Tam & Bill

[Big Muddy rancher]

Then why doesn't Japan treat us as we are treating Canada? Why not Taiwan? Why not Egypt?

Because although Canada and the US are in the same risk catagory, the US has been proven to have hidden at least one case of BSE and possibly more along with allowing BSE infected meat into the human food supply and SRMs in export product. If these things hadn't happened I am quite confident other importing countries would treat the US the same as Canada.

Hopefully they will soon realize that US beef is just as safe as Canadian.

Your confidence is duly noted! :lol: The facts remain, NOBODY - with the possible exception of Mexico - is treating the US the same as the US is treating Canada. Yet, you continue the chant? Why? In the face of facts that prove you wrong, WHY?

When you belong to R-CULT chanting is all you know. Does your back and knees get sore with all that kneeling and bowing.

 

[Sandhusker]

Conman: "Everyone here knows who you are."

Which means I am held accountable. In contrast, nobody knows who you are so you can lie on every post and never be held accountable. Anonymous is exactly where a liar like you needs to be.



~SH~

:lol: :lol: Man, you're funny today! So, since we know who you are, how can we hold you accountable? Can we ruin your credit? Burn you out? Dress you in a lime-green tutu with pink tights? Paint a Hitler mustache on your face? How does knowing your identy and even your addess make you accountble? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Sandhusker]

Because although Canada and the US are in the same risk catagory, the US has been proven to have hidden at least one case of BSE and possibly more along with allowing BSE infected meat into the human food supply and SRMs in export product. If these things hadn't happened I am quite confident other importing countries would treat the US the same as Canada.

Hopefully they will soon realize that US beef is just as safe as Canadian.

Your confidence is duly noted! :lol: The facts remain, NOBODY - with the possible exception of Mexico - is treating the US the same as the US is treating Canada. Yet, you continue the chant? Why? In the face of facts that prove you wrong, WHY?

When you belong to R-CULT chanting is all you know. Does your back and knees get sore with all that kneeling and bowing.

No, but we're getting short on lambs and virgins around here because of all the live sacrificing we do. :lol:

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "Let me clarify my last post, SH. YOU ARE A FRUITBASKET!"

Talk is cheap Conman!

How many lies have you told today?


~SH~

Name one, that you are a fruitbasket? I will argue that one.

 

[Anonymous]

Saying that I am a fruitbasket is a lot easier than proving it. Nobody knows more about "cheap talk" than you do.

You just lied about packers not paying for source verification.

That didn't take long!

What is your name Conman?

What are you so afraid of?


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Saying that I am a fruitbasket is a lot easier than proving it. Nobody knows more about "cheap talk" than you do.

You just lied about packers not paying for source verification.

That didn't take long!

What is your name Conman?

What are you so afraid of?


~SH~

Bring the exact quote, SH, and we will see if you have a case that I lied. It just might fall into the same category as the perjury name calling you did on Mike C.; just your little fruitbasket opinion.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "Bring the exact quote, SH, and we will see if you have a case that I lied."

I address your lies as you tell them and I address them within context. Hardly a day goes by that I don't have to point out another of your many lies.



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "Bring the exact quote, SH, and we will see if you have a case that I lied."

I address your lies as you tell them and I address them within context. Hardly a day goes by that I don't have to point out another of your many lies.



~SH~

And I love pointing out that you use a different set of definitions to try to convince everyone that you know what you are talking about.

If you can't bring the exact quote and put into context, SH, why do you keep bringing it up? Pretty soon you will start believing it.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "And I love pointing out that you use a different set of definitions to try to convince everyone that you know what you are talking about."

Yet another lie.

You point nothing out you just make sh*t up.

Conman: "If you can't bring the exact quote and put into context, SH, why do you keep bringing it up? Pretty soon you will start believing it."

What lie are you talking about now? You just lied in your statement above. Take that one, it's in context.

Show everyone where I used a different set of definitions and back your position or do your usual deny, divert, discredit, deceive, and dance routine.


~SH~

 

[Tam]

Kids, I just spent about an hour doing research for you. Guess what, I think that I'm wrong on one item. Before you get too excited about that, what I was wrong about only makes the USDA's efforts more disturbing.

