Why are so-called "progressives" and "liberals" so deferential to religious nonsense by Indians?

[Nice Squirrel]

That much is obvious. But why do they feel so strongly against a pipeline that they would go up to ND to protest?

It's about drinking water, and not just the pipeline.

Also, do you know if they were among the #nodapl-ers who were hit with water cannon in freezing temperatures last night?

No they were not, but some of my EMT friends are headed there this weekend.

Yes they do.

And that doesn't cause them to think that perhaps the apocalyptic doomsday claims about DAPL are grossly exaggerated?

Nope. Pipelines leak all the time, one catastrophic one can ruin the water supply for generations.

They are quite well versed in the global and socioeconomic situation.

Are they really? If they were they would not be against this pipeline.

Why? This pipeline does not need to go through this area. What does the route of this pipeline have to do with the global and socioeconomic situation?

Are the Standing Rock citizens required to negotiate with corporations?

One of the complaints by the Standing Rock Indians is that they were not consulted. The fact that the company tried to contact them many times determined that was a lie.

But are they required to negotiate with corporations? If a corporation shows up and asks for something, are they required to respond?

Considering they are practicing, successful lawyers in sure they are well versed in identifying loaded questions.

But apparently they are incapable of identifying the major load of bullshit fed to them by the Indians and other anti-pipeline, anti-oil activists. Perhaps they should have taken a minor in agronomy.

So you are sticking with your loaded questions and insults.

Btw, if they are "practicing, successful lawyers", who is minding their practices while they are up in ND playing cowboys and Indians?

Part of their success comes from managing their calendars, staff, and clients. They are taking real action on what they believe is right. Like you could do by donating to the Innocence Project.

I ask that question about the other out-of-state protesters as well. Some have been there for months. Don't they have jobs? Or school? Who is paying for their "adventure tourism"? Soros? Saudis? Russians?

You should ask them.

 

[Arctish]

One of the complaints by the Standing Rock Indians is that they were not consulted. The fact that the company tried to contact them many times determined that was a lie.

But are they required to negotiate with corporations? If a corporation shows up and asks for something, are they required to respond?

The fact that the company tried to contact Standing Rock Sioux tribe does not mean the company was attempting to negotiate.

Telling people what you plan to do, whether they like it or not, isn't consultation.

 

[Derec]

The fact that the company tried to contact Standing Rock Sioux tribe does not mean the company was attempting to negotiate.
Telling people what you plan to do, whether they like it or not, isn't consultation.

Consultation is also not just giving in to their demands.

 

[Derec]

It's about drinking water, and not just the pipeline.

The drinking water is just a red herring. There are already many pipelines crossing the Missouri and besides, ETP agreed to build a drinking water inlet upstream from the pipeline for the reservation.
#nodapl activists do not want just to reroute the pipeline away from the reservation, they want to stop the project completely. Furthermore, they are opposed to oil pipelines altogether and also to domestic oil production. If it was up to them, we'd go back to the time before the fracking revolution where we had to import 3/4 of our oil.

Note the "no pipelines", "keep it in the ground", etc. slogans.

No they were not, but some of my EMT friends are headed there this weekend.

You seem to have a lot of friends who are radical ecomentalists.

Nope. Pipelines leak all the time, one catastrophic one can ruin the water supply for generations.

No, it can't "ruin water supply for generations". Especially since drinking waters gets purified extensively before being piped to homes.
Oil is also not very soluble in water and forms a film on the surface making cleanup easier.

Why? This pipeline does not need to go through this area. What does the route of this pipeline have to do with the global and socioeconomic situation?

The route of the pipeline has to do with topography, geology and population patterns and should be as direct as possible. It makes no sense to route a pipeline close to a more densely populated area rather than through an area with barely any people in it. Some #nodapl activists claim that the pipeline should have been routed through Bismarck. But that does not make any sense - why would you route a pipeline through a densely populated area where you have more people (including Indians, there are ~3000 Indians living in Bismarck) potentially affected by any spills but also construction would be more difficult because there are more roads and other structures in the way. Have you seen videos of where they are actually buidling the pipeline now? Just desolate prairie, no evidence of human structures as far as the eye can see. Also, property sizes in Bismarck metro area are smaller so you'd have to get many more easements - instead of large, sprawling ranches and wide swaths of federal/state land you'd have many more smaller residential and commercial parcels of land. Not to mention that the crossing would still be upstream of Standing Rock even if it went through Bismarck. It just does not make sense.

Note that the current route is more direct than the Bismarck route although it still curves a little to avoid the reservation.
Not that it matters anyway. The route is a distraction. The #nodapl crowd would protest any route, just like they are protesting all pipelines. For example that girl whose arm got blown apart was arrested at least two times this year while she protested two different gas pipelines in the North East.

But are they required to negotiate with corporations? If a corporation shows up and asks for something, are they required to respond?

No, they are not, but then they should not complain that they were not included in the process.

So you are sticking with your loaded questions and insults.

If they can't spot bullshit shoveled by the #nodapl crowd they deserve no better.

Part of their success comes from managing their calendars, staff, and clients.

And also trolling for business and chasing ambulances on the North Dakota plains ...

They are taking real action on what they believe is right.

That is not enough. Why do they believe that is right? How did they come to that conclusion? Because the #nodapl position makes absolutely no sense.

You should ask them.

They are your friends.

 

[fromderinside]

The fact that the company tried to contact Standing Rock Sioux tribe does not mean the company was attempting to negotiate.
Telling people what you plan to do, whether they like it or not, isn't consultation.

Consultation is also not just giving in to their demands.

Well if you are from the propertied/monied lot it should be. There is no way the people should ever be required to obey any company even when the law is on their side.

They might be required to pay something, but, they cannot have either their liberty, mobility or consciences constrained.

 

[bleubird]

Did they blow that protesters arm off or not?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

The drinking water is just a red herring. There are already many pipelines crossing the Missouri and besides, ETP agreed to build a drinking water inlet upstream from the pipeline for the reservation.

You asked a specific question about specific individuals, and now your are attempting to negate the reasons they gave for going to North Dakota because other people have other reasons? Good grief.

Furthermore, they are opposed to oil pipelines altogether and also to domestic oil production. If it was up to them, we'd go back to the time before the fracking revolution where we had to import 3/4 of our oil.

Can I get a source where a majority of protesters want this?

No they were not, but some of my EMT friends are headed there this weekend.

You seem to have a lot of friends who are radical ecomentalists.

I didn't know clean drinking water was a radical idea. No wonder why politicians won't lift a finger to help out in Flint.

Nope. Pipelines leak all the time, one catastrophic one can ruin the water supply for generations.

No, it can't "ruin water supply for generations". Especially since drinking waters gets purified extensively before being piped to homes.

You do know that in rural North Dakota, people get their drinking water from private wells that may or may not ever be tested?

So you are sticking with your loaded questions and insults.

If they can't spot bullshit shoveled by the #nodapl crowd they deserve no better.

So you are completely oblivious to their side of the story. Why did you bother to ask me about them?

Part of their success comes from managing their calendars, staff, and clients.

And also trolling for business and chasing ambulances on the North Dakota plains ...

More insults and unfounded accusations. They do not practice in North Dakota.

They are taking real action on what they believe is right.

That is not enough. Why do they believe that is right? How did they come to that conclusion? Because the #nodapl position makes absolutely no sense.

Why don't you reread my posts. I have already responded.

You should ask them.

They are your friends.

No I have told you about my friends. Here is what you are responding to:

"I ask that question about the other out-of-state protesters as well. Some have been there for months. Don't they have jobs? Or school? Who is paying for their "adventure tourism"? Soros? Saudis? Russians? "​

I do not know these people you claim are part of a radical conspiracy to provide clean drinking water. If you want to know about people who have been there for months and their connections to the New Black Panther Party and Vladimir Putin, I suggest you contact them yourself and ask.

 

[Derec]

Life imitates art, sort of. Except the redskins are getting impatient with pale face "Burners" (or is that "Berners")?
Don’t Come To Standing Rock If You’re Going To Treat It Like Burning Man
Standing Rock: North Dakota access pipeline demonstrators say white people are 'treating protest like Burning Man'

Ms Smith observed that many protestors appeared to be living off the native American community, and were taking advantage of donations sent in for the cause. Another Twitter user said they had witnessed a protestor turn down tap water to spend donations on 'fluoride free' water.

Native Americans Getting Fed up With White Hippies Treating #NoDAPL Protest Like a Festival
That article also features a tweet with a pictures featuring this amazing case of irony deficiency.

 

[Derec]

You asked a specific question about specific individuals, and now your are attempting to negate the reasons they gave for going to North Dakota because other people have other reasons? Good grief.

It's not just that "other people have other reasons". It's that:
- the anti-pipelines, anti-oil is the prevailing attitude of these protesters/activists/radicals. It's like going to a KKK rally and claiming one doesn't really subscribe to the tenets of KKK.
- I have shown other possible reasons, such as wanting to reroute the pipeline, or that this pipeline is somehow worse than other pipelines, are bogus.

Can I get a source where a majority of protesters want this?

Gallup did not conduct polls if that's what you mean. But if you follow what is happening in North Dakota and elsewhere about this case it is an inescapable conclusion.

I didn't know clean drinking water was a radical idea. No wonder why politicians won't lift a finger to help out in Flint.

"Clean drinking water" is not a radical idea. But this pipeline is not a real threat to clean drinking water. It's a made-up issue to push the radical anti-oil agenda.
And you are right about Flint. The hundreds of thousands of dollars these #nodapl idiots are spending on going to Standing Rock or donating for the cause would have been better spent donating that money to replace old water pipes not only in Flint but elsewhere in the US as well.

You do know that in rural North Dakota, people get their drinking water from private wells that may or may not ever be tested?

And yet with the thousands of pipelines in existence, some of which already cross the Missouri, this water is not contaminated. So how exactly is DAPL going to contaminate water for 17 million people by itself? It's a laughable claim but par for the course of radical environmentalist alarmism. It's no different as with anti-nuclear activists or anti-GMO activists etc.

So you are completely oblivious to their side of the story. Why did you bother to ask me about them?

I am not oblivious. I just did not hear anything sensible from their side of the story. That's why I asked. You did not deliver.

More insults and unfounded accusations. They do not practice in North Dakota.

It's not unfounded. Lefty lawyers (or rather, "liars") are already filing lawsuits.
Morton County officials being sued for use of 'excessive force' against protesters

Why don't you reread my posts. I have already responded.

Not really. You made some vague references to water, but I have shown that those concerns are bogus.

I do not know these people you claim are part of a radical conspiracy to provide clean drinking water. If you want to know about people who have been there for months and their connections to the New Black Panther Party and Vladimir Putin, I suggest you contact them yourself and ask.

You said you have friends who are going to these protests. They should know who butters their bread.

By the way, the first snow fell on the camps.

And the US Army Corps of Engineers declared that protesters must not stay on federal land after December 5th, next Monday. The very next day temperatures will drop to 16°F high, 0°F low and will remain that way for the following few days. I wonder how many hippies, especially those from warm areas like California, will hightail it before then. I also wonder how many will suffer extreme hypothermia. And to keep warm in a barely insulated tepee or yurt (or even a tiny house) at these temperatures requires burning copious amounts of fuel per person. Either wood or fossil fuels. But even wood has to be hauled for miles by pickup truck. These protests are not just protesting oil, they are showing how much we still need oil and thus are proving their own futility.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

It's not just that "other people have other reasons". It's that:
- the anti-pipelines, anti-oil is the prevailing attitude of these protesters/activists/radicals. It's like going to a KKK rally and claiming one doesn't really subscribe to the tenets of KKK.
- I have shown other possible reasons, such as wanting to reroute the pipeline, or that this pipeline is somehow worse than other pipelines, are bogus.

Once again in bold:

You asked specifically about my friends. Please reread. You are arguing an entirely different point. You asked me about my friends and I answered.​

Can I get a source where a majority of protesters want this?

Gallup did not conduct polls if that's what you mean. But if you follow what is happening in North Dakota and elsewhere about this case it is an inescapable conclusion.

So you have no source, but just made it up.

You do know that in rural North Dakota, people get their drinking water from private wells that may or may not ever be tested?

And yet with the thousands of pipelines in existence, some of which already cross the Missouri, this water is not contaminated. So how exactly is DAPL going to contaminate water for 17 million people by itself? It's a laughable claim but par for the course of radical environmentalist alarmism. It's no different as with anti-nuclear activists or anti-GMO activists etc.

If the oil gets into the groundwater it has a good chance of contaminating it. Radical environmentalist alarmism, I know.

So you are completely oblivious to their side of the story. Why did you bother to ask me about them?

I am not oblivious. I just did not hear anything sensible from their side of the story. That's why I asked. You did not deliver.

So you didn't want to hear about them unless they conform to your preconceived stereotype.

More insults and unfounded accusations. They do not practice in North Dakota.

It's not unfounded. Lefty lawyers (or rather, "liars") are already filing lawsuits.
Morton County officials being sued for use of 'excessive force' against protesters

They are not participating in the lawsuit. Your point is moot.

Why don't you reread my posts. I have already responded.

Not really. You made some vague references to water, but I have shown that those concerns are bogus.

You should actually reread what you have responded to:

NS: I have some friends up there protesting in the blizzard.

Derec: Don't they realize Indians arbitrarily declare areas as "sacred" just to confuse and bamboozle the hated palefaces and prevent development they don't like?

Derec: But apparently they are incapable of identifying the major load of bullshit fed to them by the Indians and other anti-pipeline, anti-oil activists. Perhaps they should have taken a minor in agronomy. Btw, if they are "practicing, successful lawyers", who is minding their practices while they are up in ND playing cowboys and Indians?

Derec responding to his own post: Oh, since they are lawyers they must be there to ambulance chase, trolling for new custom! I just hope ND local governments and courts are not going to give these protesters any money. Instead, protesters should be sued for cost of law enforcement and of any delays to pipeline construction.

NS: Part of their success comes from managing their calendars, staff, and clients.

Derec: And also trolling for business and chasing ambulances on the North Dakota plains ...

NS: They are taking real action on what they believe is right.

Derec: That is not enough. Why do they believe that is right? How did they come to that conclusion? Because the #nodapl position makes absolutely no sense.

NS: Why don't you reread my posts. I have already responded.​

I do not know these people you claim are part of a radical conspiracy to provide clean drinking water. If you want to know about people who have been there for months and their connections to the New Black Panther Party and Vladimir Putin, I suggest you contact them yourself and ask.

You said you have friends who are going to these protests. They should know who butters their bread.

My friends are not the same people who you are characterizing.

By the way, the first snow fell on the camps.

Should have fallen weeks ago.

And the US Army Corps of Engineers declared that protesters must not stay on federal land after December 5th, next Monday. Very next day temperatures will drop to 16°F high, 0°F low. I wonder how many hippies, especially those from warm areas like California, will hightail it before then. And to keep warm in a barely insulated tepee or yurt at these temperatures requires burning copious amounts of fuel per person. Either wood or fossil fuels. But even wood has to be hauled for miles by pickup truck. These protests are not just protesting oil, they are showing how much we still need oil and thus are proving their own futility.

Apparently you've never lived and camped in a cold environment. I've slept comfortable at -30°F without a heater. The local folks will know what they are doing.

 

[Toni]

Once again in bold:

You asked specifically about my friends. Please reread. You are arguing an entirely different point. You asked me about my friends and I answered.​

Can I get a source where a majority of protesters want this?

Gallup did not conduct polls if that's what you mean. But if you follow what is happening in North Dakota and elsewhere about this case it is an inescapable conclusion.

So you have no source, but just made it up.

You do know that in rural North Dakota, people get their drinking water from private wells that may or may not ever be tested?

