Secretary of Agriculture to establish guidelines in this case were consistent with existing laws. Second, the USDA defined the risk as low which Cebull rejected. The term low risk is consistent with scientific terminology. The judges basically said that zero risk was impossible which the plaintiff's attorney had to agree with. That immediately put R-Calf's position in a box. If zero could not be achieved then low risk was in order. That is the exact position the government had initailly taken."

Yes, from what I've read, the court did say the secretary should have discretion. I will disagree that they were consistant with existing laws. For example, where was the impact study? Where was the reasons for rejecting other options?

Low is a term consistant with scientific terminology only if there is a corresponding measurement of what low, high, etc ... is for the individual case. Example; I'm the Mayor and I know about the requirements that we are held do by the state concerning our drinking water. It is tested regularly for various impurities. We have to be under a certain measurement of parts per million, but the allowance is different for different impurities. A measurement of "low" for one element could be completely out of compliance for another with the exact same concentration. Thus, as the USDA could not give a supporting scale, "Low" is totally meaningless and I view it as attempt at bullshitting us, which makes me madder than their initial transgression!

By the way, I also view your telling us that "low" is scientifically acceptable as an attempt of bullshitting as well. :wink:

 

[agman]

Hey, I'm here and haven't dropped my R-CALF membership. Don't plan to, either. So we lost a battle. That happens in a war, and the war will be ongoing.

Before some of you get wound up, the war is NOT against the Canadian producer. It's simply an effort to balance out the AMI's weight and influence with some of the US producer's.

We can all learn something here if we didn't know it already - economics trumps everything.

It would be nice to hear the court's reasoning. Has anybody come across it yet?

Your opinion regrading th AMI is as incorrect and misleading as believing R-Calf was on solid footing in the border case.

Are you telling me that the AMI does not influence policy and/or legislation in Washington?

I still believe Cebull was right on when he said the USDA decided to open the border and then worked backward to justify it. That is pretty obvious.
It is also wrong and a dangerous habit for them to get into.

The judges who saw the evidence saw it otherwise-unanimous decision delivered in 24 hours. Cebull was dead wrong and so are you on this issue.

Does the AMI influence policy? Yes, but not for the entire beef industry all of the time. Why is it that you think you know more about the entire beef industry than they do?

 

[Sandhusker]

Agman, "Does the AMI influence policy? Yes, but not for the entire beef industry all of the time. Why is it that you think you know more about the entire beef industry than they do?"

You can bet they try to influence all they can if there is to be any effect to their bottom line.

I don't know more about the entire beef industry than they do - never said I did. However, it does't take a rocket scientist to recognize and understand their long-range plan. I've said before that it isn't devious and is in fact a sound business plan and one shareholders would expect. (although I won't endorse it on morality standards) The problem is that it steps on US producer's toes - the same producers who I rely on for my living and the survival of my community.

I understand your loyalties - you're for the big boys as they butter your bread. I'm for the little guys for the same reasons.

 

[agman]

Perhaps agman, we don't come on to bitch and whine about crap like you do. And maybe we don't wait to shout "told you so" when we win.

You're such a BIG man, aren't you, when you have corporate interests and money on your side.

Your momma must be proud! :shock:

Hey, those of us fighting FOR the producer have learned over the years to accept defeat and move on. We have learned how to live with break even prices. We have learned how to live with unfair competitive practices. We will survive to fight another day for independence in the agricultural world.

Y'all be good to someone today.

Once again you show your total ignorance of the situation. I have no client who pays me to agree with them. I get paid from producers and corporations to express my opinion based on serious research. If you wish to challenge the research be my guest. You ar not the first one who has tried and failed at that attempt. You can join the loosers in that crowd also.

You just do not get the message that you continue to ride a losing horse. Blame will get you know where. Rather than complain about those who are successful engage them to find out why they are successful. Success does not know names or size, it only knows results. Give yourself a chance and pay attention to the facts, not the garbage you want to hear. The latter will keep you mired on the same path to failure. It is your choice to make.

 

[HAY MAKER]

Perhaps agman, we don't come on to bitch and whine about crap like you do. And maybe we don't wait to shout "told you so" when we win.

You're such a BIG man, aren't you, when you have corporate interests and money on your side.

Your momma must be proud! :shock:

Hey, those of us fighting FOR the producer have learned over the years to accept defeat and move on. We have learned how to live with break even prices. We have learned how to live with unfair competitive practices. We will survive to fight another day for independence in the agricultural world.

Y'all be good to someone today.

Once again you show your total ignorance of the situation. I have no client who pays me to agree with them. I get paid from producers and corporations to express my opinion based on serious research. If you wish to challenge the research be my guest. You ar not the first one who has tried and failed at that attempt. You can join the loosers in that crowd also.

You just do not get the message that you continue to ride a losing horse. Blame will get you know where. Rather than complain about those who are successful engage them to find out why they are successful. Success does not know names or size, it only knows results. Give yourself a chance and pay attention to the facts, not the garbage you want to hear. The latter will keep you mired on the same path to failure. It is your choice to make.

And once again agman you show how sorry you are,these multinational conglomerates could care less about small town America,small buisness men like Robert Mac,working long hours to feed the kids,so they can enjoy what they and their parents enjoyed,people like you and that two bit mongrel that calls him self SH,make me ill..............good luck PS let me wash some of this trail dust off and get some decent food and ILL be glad to put you packer lovers in your place.

 

[RHR]

Please help me to insure my list of entities responsible for the demise of the family farm/ranch is complete. In my 30 years ranching these names have appeared as the culprits. Banks, FmHA, FCS, The MERC, USDA, NCBA, AFBF, AMI and Multinational conglomerates. Please let me know if I have missed any. I don't want to offend any of the guilty, anti-family farm/ranch organizations or conglomerates.

 

[CattleCo]

"I'll" make a living when the packers and Johans(sp) successfully drive prices back down to where it was before Atkins (not NCBA) brought the prices up. The packers (and the NCBA&USDA it appears) will only be happy when my 650lb weaned calves bring, once again, $500, "


Well ..................if you cannot make money weaning a 600# calf for $500 you had better look at your management practices. I would suggest not paying 1250 for a bred heifer!!!!!!!! I would think $500 for a 550 wt. would make about 150 to 200. That is a lot more than an acre of corn will make this year....what's your problem????? GREED!!!!