According to an article at Snopes.com:
The Army Corps of Engineers has denied the easement needed to complete the Dakota Access Pipeline, according Colonel Henderson, who notified Veterans for Standing Rock co-organizer Michael A. Wood Jr on 4 December 2016.
More than 3,000 veterans had converged at the Standing Rock camp to support the Sioux in their ongoing opposition to the building of a $3.7 billion pipeline that would cross through disputed land managed by the Army Corps of Engineers. Wood said upon learning of the move, "This is history."
From a report in Al Jazeera :
The US Army Corps of Engineers has turned down a permit for a controversial pipeline project running through North Dakota, in a victory for Native Americans and climate activists who have protested against the project for several months, according to a statement released.
The 1,885km Dakota Access Pipeline, owned by Texas-based Energy Transfer Partners LP, had been complete except for a segment planned to run under Lake Oahe, a reservoir formed by a dam on the Missouri River.
"The Army will not grant an easement to cross Lake Oahe at the proposed location based on the current record," a statement from the US Army said.
The Standing Rock Sioux tribe, along with climate activists, have been protesting the $3.8bn project, saying it could contaminate the water supply and damage sacred tribal lands.
[...] "Today, the US Army Corps of Engineers announced that it will not be granting the easement to cross Lake Oahe for the proposed Dakota Access Pipeline," said Standing Rock Chairman Dave Archambault II, in a statement.
"Instead, the Corps will be undertaking an environmental impact statement to look at possible alternative routes."
Related Stories
The Guardian reports that the U.S. Army sent a letter, dated 7 February, to member of Congress Raúl Grijalva, saying it would grant a permit for the construction of the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline. Work could resume as early as 8 February.
"I have determined that there is no cause for completing any additional environmental analysis," wrote Douglas W Lamon, the senior official performing the duties of assistant secretary of the army, wrote in a notice to the federal register.
More recent news in Standing Rock from Feb 9:
The restarting of the drilling operation, which a pipeline spokeswoman confirmed on Thursday morning, began soon after the US government gave the oil corporation the green light to proceed on Wednesday. The controversial pipeline could be transporting crude oil from North Dakota to Illinois within three months.
At the Standing Rock camps in Cannon Ball – where activists have been stationed since last spring to fight the project – indigenous and environmental organizers vowed to stay put and continue opposing the pipeline.
[Continues...]
AlterNet reports
A federal judge ruled [June 14] that the Trump administration must conduct additional environmental review of the Dakota Access Pipeline, handing a limited victory to Native American tribes fighting the administration's decision to move forward with the project.
In an extensive opinion,[PDF][1] Washington, DC District Court Judge James Boasberg sided with the tribes by agreeing the Army Corps of Engineers "did not consider the impacts of an oil spill on fishing rights, human rights, or environmental justice."
[...] Boasberg did not order a shutdown of operations on the pipeline, which began pumping oil early this month. The tribes and pipeline owner Energy Transfer Partners are ordered to appear in court next week to decide next legal steps, and the tribes are expected to argue for a full shutdown of pipeline operations.
[1] Link in article redirects.
Previous coverage:
Dakota Access Pipeline Suffers Oil Leak Even Before Becoming Operational
Recent News Dispatches From Standing Rock (DAPL)
Army Corp of Engineers Now Accepting Public Comment on the Dakota Access Pipeline
Army Corps of Engineers Blocks the Dakota Access Pipeline
Standing Rock Protester May Lose Her Arm Because of Police Grenades
Water Cannons Used in Sub-Freezing Temperatures at Dakota Access Oil Pipeline Protest
Standing Rock Protestors Gassed and Attacked; Bundy Gang Acquitted [Updated]
Journalist Charged in North Dakota with Rioting; Case is Dismissed
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @01:58PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/04/army-will-deny-easement-halting-work-on-dakota-access-pipeline/ [washingtonpost.com]
> The victory for the Standing Rock Sioux and its allies could be short-lived, though. President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to support pipelines such as this one. And Kelcy Warren, the chief executive of the pipeline company Energy Transfer Partners, has been a major contributor to the Republican Party and Trump’s campaign.
>
> Trump, who once owned a stake worth between $500,000 and $1 million in Energy Transfer Partners, has sold the shares, his spokeswoman Hope Hicks said. At the time of his most recent disclosure statement in May, Trump owned $100,000 to $250,000 of stock in Phillips 66, which has a 25 percent stake in the Dakota Access project.
And it continues -- more potential conflicts of interest for Trump (assuming the Phillips 66 investment is current).
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by nyder on Monday December 05 2016, @02:05PM
So he has sold his shares and no longer owns any stock in the company that wants to build the pipeline and that is somehow a conflict of interest?
Seriously, Trump sucks, but this sort of shit sucks worse. Look Clinton, you lost, suck it up.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @02:10PM
Reading comprehension fail.
He still owns stock in Pillips 66 which is an investor in the project.
That's separate from his direct investment in the company building the pipeline itself.