And yet with the thousands of pipelines in existence, some of which already cross the Missouri, this water is not contaminated. So how exactly is DAPL going to contaminate water for 17 million people by itself? It's a laughable claim but par for the course of radical environmentalist alarmism. It's no different as with anti-nuclear activists or anti-GMO activists etc.

If the oil gets into the groundwater it has a good chance of contaminating it. Radical environmentalist alarmism, I know.

So you are completely oblivious to their side of the story. Why did you bother to ask me about them?

I am not oblivious. I just did not hear anything sensible from their side of the story. That's why I asked. You did not deliver.

So you didn't want to hear about them unless they conform to your preconceived stereotype.

More insults and unfounded accusations. They do not practice in North Dakota.

It's not unfounded. Lefty lawyers (or rather, "liars") are already filing lawsuits.
Morton County officials being sued for use of 'excessive force' against protesters

They are not participating in the lawsuit. Your point is moot.

Why don't you reread my posts. I have already responded.

Not really. You made some vague references to water, but I have shown that those concerns are bogus.

You should actually reread what you have responded to:

NS: I have some friends up there protesting in the blizzard.

Derec: Don't they realize Indians arbitrarily declare areas as "sacred" just to confuse and bamboozle the hated palefaces and prevent development they don't like?

Derec: But apparently they are incapable of identifying the major load of bullshit fed to them by the Indians and other anti-pipeline, anti-oil activists. Perhaps they should have taken a minor in agronomy. Btw, if they are "practicing, successful lawyers", who is minding their practices while they are up in ND playing cowboys and Indians?

Derec responding to his own post: Oh, since they are lawyers they must be there to ambulance chase, trolling for new custom! I just hope ND local governments and courts are not going to give these protesters any money. Instead, protesters should be sued for cost of law enforcement and of any delays to pipeline construction.

NS: Part of their success comes from managing their calendars, staff, and clients.

Derec: And also trolling for business and chasing ambulances on the North Dakota plains ...

NS: They are taking real action on what they believe is right.

Derec: That is not enough. Why do they believe that is right? How did they come to that conclusion? Because the #nodapl position makes absolutely no sense.

NS: Why don't you reread my posts. I have already responded.​

I do not know these people you claim are part of a radical conspiracy to provide clean drinking water. If you want to know about people who have been there for months and their connections to the New Black Panther Party and Vladimir Putin, I suggest you contact them yourself and ask.

You said you have friends who are going to these protests. They should know who butters their bread.

My friends are not the same people who you are characterizing.

By the way, the first snow fell on the camps.

Should have fallen weeks ago.

And the US Army Corps of Engineers declared that protesters must not stay on federal land after December 5th, next Monday. Very next day temperatures will drop to 16°F high, 0°F low. I wonder how many hippies, especially those from warm areas like California, will hightail it before then. And to keep warm in a barely insulated tepee or yurt at these temperatures requires burning copious amounts of fuel per person. Either wood or fossil fuels. But even wood has to be hauled for miles by pickup truck. These protests are not just protesting oil, they are showing how much we still need oil and thus are proving their own futility.

Apparently you've never lived and camped in a cold environment. I've slept comfortable at -30°F without a heater. The local folks will know what they are doing.

Since when does abject ignorance of the facts surrounding an issue--particularly if it involves brown people or women--prevent Derec from opining whatever alt-right dribble he imbibes?

 

[Derec]

Since when does abject ignorance of the facts surrounding an issue--particularly if it involves brown people or women--prevent Derec from opining whatever alt-right dribble he imbibes?

It is not I who is showing "abject ignorance of the facts surrounding an issue" but all the alt-leftists on this thread and who are protesting the pipeline.

Throughout this thread, and in the conversation with Nice Squirrel, I have shown in detail why the claims of the #nodapl crowd do not make sense.

 

[fromderinside]

Sorry Derec the alt prefix is restricted to the right since they named it themselves. The Alt-Reich has no business trying to smear leftists with their alt-right blather and lack of morality. The protesters aligning themselves with the tribes who are doing this for recognition of their plight are doing it in support of local Indian claims. You may pooh, pooh the sacredness of tribal lands but, I'm sure, you'll defend to the death the right of Trump to build a tower over a black graveyard or any, but evangelical, graveyard.

Sense to a for-profit protester who never acknowledges motivation for profit is fraudulent. After all someone' money is always more important than another's rights.

 

[Elixir]

Since when does abject ignorance of the facts surrounding an issue--particularly if it involves brown people or women--prevent Derec from opining whatever alt-right dribble he imbibes?

Not once, since at least four years ago when I joined this forum... but of course that is all obviated by his claim that "It is not I who is showing "abject ignorance of the facts surrounding an issue""...
Reminds me of teh Donald touting his YUUUGELY tremendous temperament.

 

[Toni]

Since when does abject ignorance of the facts surrounding an issue--particularly if it involves brown people or women--prevent Derec from opining whatever alt-right dribble he imbibes?

It is not I who is showing "abject ignorance of the facts surrounding an issue" but all the alt-leftists on this thread and who are protesting the pipeline.

Throughout this thread, and in the conversation with Nice Squirrel, I have shown in detail why the claims of the #nodapl crowd do not make sense.

Well, no, you have not. You've shown yourself to be entirely condescending, albeit with zero justification in your judgement
of issues you have not even bothered to educate yourself about. Instead, you suck on the alt-right teet and expel their bullshit without even taking the trouble to digest it.

 

[fromderinside]

Since when does abject ignorance of the facts surrounding an issue--particularly if it involves brown people or women--prevent Derec from opining whatever alt-right dribble he imbibes?

Not once, since at least four years ago when I joined this forum... but of course that is all obviated by his claim that "It is not I who is showing "abject ignorance of the facts surrounding an issue""...
Reminds me of teh Donald touting his YUUUGELY tremendous temperament.

Did Derec claim to win the popular vote too?

 

[JonA]

The Anti-Pipeline Argument is Evil on it's Face

If we don't get the oil from anywhere, then we need a replacement. The welfare of billions of people is dependent on the energy we get from oil.

We don't have a replacement. So it is only moral that we continue to use oil to provide for the welfare of the billions of people whose lives are made possible by oil's energy.

If we don't get the oil from places like North Dakota, the deficit will certainly come from overseas and that means money sent to prop up some of the most oppressive theocratic governments on the planet.

It's only moral that we get the oil from places like ND and not overseas theocracies.

If our oil comes from places like ND, it will get to us by pipe or rail.

By all sane measures, pipe is the safest and most environmentally sound option.

So there we have it: The best option to maximize human welfare is to build this pipeline. And until the anti-pipers can overcome the points above, we literally have no - absolutely no - reason to give their position any consideration whatsoever - on grounds of morality, on grounds of ethics, on grounds of safety, and, yes, even on grounds of environmentalism.

It's just that simple.

 

[Arctish]

The Anti-Pipeline Argument is Evil on it's Face

Not so.

There is a sound moral argument being made in favor of utilizing existing pipelines rather than building new ones. The advantages are two-fold. First, there is very little in the way of added environmental risks. The only new risks involve short runs of new pipeline between the new oil fields and the nearest appropriate pipeline. Second, the chances of spills, leaks, and catastrophic failures are greatly reduced when the infrastructure is properly maintained, as it must be in order to meet the terms of permits to transport oil from a newly developed field. There's nothing immoral about making sure the pipeline operators adhere to the terms of their original permits or to additional terms designed to protect soil, air, water, and ecosystems.

There have been three pipeline explosions and untold leaks and spills in the 4 months since the pipeline protests at Standing Rock began in earnest, including the explosion in Platte County today. There have been thousands of spills and pipeline failures in the past 6 years. IMO it's both immoral and stupid to accept this kind of shoddy operation of our nation's infrastructure or to force the taxpayers to foot the bill for clean-up. It's beyond immoral and stupid to put a major source of clean drinking water at additional risk when what's needed is proper maintenance and upgrading the existing system.

 

[JonA]

If existing pipelines could meet the demand, they'd already be meeting it.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

If existing pipelines could meet the demand, they'd already be meeting it.

But can you upgrade existing pipelines/routes?