What I think I'm wrong on is the OIE changing classifications. I thought they changed classifications after the USDA leaned on them. I can find no evidence of that. Instead, I find the USDA making a request and the OIE REJECTING that request. On Sept. 26, 2003, the USDA sent a request to the OIE to revise their classifications. The request was handled by the OIE's BSE expert group and REJECTED because, "The scientific basis used in the present code is still valid". What they were saying was, "We made these rules based on what we knew, and we don't know anything different, so why would we change anything?"

What did the USDA do then? They went ahead and made up their own rules to create a "minimal risk" classification anyway. The claim that their classification being based on OIE recommendations is a half truth - they cherry picked what they wanted and ignored the rest. Sure, their requirements are also requirements of the OIE, but they only took the easy ones! It's like me saying my mutt is just like my neighbors champion bird dog - they're both black, have four legs, and bark. I'm just not mentioning my dog is gun-shy and afraid of ducks. But hey, I'm not REALLY lying, am I? You can't tell any difference by just looking at them - they're alike!

And you wonder why R-CALF is torked off?

So now you are saying that the USDA created a "minimal risk" classifiation. :roll: If the USDA created it why did I find this on the OIE website.

While the Code describes conditions for the classification of countries into one of five BSE risk categories, the OIE itself does not assign countries to all these categories. These are used by importing countries when determining the specific conditions for trade.

So I ask you was the USDA not to take the OIE GUIDELINES and determine the import/export policies for the US? Like I posted before the OIE subcommittee recommended they do exactly what they did. When R-CALF came out and argued the USDA was not following the OIE rules, the OIE themselves came back in the defence of the USDA and told R-CALF they had mis-understood the OIE and that the guidelines were just that GUIDELINES not written in stone rules.
And you seem to think that the USDA changed the rules just for Canada. So I would like you to explain this quote from APHIS

Unless USDA takes lead to establish the concept of minimal Risk Regions, based on risk analysis, for animal pests and disease- especially for BSE- The United States (which has multiple effective mitigation measures in place) will be vulnerable to having its exports treated no different than those countries with rampant levels of pest and disease. In implementing this rule the United States is clearly seeking to ensure that ALL countries adopt scientifically sound, risk-based import and export standards and apply them equivalently. The United States cannot protest unjustified measures applied to our products if we similarly apply the same virtually impossible measures to others.

So Sandhusker did the USDA change the rules for the 23rd country Canada or the 24th country which just happen to be the UNITED STATES?

 

[Sandhusker]

So now you are saying that the USDA created a "minimal risk" classifiation. If the USDA created it why did I find this on the OIE website. Quote:
While the Code describes conditions for the classification of countries into one of five BSE risk categories, the OIE itself does not assign countries to all these categories. These are used by importing countries when determining the specific conditions for trade.
So I ask you was the USDA not to take the OIE GUIDELINES and determine the import/export policies for the US? Like I posted before the OIE subcommittee recommended they do exactly what they did. When R-CALF came out and argued the USDA was not following the OIE rules, the OIE themselves came back in the defence of the USDA and told R-CALF they had mis-understood the OIE and that the guidelines were just that GUIDELINES not written in stone rules.
And you seem to think that the USDA changed the rules just for Canada. So I would like you to explain this quote from APHIS Quote:
Unless USDA takes lead to establish the concept of minimal Risk Regions, based on risk analysis, for animal pests and disease- especially for BSE- The United States (which has multiple effective mitigation measures in place) will be vulnerable to having its exports treated no different than those countries with rampant levels of pest and disease. In implementing this rule the United States is clearly seeking to ensure that ALL countries adopt scientifically sound, risk-based import and export standards and apply them equivalently. The United States cannot protest unjustified measures applied to our products if we similarly apply the same virtually impossible measures to others.
So Sandhusker did the USDA change the rules for the 23rd country Canada or the 24th country which just happen to be the UNITED STATES?



Tam, compare the US "minimal risk" guidelines with the OIE's guidelines.

I had a similar discussion with your counterparts on the idea of countries treating us as we treat anybody else. Look around you. Is that happening in real life? NO, IT IS NOT That has been PROVEN bogus.


Was the rule changes for the US? That is a foolish question. The USDA first went to the OIE with the idea in Sept, 2003 - 3 months before the Canadian cow in Washington. There was no 24th country then.