> Seriously, Trump sucks, but this sort of shit sucks worse. Look Clinton, you lost, suck it up.
And that dismissive ignorance sucks even worse.
This isn't about Clinton anymore. This is about Trump. "Winning" the election doesn't give him a free pass for corruption.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @02:37PM
Right he still owns $100K stake. Which is equivalent to you owning a $10 stake in it (I'm being very very generous in assuming your net-worth is $1,000,000 when compared to Trumps $10,000,000,000). You care about your $10 so much you want to risk prison to protect your investment? Your argument fails logic test, and you are clearly grabbing at straws here. There is nothing of substance so stop drumming up controversy like a little child.
(Score: 2) by rondon on Monday December 05 2016, @02:54PM
I don't think net worth means what you think it means. And before you site Donald, I certainly don't think it means what he would say it means.
That being said, I figure you are probably only off by one order of magnitude or so.
(Score: 3, Touché) by tangomargarine on Monday December 05 2016, @07:10PM
And before you site Donald
Cite. As in citation.
There's a joke in there somewhere about real estate, though.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @03:33PM
> You care about your $10 so much you want to risk prison to protect your investment?
lolwut?
There is no law that says Trump has to sell his shares.
In fact, he's said it himself, ‘the president can’t have a conflict of interest’ [politico.com]
There ought to be a law. The only reason there isn't a law is that all presidents in recent memory have voluntarily liquidated their assets and put them into a blind trust. Trump doesn't want to do that. Once he's out of office, congress will probably make it a law because he's proven the need for it. But for now, its not a law.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Monday December 05 2016, @04:09PM
I love how conflicts of interest and the big banks suddenly don't matter anymore.
Get paid to give a couple speeches to Goldman Sachs: lock her up!
Give the Treasury Secretary position to the head of the mortgage division at Goldman Sachs, after he donated a crap ton of money to your campaign: meh!
(Score: 2, Disagree) by khallow on Monday December 05 2016, @04:25PM
Give the Treasury Secretary position to the head of the mortgage division at Goldman Sachs, after he donated a crap ton of money to your campaign: meh!
Yea, who knew that Trump, like every president before him would give cabinet positions to political allies? Who knew? Glancing through the recent past, Obama has had two people (the last two people in fact) in that very position for which you could make the same claim. And if Clinton had been elected, she'd probably have appointed someone in a similar situation.
What makes your observation particularly silly, is who else can Trump appoint to that position? It makes sense to appoint someone financially knowledgeable. And it make sense to appoint someone who isn't hostile to Trump's agenda. That makes for a very short list in Trump's case.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @04:36PM
> Yea, who knew that Trump, like every president before him would give cabinet positions to political allies?
It isn't that he picked political allies. Its that he's a damn hypocrite. Or is it your contention that trump has no political allies that aren't members of the swamp? That would be even more damning of hypocrisy.
As usual, khallow applies juvenile analysis to avoid addressing the real issue.
Does nominative determinism apply to usernames?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 05 2016, @04:48PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @04:51PM
> There's a reason I'm not taking this complaint seriously.
Birds of a feather stick together, eh?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 05 2016, @04:58PM
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @04:59PM
Wooosh.
Let me spell it out for you.
YOU are a frequent hypocrite on this site.
Capiche?
Too damn stupid to know when you are being insulted.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 05 2016, @05:52PM
There is something deeply wrong with your outlook on politics. Hypocrisy is far from the worst evil out there so why dwell on it. It gives strength to the scoundrels (such as Trump, I might add) since hypocrisy is their bread and butter.
And rather than cry wolf over a trivial issue, how about wait till Trump actually does something wrong. It probably won't take long.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @06:55PM
There is something deeply wrong with your outlook on politics.
You did NOT just say that bullshit.
Hypocrisy is far from the worst evil out there so why dwell on it.
That is some lame-ass "children are starving in africa" sophistry.
Why "dwell" on hypocrisy?
Because if you can't count on a politician to at least try to live up to their rhetoric then you are reduced to nothing more than tribalism. You throw out principles in favor of rote partisanship. It is a cynicism that erodes the foundations of democracy. It induces despair and hopelessness. WORDS MATTER. If society is unwilling to hold their elected leaders to account for their words, then why even have elections? You, in your callow understanding of the world, are advocating for authoritarianism.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 05 2016, @07:44PM
Because if you can't count on a politician to at least try to live up to their rhetoric then you are reduced to nothing more than tribalism.
Let us note that you haven't established that there is a problem in the first place along these lines. Why the propensity to cry "wolf"?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @09:08PM
> Look, the Treasury is the last place I want anti-establishment theatrics.
I really DGAF what you want. You are a narcissist with literally no knowledge of civics. What you want is immaterial.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 06 2016, @07:50AM
I really DGAF what you want. You are a narcissist with literally no knowledge of civics. What you want is immaterial.
