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

Too bad we don't listen to our intelligent predecessors

Help Support Ranchers.net:

~SH~ said:
JB: "In the future, I would appreciate that you not answer any of my postings unless I personally address you."

If you parrot an LMA phrase like, "to me, the checkoff is a form of taxation without representation", I will respond. Count on it.

You parrot a common phrase of the checkoff critics but offer absolutely nothing to back it making the phrase as hollow as an old abandoned well.

Talk about a "follower"!

Show some originality by actually backing that statement with something of substance.

Prove that producers have no representation on the beef checkoff!

JB-SEE! I never once said that producers have no representation on the beef checkoff council. Instead of reading what you want to see or hear out of a posting, why don't you actually take the time to read what is written and think about it. You are proving yourself to be inept and obtuse. I did not know that the LMA was using this phrase. If you read any of my other posts-and I think you did and are just using this one to vent- you would know that I stated that I think we need a checkoff, BUT I WISH WE HAD LEFT OURSELVES MORE OPTIONS WHEN WE VOTED IT IN AND I DON'T SEE WHY WE CAN'T CHANGE SOME OF THE RULES, NOW.

This will be my last reply to you and I will never read another of your twisted, whiney, bitchey posts again! Get a life! Talk about parroting.
Click to expand...
 
JB: "This will be my last reply to you and I will never read another of your twisted, whiney, bitchey posts again!"

I understand completely!


JB (yesterday): "The checkoff, to me, is a form of taxation without representation."

JB (today): "I never once said that producers have no representation on the beef checkoff council."


If I was bent on parroting phrases I wasn't prepared to back and contradicted myself like you just did, I wouldn't respond to my posts either.

How dare someone hold someone else accountable for their position.

THE NERVE OF ME!


If the water got too deep, I'd stay in the boat too!


~SH~
 
Soapweed: "I am not going to completely stick up for ol' SH, because his "Chinese water torture" method of arguing grows wearisome, no doubt."

SH: "Hahaha!

"Amazing how some producers will accept the "chinese water torture" of Johnny Smith, Derry Browfield, Herman Schumacher, Mike Callicrate, and Bill Bullard BASED ON LIES AND MISINFORMATION repeating the same ol catch phrases day after day after day and that's not a form of "chinese water torture" but the repeated factually based responses to those empty phrases are? LOL!

"Sounds like someone who struggles with defending the truth against the R-CALF boys so you have to add the "chinese water torture" disclaimer to play both sides. Take a position Soapweed! Riding the fence will only tear the crotch out of your jeans."

I am taking a position, SH. My position, and that of others, is that your Chinese Water Torture method of hammering and hammering and hammering your points has probably turned way more people away from the NCBA than have joined because of you. I am an NCBA member, because you have made me think, and I have overlooked your bull-headedness and belligerence. Others aren't as tolerant.

You are right about the fact that Johnny Smith, Derry Brownfield, Herman Schumacher, Mike Callicrate, and Bill Bullard also use the Chinese Water Torture method to throw out their agendas. Thank you, SH, for getting me to think and to be able to see through their "malarky". Unfortunately, they are perhaps more "polished" than you, so have developed a following. My position is that I am not one of them.
 
Soapweed: "My position, and that of others, is that your Chinese Water Torture method of hammering and hammering and hammering your points has probably turned way more people away from the NCBA than have joined because of you."

Soapweed: "You are right about the fact that Johnny Smith, Derry Brownfield, Herman Schumacher, Mike Callicrate, and Bill Bullard also use the Chinese Water Torture method to throw out their agendas."

DOUBLE STANDARD!


My "chinese water torture" responses to lies and misinformation ("malarky") turns people off but their "chinese water torture" of presenting lies and misinformation turns people on! Hahaha!

Ah.....ok Soapweed?

Glad we cleared that up!

BTW, I'm not recruiting for NCBA so my "chinese water torture", is nothing more than a convenient excuse for those who cannot accept the truth about R-CULT and need support groups (not referring to you).


Thanks for the critique again............ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz!



~SH~
 
Bill said:
Tommy said:
BMR...Sandhusker how much less will a northwest producer make because he has to ship cattle to nebraska to be killed because his plant that used Canadian cattle to keep operating closed?


Why would he have to ship them all the way to Nebraska when he could ship them north of the border to one of the plants you Canadians are building?
Click to expand...

You are assuming that live cattle will be allowed into Canada from the U.S.
Click to expand...



As well Tommy why would a Northwest producer want to ship cattle to the depressed Canadian market. That would cost him more then going to Texas with them.
 
Sandhusker,

How much do you figure you make on every Canadian steak that is eaten in Japan instead of a U.S. steak?

That's the bigger picture!


~SH~
 
SH: "BTW, I'm not recruiting for NCBA so my "chinese water torture", is nothing more than a convenient excuse for those who cannot accept the truth about R-CULT and need support groups (not referring to you)."

But the question remains, are you recruiting for R-CALF as an under cover agent? Sometimes we all wonder. :)
 
If it is any consolation, SH, I sometimes wonder if the doggoned Republican National Committee isn't trying to recruit for the Democrats by coming in through the back door. Their many phone calls soliciting funds are just about enough to make any good red-blooded Republican seriously consider switching parties.
 
Soapweed, "Beef producers should all just be one big happy family. It shouldn't matter. "

Sounds like you're turning into a Democrat to me :lol:
 
The FACT of the matter is that NO ONE can disagree with Thomas Jefferson original statement. Why? Because they believe it as well. Oh, sure, those of you who LOVE the checkoff, don't want to admit it, but the fact is that:

"to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical."

Go ahead. Prove that statement wrong and why you think so!
 
the chief said:
The FACT of the matter is that NO ONE can disagree with Thomas Jefferson original statement. Why? Because they believe it as well. Oh, sure, those of you who LOVE the checkoff, don't want to admit it, but the fact is that:

"to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical."

Go ahead. Prove that statement wrong and why you think so!
Click to expand...

{Don't you owe us the context of that statement so we can see for ourselves if it really has validity in the context of your use, or do you use it simply to serve your agenda?

Also, it seems to be quite well documented that the man owned slaves, and fathered children by them. Does that mean you believe that practice still is proper today?

While the statement may not be wrong, even in his day it was necessary for government to use taxes to do things with which some who had to pay them disagreed, was it not?

Is it right for the majority (cattle producers agreeing we need the checkoff) to be subjected to the will of the minority (those who claim it is, in one way or another, "wrong")? It would be impossible to allow dissenters to give up benefits of the checkoff in return for being allowed to not pay it, wouldn't it? If some way to do that were possible, I would be all for it. No one should be forced to benefit from the beef checkoff against their will, IMO.

Referencing the Beef Checkoff.....the plaintiffs original complaing was that they wanted a referendum. They failed to get enough signatures, yet insisted that should not matter. The law, with that provision placed in it by CATTLE PRODUCERS, prevailed.

ALSO: you write as though the Beef Checkoff is used ONLY for advertising. It is far more than that.

The Beef Checkoff is: RESEARCH setting the records straigt about the great, even superior, nutritional benefits of beef and communicating that info to medical professionals and consumers, all desperately needed to counter the years of false assumptions even by government and medical experts that beef is not a healthful food;

It is: food safety systems used in processing of nearly 90% of fed cattle in the USA to reduce bacteria during processing by 99.99%; increased the quality of heat and serve beef dishes, raising consumer satisfaction;

It is: educational programs, called "Fit Fot a Princess", for thousands of young Girl Scouts showing them how nutrition and physical activity programs and beef in the diet benefit their lives, especially valuable because girls in this age group typically do not get enough zinc or iron necessary to proper development.

It is: development of new, quick and easy beef products which appeal to modern consumers demand for convenience, variety, versatility, and nutrition, often with significant contributions of money from non-checkoff sources;

It is: more than 100 million positive media stories, which are not ads paid by Checkoff $$$, about beef generated through the checkoff-funded Council for Women's Nutrition Solutions;

It is: the Beef Value Cuts program which developed the Flat Iron, Shoulder Tender, and Ranch Cut steaks to get more value from under-utilized tender and flavorful muscles formerly used as ground beef for less money. These cuts are sold in some of the most popular restaurants such as LoneStar Steakhouse, Humperdink's, Bubba gump Shrimp Co, and in growing numbers of retail meat cases;

It is: checkoff funded programs that have generated (but NOT paid for) coverage of beef information in thousands of newspapers and magazines with combined circulations in the billions, not including additional audio and video broadcast materials favorable to beef;

It is: about $1.5 million in beef checkoff funds are invested in food safety research and technology each year in addition to the many millions spent by individual companies, universities and government agencies. There have been many successes resulting from thise research investments today. One is the dramatic reduction in e Coli incidences, many years ahead of predicted schedule:

It is: a Checkoff launched new consumer website....beefitswhatsfordinner.com....which now gets about 1,000 visitors per day who spend 7 or more minutes learning more about beef and getting recipes to prepare more beef;

It is: extensive food communication programs that share beef information and recipes to encourage top-tier food media and food professionals to use and promote more beef and answers their questions and gives them the latest info about beef and beef products;

It is: partnerships with Retail and Foodservice entities to increase beef offerings on menus and in grocery stores (Dominos, Arby's, Taco Bell, DQ, and more). These provide a HUGE return on beef checkoff dollars as these companies invest sometimes on the order of more than $50 million in promotions to the relatively small amount of dollars in checkoff funds on such partnership projects which often result in the business permanently adding an experimentally featured beef entree to their menu;

It is: the Summer Grilling campaigns which are just now going into high gear, with strong and valuable participation by retailers throughout the country. (We heard radio reports one conducted at Westside Family Thrift store in Rapid City yesterday where they stated they sold lots of flank steak during the teaching and tasting party);

AND: there are many, many more such projects not even mentioned here that are definitely responsible for consumers demand for beef being on the increase, though possibly not the only thing. We can surely admit that consumers having money available to spend on beef is vitally important, too.

MRJ
 
Soapweed: "But the question remains, are you recruiting for R-CALF as an under cover agent? Sometimes we all wonder."

We all?

What group are you the spokesperson for? The Merriman "fence riders"?


Using your "chinese water torture" logic, Johnny Smith, Mike Callicrate, Bill Bullard, Derry Brownfield and Herman Schumacher must be recruiting for NCBA huh?

Can't address the double standard can you?

Stay in your comfort zone Soap!


In regards to "recruitment for R-CULT", if someone's convictions are so weak that they would abandon their principles based on someone else's candor in presenting the facts, they were pretty spineless to begin with.



Chief: "Go ahead. Prove that statement wrong and why you think so!"

Thomas Jefferson's statement applies perfectly to R-CULT's fundraising efforts, not the beef checkoff.

Thomas Jefferson's statement refers to fund raising efforts by political organizations such as R-CULT/OCM/CCMP/LMA that propogate "OPINIONS" which cannot be supported by factual information ("opinions which he disbelieves").

The checkoff does not propogate "OPINIONS" and cannot be used for political lobbying. The checkoff can only be used for research, promotion (propogation) of FACTS about beef, and education of consumers about new products, beef safety, etc. etc.

I agree wtih Thomas Jefferson's statement but it does not apply to the beef checkoff which prohibits political lobbying. It applies perfectly to R-CULT's "blind leading the blind" fundraising efforts.

Better luck next time!

Oh, BTW, you know the old LMA cliche' about the "checkoff funding NCBA", it's another lie.

You knew that didn't you or are you one of those who Thomas Jefferson is referring to that propogate the lie about the beef checkoff funding the NCBA?


~SH~
 
mj...Also, it seems to be quite well documented that the man owned slaves, and fathered children by them. Does that mean you believe that practice still is proper today?

MJ are you for real? Slavery was part of our history, not a good part but a part of it none the less. Do you know if any of your family owned slaves back at that time?



Of the first five presidents, four owned slaves.All four of these owned slaves while they were president.

Of the next five presidents (#6-10), four owned slaves.Only two of them owned slaves while they were president.

Of the next five presidents (#11-15), two owned slaves. Both of these two owned slaves while they were president.

Of the next three presidents (#16-18) two owned slaves. neither of them owned slaves while serving as president.

The last president to own slaves at all was #18, Ulysses S. Grant (1869-1877). The last president to own slaves while president was #13, Zachary Taylor (1849-1850).

So twelve of our presidents owned slaves and eight of them owned slaves while serving as president


SH...Thomas Jefferson's statement refers to fund raising efforts by political organizations such as R-CULT/OCM/CCMP/LMA that propogate "OPINIONS" which cannot be supported by factual information ("opinions which he disbelieves").

Scott, Thomas Jefferson's statment refers to religous freedom, not to fund raising political organizations. You ought to check it out before you make a statement like you just did.

It was a fundamental understanding among the founders of our Constitution that taxpayers should not be forced to support a church or a religion that they don't believe in. The Virginia Statute for Establishing Religious Freedom (1786), authored by Thomas Jefferson and enacted with the help of James Madison, declared "that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever..."

The preamble to the Virginia Statute states it more forcefully: "to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical."
 
T: "It was a fundamental understanding among the founders of our Constitution that taxpayers should not be forced to support a church or a religion that they don't believe in."

If the "propogation of opinions for which the contributer disbelieves" in this case referst to seperation of church and state and not political lobbying by a cult like organization, where is the application to the beef checkoff Tommy?

Either way, the checkoff does not propogate "opinions" so Thomas Jefferson's statement does not apply to the beef checkoff.

If you disagree, explain how this statement applies to the beef checkoff Tommy!


~SH~
 
SH...Either way, the checkoff does not propogate "opinions" so Thomas Jefferson's statement does not apply to the beef checkoff.

If you disagree, explain how this statement applies to the beef checkoff Tommy!

Scott the checkoff promotes "generic'' beef. I disagree with that. To make me or others pay for something that we disagree with without being represented by someone who was voted on is just exactly what Jefferson's words mean to me.
I know we will continue to disagree on this Scott, I will not change your mind nor you mine.

Here is another quote from someone you might be interested in.



"There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him." - Robert Heinlein
 
There is no way an entity/organization could not propagate "opinions". If it did not, there would be no reason for it to exist.
 
To MRJ concerning Thomas Jefferson and slavery:

Furthermore, recall that Virginia law did not recognize slave families. Therefore, if a slave was freed, the law made it almost impossible for him to remain near his spouse, children, or his family members who had not been freed, for the law required that a freed slave promptly depart the State or else reenter slavery:

If any slave hereafter emancipated shall remain within this Commonwealth more than twelve months after his or her right to freedom shall have accrued, he or she shall forfeit all such right and may be apprehended and sold. 31

It was under difficult laws like these–under laws even more restrictive than those Washington had faced–that Jefferson was required to operate. Nevertheless, as a slave owner (he, like Washington, had inherited slaves), Jefferson maintained a consistent public opposition to slavery and assiduously labored to end slavery both in his State and in the nation.
 
reader (the second)...Tommy - very interesting that you quote Robert Heinlein

OK here is another by Jefferson.


The same prudence which in private life would forbid our paying our own money for unexplained projects, forbids it in the dispensation of the public moneys. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1821
 
Mike said:
To MRJ concerning Thomas Jefferson and slavery:

Furthermore, recall that Virginia law did not recognize slave families. Therefore, if a slave was freed, the law made it almost impossible for him to remain near his spouse, children, or his family members who had not been freed, for the law required that a freed slave promptly depart the State or else reenter slavery:

If any slave hereafter emancipated shall remain within this Commonwealth more than twelve months after his or her right to freedom shall have accrued, he or she shall forfeit all such right and may be apprehended and sold. 31

It was under difficult laws like these–under laws even more restrictive than those Washington had faced–that Jefferson was required to operate. Nevertheless, as a slave owner (he, like Washington, had inherited slaves), Jefferson maintained a consistent public opposition to slavery and assiduously labored to end slavery both in his State and in the nation.
Click to expand...

{I should have made it more clear in that post that I was not criticizing Jefferson for his actions then, but was pointing out that ideas change as time progresses.........then SH pointed out that the context of his statement did not fit this situation in any case. The end.

MRJ}
 

Latest posts

Top