 

[Mike]

Sandhusker, you have an affinity for "Pig Wrestling", don't you? :wink:

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandhusker, you have an affinity for "Pig Wrestling", don't you? :wink:

You know, Mike, the sad truth is it is an obvious fact. I just have a heck of a time leaving an arguement alone when I'm convinced I've got something. Some of these are just too easy to ignore, though. Maybe if you would share some of those rye squeezins with me I'd have an easier time letting go. :lol:

Come to think of it, it is time for a night cap - glad you mentioned it!

 

[Bill]

:roll: :roll: :lol: :lol: :roll: :roll:

Of course Sandhusker has no facts. He never has, that's what makes him the perfect R-Calf disciple. Let us know if you ever come up with something worth refuting Sandhusker. :roll:

You know, Bill, you're just the typical basher. Just a never-ending stream of negetive mindless babble. You asked for facts, I presented them, and you still claim I have none. That tells me you either can't recognize facts or aren't interested in them. Don't ask me for any facts again.

Facts like you posted above?

What I think I'm wrong on is the OIE changing classifications. I thought they changed classifications after the USDA leaned on them. I can find no evidence of that.

Your spinning so much you must be dizzy. :lol: :lol: Do you know what facts are or is it that you have trouble differentiating between reality and what you believe to have happened.

Still nothing, huh Sandhusker? :shock: :shock: :lol:

 

[Sandhusker]

You know, Bill, you're just the typical basher. Just a never-ending stream of negetive mindless babble. You asked for facts, I presented them, and you still claim I have none. That tells me you either can't recognize facts or aren't interested in them. Don't ask me for any facts again.

Facts like you posted above?

What I think I'm wrong on is the OIE changing classifications. I thought they changed classifications after the USDA leaned on them. I can find no evidence of that.

Your spinning so much you must be dizzy. :lol: :lol: Do you know what facts are or is it that you have trouble differentiating between reality and what you believe to have happened.

Still nothing, huh Sandhusker? :shock: :shock: :lol:

MIke kindly reminded me of what I was involved with. I'm done wrestling you, Bill. Figure it out. There's no glory in being a fool.

 

[Bill]

Sandhusker:

There's no glory in being a fool.

Good to see you finally come to that realization and hopefully you will give some thought to posting comments you can't back up.

 

[Tam]

So now you are saying that the USDA created a "minimal risk" classifiation. If the USDA created it why did I find this on the OIE website. Quote:
While the Code describes conditions for the classification of countries into one of five BSE risk categories, the OIE itself does not assign countries to all these categories. These are used by importing countries when determining the specific conditions for trade.
So I ask you was the USDA not to take the OIE GUIDELINES and determine the import/export policies for the US? Like I posted before the OIE subcommittee recommended they do exactly what they did. When R-CALF came out and argued the USDA was not following the OIE rules, the OIE themselves came back in the defence of the USDA and told R-CALF they had mis-understood the OIE and that the guidelines were just that GUIDELINES not written in stone rules.
And you seem to think that the USDA changed the rules just for Canada. So I would like you to explain this quote from APHIS Quote:
Unless USDA takes lead to establish the concept of minimal Risk Regions, based on risk analysis, for animal pests and disease- especially for BSE- The United States (which has multiple effective mitigation measures in place) will be vulnerable to having its exports treated no different than those countries with rampant levels of pest and disease. In implementing this rule the United States is clearly seeking to ensure that ALL countries adopt scientifically sound, risk-based import and export standards and apply them equivalently. The United States cannot protest unjustified measures applied to our products if we similarly apply the same virtually impossible measures to others.
So Sandhusker did the USDA change the rules for the 23rd country Canada or the 24th country which just happen to be the UNITED STATES?



Tam, compare the US "minimal risk" guidelines with the OIE's guidelines.

I had a similar discussion with your counterparts on the idea of countries treating us as we treat anybody else. Look around you. Is that happening in real life? NO, IT IS NOT That has been PROVEN bogus.


Was the rule changes for the US? That is a foolish question. The USDA first went to the OIE with the idea in Sept, 2003 - 3 months before the Canadian cow in Washington. There was no 24th country then.

The United States (which has multiple effective mitigation measures in place) will be vulnerable to having its exports treated no different than those countries with rampant levels of pest and disease

You are telling us that the USDA couldn't see past the present day of Sept 2003 and see that if you had traded cattle and feed with not only Canada but the same countries Canada traded with, that it would only be a matter of time before BSE was found in the US herd? Open your eyes Sandhusker. Just because you stuck your head in the sand so far that your had to learn Chineses doesn't mean everyone in the US did. :roll: