The Organization for Competitive Markets

[Sandhusker]

It's simple, SH. Did the NCBA follow their membership's directive or not? Did leadership side with the big packers or not?

I can post for you the Texas group's letter if you need a reference.

 

[Anonymous]

Did the NCBA follow their membership's directive or not?

On most points yes.

Did leadership side with the big packers or not?

No, the leadership sided with the facts and truth which is independent of anything the packers do.

If they had sided with the packers, they would have supported the lawsuit to allow importation of cattle under 30 months.


NCBA honored our trade agreement with Canada.

R-CULT lied to stop Canadian imports.


That's the difference!



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Did the NCBA follow their membership's directive or not?

On most points yes.

My reply; Was that an option? Is leadership allowed to follow the member's directive on "most points"? Is that how you carry out instructions from your supervisor - "most points"?

Did leadership side with the big packers or not?

No, the leadership sided with the facts and truth which is independent of anything the packers do.

My reply; Horse crap. Bring up your definition of "deception " again, SH. I believe your answer fits it very well.

~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman,

I don't know why you insist on arguing this point with me? Are you really that desperate? I already told you that I disagreed with 2 of NCBA's directives. I felt it was foolish of NCBA to have a directive that they could not possibly abide by. What more do you want?

I would much rather support NCBA's occasional mistakes than R-CULT's continual lies and deception.

If NCBA takes a position based on truth and facts that happens to be the same position that the packers have taken, so be it. There is many times when the packers and progressive producers see things the same way. It's the blaming segment of our industry that you support that fails to realize that any new money into this industry has to come from the consumer, not some conspiracy driven packer parasite lawsuit.

"But, but, but just because the plaintiffs wanted to enter into a forward contract arrangement does not give the packers the right to accept those contracts".

That is the epitomy of being a blamer!

Blame someone else for your own decisions.



~SH~

 

[ocm]

Sandman,

I don't know why you insist on arguing this point with me? Are you really that desperate? I already told you that I disagreed with 2 of NCBA's directives. I felt it was foolish of NCBA to have a directive that they could not possibly abide by. What more do you want?

I would much rather support NCBA's occasional mistakes than R-CULT's continual lies and deception.

If NCBA takes a position based on truth and facts that happens to be the same position that the packers have taken, so be it. There is many times when the packers and progressive producers see things the same way. It's the blaming segment of our industry that you support that fails to realize that any new money into this industry has to come from the consumer, not some conspiracy driven packer parasite lawsuit.

"But, but, but just because the plaintiffs wanted to enter into a forward contract arrangement does not give the packers the right to accept those contracts".

That is the epitomy of being a blamer!

Blame someone else for your own decisions.



~SH~

The NCBA took the directives with about as much seriousness as Bill Clinton took the Ten Commandments.

 

[Anonymous]

ocm: "The NCBA took the directives with about as much seriousness as Bill Clinton took the Ten Commandments."

Oh spare me with your concern about the ten Commandments when lying about the safety of Canadian beef to stop Canadian imports and lying about "HUGE" packer profits and market manipulation conspiracy theories is the epitomy of bearing false witness against thy neighbor.




~SH~

 

[mrj]

MRJ, "It is admittedly difficult to recruit NCBA members among SD ranchers when "leaders" in their trusted organizations offer only mis-information and outright lies about NCBA. Another frequent one being that NCBA represents the interests of packers and others"

Remember the 11 point directive passed by membership and then reversed by leadership (as they sided with the big packers)? The Independent Cattlemen of Texas do. Nobody has to spread misinformation and lies about them representing the packers, it's all fresh and in the open.

{That is absolutely not true. The affiliates (state cattlemens' organizations) directed the leadership in what they did with the 11 points. I'm sorry you choose not to admit, or to understand that action. It's disgusting that you choose to perpetrate that lie, whether due to your mis-understanding of the issue, or a deliberate attempt to denigrate NCBA. MRJ}

 

[ocm]

ocm: "The NCBA took the directives with about as much seriousness as Bill Clinton took the Ten Commandments."

Oh spare me with your concern about the ten Commandments when lying about the safety of Canadian beef to stop Canadian imports and lying about "HUGE" packer profits and market manipulation conspiracy theories is the epitomy of bearing false witness against thy neighbor.




~SH~

Show me where I lied.

Quote it. Cut and Paste.

If you are calling me a liar, then I would say you'd better present the evidence!

Sounds like YOU are bearing a false wintess against ME.

 

[Anonymous]

OCM,

Do you agree with R-CALF that Canadian beef is a "high risk" to U.S. consumers?

Yes or No?


Do you agree that IBP uses "captive supply" cattle to manipulate markets?

Yes or No?


It's "crunch time" OCM!

Might as well show your true colors.




~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

MRJ, "It is admittedly difficult to recruit NCBA members among SD ranchers when "leaders" in their trusted organizations offer only mis-information and outright lies about NCBA. Another frequent one being that NCBA represents the interests of packers and others"

Remember the 11 point directive passed by membership and then reversed by leadership (as they sided with the big packers)? The Independent Cattlemen of Texas do. Nobody has to spread misinformation and lies about them representing the packers, it's all fresh and in the open.

{That is absolutely not true. The affiliates (state cattlemens' organizations) directed the leadership in what they did with the 11 points. I'm sorry you choose not to admit, or to understand that action. It's disgusting that you choose to perpetrate that lie, whether due to your mis-understanding of the issue, or a deliberate attempt to denigrate NCBA. MRJ}

If you call it a lie, you are calling your fellow NCBA members liars, MRJ. They are the ones who said NCBA leadership went the other way. Would you like me to post the letter from the Independent Cattlemen of Texas (NCBA affiliates)? Have you seen what these NCBA dues paying members said?

 

[ocm]

OCM,

Do you agree with R-CALF that Canadian beef is a "high risk" to U.S. consumers?

Yes or No?


Do you agree that IBP uses "captive supply" cattle to manipulate markets?

Yes or No?


It's "crunch time" OCM!

Might as well show your true colors.




~SH~

Do you agree with R-CALF that Canadian beef is a "high risk" to U.S. consumers?

Can't answer, its risk is unknown (so it could be high, but we don't know). According to USDA's own scientists the risk is unknown because the extent of Canadian incidence of BSE is yet undetermined through the use of scientific data.


Do you agree that IBP uses "captive supply" cattle to manipulate markets?

Yes, just like the Pickett jury (which was not overturned on this point), and the 11th Circuit which also affirmed the fact as a matter of fact determined by another court. (7th amendment applies here, up to you to see how).

 

[agman]

The checkoff is a producer initiated, producer driven self help program with federal oversight. Not even close to comparable to being comparable with the communist packer ban, flawed COOL, the I need to know what price you got for your fat cattle and how you marketed them law (MPR), and all the other socialist government mandates you packer blamers support.

If there was a way to further seperate progressive from regressive without the regressives getting a free ride off the backs of the progressive producers who paid the checkoff, I would be against the mandatory beef checkoff. I hate the idea of shoring up regressives.

Hayseed?



~SH~

They benefit by having cattle men pay for advertising their imports,
also it is unfair that producers are taxed to support the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, an organization that consistently opposes their interests, most recently on mandatory country of origin labeling, banning packer ownership of livestock, and fast track trade legislation," according to the Western Organization of Resource Councils and the Livestock Marketing Association, both of which brought the lawsuit on behalf of independent cattle producers................good luck

Imports are subject to a checkoff fee. So how is it by your line of reasoning the checkoff dollars from imports are not spent to advertise domestic beef.

 

[Anonymous]

Original question: Do you agree with R-CALF that Canadian beef is a "high risk" to U.S. consumers?

OCM (in response): "Can't answer, its risk is unknown (so it could be high, but we don't know)".

YOU CAN'T ANSWER OR WON'T ANSWER???

WE DON'T KNOW?

If you don't know than how can you support R-CULT calling Canadian beef a "HIGH RISK"???

EITHER CANADIAN BEEF IS "HIGH RISK" OR "YOU DON'T KNOW".

WHICH WAY IS IT?????????

If you don't know than you can't know about the safety of our beef either because we had a native case of BSE in our domestic herd but R-CULT said that "we have the safest beef in the world" due to our firewalls.

WHICH WAY IS IT GOING TO BE??????

Either having BSE in your native herd means your beef is unsafe or it doesn't.


The fact is that R-CULT's position is a lie. Did you support it or did you stand up and tell R-CULT they were wrong because "WE DON'T KNOW"?

OCM (in response): "According to USDA's own scientists the risk is unknown because the extent of Canadian incidence of BSE is yet undetermined through the use of scientific data."

If the risk is "UNKNOWN" than it cannot be "HIGH RISK".

Can I take that as your admission that you disagree with R-CULT's position?

Dance ocm, dance!

Original question: "Do you agree that IBP uses "captive supply" cattle to manipulate markets?"

ocm (in response): "Yes, just like the Pickett jury (which was not overturned on this point), and the 11th Circuit which also affirmed the fact as a matter of fact determined by another court. (7th amendment applies here, up to you to see how)."

The Pickett Jury did not understand the evidence presented them. If they had, they could not have reached their verdict. How could they possibly agree that IBP lacked a legitimate business reason for using forward contracts when the plaintiffs testified to the contrary?


WHY WOULD THE PLAINTIFFS WILLINGLY ENTER INTO FORWARD CONTRACTS IF THEY CONSIDERED THIS ACTION "MARKET MANIPULATION"????

Who in their right mind would even try to argue a position that was contrary to their own actions???

If purchasing your cattle via "forward contract" is considered "market manipulation" because the purchaser then needs less cattle in the cash market and bids less agressively for them BECAUSE PART OF HIS NEEDS HAVE ALREADY BEEN MET, this argument will be grounds to sue feeders for forward contracting feeder calves.

The concept cannot apply to fat cattle and not to feeder cattle.


You guys think you got a whippin' in Pickett, you just wait until you strart screwing with how producers and feeders can market their cattle through your backwards captive supply reform act.

I am well aware that your LMA buddies want to keep their socialized cattle marketing OPTION in place but they will not determine how the rest of the industry will market their cattle. You can take that to the bank.

You think the back peddling to redefine "producer owned packing companies" was fierce last time with the JOHNSON AMMENDMENT, you wait until you start messing with cattle pricing mechanisms.

You guys are in for the beating of a lifetime.



~SH~

 

[ocm]

1. Please copy and paste something from R-CALF (official, not just some member) that says Canadian beef IS High Risk, not MAY BE HIGH RISK, not IS HIGHER RISK, but IS High Risk. I don't recall any.


2. Quote from the 11th Circuit Court, "there was evidence at trial to support the jury's finding that the use of marketing agreements has resulted in lower prices for cattle both on the cash market and the market as a whole."

Do you support the courts finding or not?

I am convinced that to you the truth is whatever you decide it to be.

 

[Anonymous]

ocm: 1. Please copy and paste something from R-CALF (official, not just some member) that says Canadian beef IS High Risk, not MAY BE HIGH RISK, not IS HIGHER RISK, but IS High Risk. I don't recall any.

YOU DON'T RECALL ANY????

Oh for crying out loud the whole basis for R-CULT's phony lawsuit against USDA was that Canadian beef was "high risk" and that USDA was exposing consumers to "HIGH RISK" Canadian beef.

Nothing more than a phony excuse to stop Canadian imports by a bunch of import blamers with zero integrity.

R-CULT's add in the Washington Post stated: "In response to industry pressure, USDA knowingly approved imports of "HIGH -RISK" Canadian beef products in violation of it's own ban".

Do you agree with that statement ocm?

Yes or no?


R-CULT also stated the same thing with: "Mad Cow is fatal in animals and linked to a fatal disease in humans. Yet, USDA bureaucrats are rushing to re-open the U.S. border to Canadian beef and cattle".

So what's it going to be ocm?

Do you disagree with R-CULT that Canadian beef is "high risk" and support their unjustified BSE "fear mongering" or are you going to stick with your original "WE DON'T KNOW" position???

Wanna keep dancing or will you show enough courage to pick a position and stick with it?

ocm: "2. Quote from the 11th Circuit Court, "there was evidence at trial to support the jury's finding that the use of marketing agreements has resulted in lower prices for cattle both on the cash market and the market as a whole."

Do you support the courts finding or not?"

What evidence?

That if Packers entered into forward contracts with producers they needed less cattle in the cash market so they bid less aggressively for the balance of their needs? Yes I can believe that just as I can believe there is evidence to support that Captive Supplies have resulted in higher cattle prices. Nobody knows what the market will do between the time of a forward contract and the time those cattle would be sold in the cash market but marketing agreements are a risk management tool which were even used by the Pickett plaintiffs.

That is not market manipulation or you would have to consider feeders buying calves by forward contract as market manipulation.

Do you really want to go down that road?

You can't call forward contracts "market manipulation" for packers and not call forward contracts "market manipulation" for feeders when it's the same damn thing.

If you want to debate this issue with me, let's get started.

Bring the evidence that was presented in court and let's see how the shoe fits.


You failed to address the following question:

WHY WOULD THE PLAINTIFFS WILLINGLY ENTER INTO FORWARD CONTRACTS IF THEY CONSIDERED THIS ACTION "MARKET MANIPULATION"????

Please answer the question!



~SH~

 

[agman]

1. Please copy and paste something from R-CALF (official, not just some member) that says Canadian beef IS High Risk, not MAY BE HIGH RISK, not IS HIGHER RISK, but IS High Risk. I don't recall any.


2. Quote from the 11th Circuit Court, "there was evidence at trial to support the jury's finding that the use of marketing agreements has resulted in lower prices for cattle both on the cash market and the market as a whole."

Do you support the courts finding or not?

I am convinced that to you the truth is whatever you decide it to be.

OCM, you wiggle like Sandman. You try to defend the indefensible. Did you not read the comment made by the 11th Circuit Court on page 13, footnote #7. Does that support the quote you posted or does it say otherwise, which is it? There was evidence presented but the validity of that evidence is in serious doubt. The court framed their concern using the term "Daubert issues" concerning that testimony. Judge Strom used plain English when describing Taylor's testimony, who claims his research showed that marketing agreements led to lower prices, by saying "I think your expert witness is nuts". BTW, the latter comment was not made in the presence of the jury. It was made in the judges chambers with all attorneys present when he, judge Strom, called into question the use of Taylor as an expert witness.

When asked how marketing agreements lowered prices he, Taylor, had six theories by his own admission. However, there was just a slight oversight on his part!!! He failed to test any of those theories to see if those conditions actually lowered prices. That is by his own admission under oath. In short, Taylor expressed only an opinion which he could not and did not support at trail. All your folks want to hang their hats on his testimony that marketing agreements lowered prices? That is a real hoot!!!

I only hope that all those AG Law professors who are members of the OCM allow their students to read footnote #7 on page 13 while discussing Taylor's so-called proof. Some proof, this guy was summarily dismantled on the witness stand by the defense attorney. It is clear from the jury verdict they did not understand that event. That factor, along with other factors cited in the court opinion, is why their verdict was overturned by Judge Strom and then upheld by the Appellate Court-end of discussion.

 

[ocm]

R-CULT's add in the Washington Post stated: "In response to industry pressure, USDA knowingly approved imports of "HIGH -RISK" Canadian beef products in violation of it's own ban".

Do you agree with that statement ocm?

Yes or no?

No, I will stick by my statement that the risk is unknown.

Do you disagree with R-CULT that Canadian beef is "high risk"

As above.

and support their unjustified BSE "fear mongering" or are you going to stick with your original "WE DON'T KNOW" position???

Do you still beat your wife?

What evidence?

Ask the 11th Circuit. It is their official finding that such evidence was presented.

WHY WOULD THE PLAINTIFFS WILLINGLY ENTER INTO FORWARD CONTRACTS IF THEY CONSIDERED THIS ACTION "MARKET MANIPULATION"????

I used to watch the news with Dan Rather voluntarily. My choice was either that or nothing. (we only got one channel--but would it have been much of a choice having all three networks?)
Now I watch Fox News. It is on the air--Fair and Balanced--because anti-trust laws prevented CBS and other broadcast networks from owning cable networks. With anti-trust doing its job the free market allowed Fox News to offer a REAL choice.

 

[Anonymous]

ocm: "No, I will stick by my statement that the risk is unknown."

Well it's good to know that you disagree with R-CULT on the risks involved with Canadian beef.

Does OCM disagree with R-CULT on that same issue or do they support R-CULT's "high risk" allegation.

OCM: "Do you still beat your wife?"

Yes, I beat my wife at cards all the time.

Why would you care?

What does that have to do with you having sex with farm animals?

ocm: "I used to watch the news with Dan Rather voluntarily. My choice was either that or nothing. (we only got one channel--but would it have been much of a choice having all three networks?)
Now I watch Fox News. It is on the air--Fair and Balanced--because anti-trust laws prevented CBS and other broadcast networks from owning cable networks. With anti-trust doing its job the free market allowed Fox News to offer a REAL choice."

Nice divertion!

The plaintiffs advocate the cash market yet entered into forward contracts because they are hypocrites which is nothing new for them.



~SH~

 

[mrj]

MRJ, "It is admittedly difficult to recruit NCBA members among SD ranchers when "leaders" in their trusted organizations offer only mis-information and outright lies about NCBA. Another frequent one being that NCBA represents the interests of packers and others"

Remember the 11 point directive passed by membership and then reversed by leadership (as they sided with the big packers)? The Independent Cattlemen of Texas do. Nobody has to spread misinformation and lies about them representing the packers, it's all fresh and in the open.

{That is absolutely not true. The affiliates (state cattlemens' organizations) directed the leadership in what they did with the 11 points. I'm sorry you choose not to admit, or to understand that action. It's disgusting that you choose to perpetrate that lie, whether due to your mis-understanding of the issue, or a deliberate attempt to denigrate NCBA. MRJ}

If you call it a lie, you are calling your fellow NCBA members liars, MRJ. They are the ones who said NCBA leadership went the other way. Would you like me to post the letter from the Independent Cattlemen of Texas (NCBA affiliates)? Have you seen what these NCBA dues paying members said?

No, you are the one who posted the lies here. You should have verified what some members told you. Perhaps they did not know the whole story. If you refer to the TX public letter, maybe you should ask them why they chose to go public with it rather than doing it within the organization. Obviously they are trying to embarrass the organization to further their own agenda and their attitude is "to hell with the good of the whole organization, we will have our way, or else!"

Have you not read Jim McAdams rebuttal of the TX bunch? Do you think it impossible that they were trying to hustle NCBA into going their way when the majority of state affiliates did not vote their way ON THE CONFERENCE CALL when leadership was told BY THE AFFILIATE DIRECTORS REPRESENTING THEIR MEMBERS to do what they did. This took place after the meeting and after leadership got as far as they could on the points and the affiliates said it was close enough and to proceed.

MRJ

 

[Sandhusker]

Face the facts, MRJ, whether the affiliates or whoever OKed the deal, the end results in the same - the wishes of membership were not only not followed, they were reversed.