What a remarkable string of non sequiturs. Wasn't much point to posting that even if you were any good at pop psychology or civics. That you "DGAF" is irrelevant. That you think I'm a narcissist (look up the symptoms sometime) is irrelevant even if it were true. And knowledge of civics is rather irrelevant to anything discussed in this thread.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @10:50PM
The only problem they had is that they couldn't print the new notes fast enough. All the problems were based on that. Of course all the corrupt rich with rooms full of cash are going to run crying to the media and make a big fuss. Thats exactly the target.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 06 2016, @08:27AM
The only problem they had is that they couldn't print the new notes fast enough.
That's absurd. Even if we pretend that all the legit people successfully turn in their money (and this doesn't turn into an exercise to steal from hundreds of millions of poor people), that's still a billion or so people who have to waste time just because some fuck forced them to.
Of course all the corrupt rich with rooms full of cash are going to run crying to the media and make a big fuss. Thats exactly the target.
What corrupt rich is retarded enough to keep their wealth as Indian banknotes in the first place? This whole scheme is absolutely stupid especially when considered from basic principles.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by edIII on Monday December 05 2016, @06:25PM
Yes. You engender and represent many of them. Die in a fire today, you stupid fuck.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Monday December 05 2016, @07:09PM
I'm incensed, too, but those feelings are better channeled into a robust reply than wishing someone death.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @07:16PM
Why?
I don't know if he's autistic or just pathologically incapable of learning, but if there is one thing that's true about callow is that he's got zero interest in honest intellectual discussion. At some point you give up on the principle of charity and give him what he earns.
Its not like the performance of debate is going to bring new ideas to light for examination by an audience. He never says anything new. He's not a useful foil. Admit it, nothing callow has said in the last couple of years has surprised you, has it? The guy's a mental robot.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 05 2016, @08:18PM
I don't know
This is the problem in a nutshell. You're ignorant. Fix it please rather than threatening people with death just because you can't figure out how to understand them. Every discussion involving you has been an utter waste of everyone's time.
Its not like the performance of debate is going to bring new ideas to light for examination by an audience.
That is the point of debate.
He never says anything new.
Of course, because you never listen. I'm done with this.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @09:52PM
> I'm done with this.
I so, so, so fucking wish that were true.
But we all know you'll just come back to spout your ignorance as fact in the very next story. Probably even in other comments on this story.
(Score: 3, Funny) by edIII on Tuesday December 06 2016, @09:31PM
Hello, fuckface. Just to be absolutely clear with you, the AC was not me. That was somebody else that notices what a piece of shit you are, and how useless you are on this planet towards any goals of peace, cooperation, and/or enlightenment.
You are the utter waste of everyone's time, and you don't ever say anything new. Just more blind acceptance and kowtow'ng to the disgusting ideals you hold, namely Capitalism infected by extreme avarice, profit over people, the right to do whatever the fuck you want regardless of the cautionary principle, you name it.
Every single time you speak, you promulgate the views handed to you by the Elites to continue with the status quo, or just make it worse for the American worker in favor of the Elites. That's why we would all be much better off if you spontaneously caught on fire. You act as a barrier to our progress, and the fact you're a sniveling fuckwad bitterly complaining about how *your* society is being destroyed because we seek equality and living wages from below in extreme material deprivation, is the primary reason why you should burn in hell. You have the cruel audacity to claim we should continue, that's it clearly all of our faults, and that the Elites have done nothing wrong with setting up the systems we have. You would continue with 1/5 (close to being 1/4) children suffering malnourished in a critical time during neural development, to our extreme detriment in the future.
You're dangerously ignorant, arrogant, and deeply callous. Your name fits you perfectly.
Again, die in a fire you stupid evil bitch. I don't need to respond to you as an AC, and I won't ever "attack" you from the shadows. Remember that fuckface.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 07 2016, @07:46AM
Sure, if you can get enough unicorns and pixie dust to make "seeking equality and living wages from below in extreme material deprivation" a useful thing to do (assuming it's more effective than approaches I've mentioned over the years, which is a challenging threshold to beat), then fine we can unilaterally do that, even if government or society isn't inclined to do so (which incidentally is a thing about stuff that works, you don't need to have all of society in on it).
Every single time you speak, you promulgate the views handed to you by the Elites to continue with the status quo, or just make it worse for the American worker in favor of the Elites.
This is fundamentally why I don't take you seriously. If these sorts of approaches actually worked, we'd see evidence of that by now. Instead, all we hear are elaborate excuses for why things don't work such as the "Elites" mentally failwaving us (after they suddenly discovered greed in the 1970s).
(Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday December 07 2016, @10:41PM
Again, the stupid fuck speaks.
Riiiiggghtt. They weren't setup to fail? Mismangaged? Deliberately sabotaged? This is why you are such an ignorant fuckwad. Take welfare for example, when they decided that part of welfare was vocational training. Superficially, that sounds fucking great, intelligent, and a path for success right? WRONG. Those in power knew how to fuck these people, fuck the program, and still keep the problems around to point out when they say, "Yeah, but those programs never fucking work". Uh huh. Well what about if you DIDNT train 5,000 beauticians for jobs that don't exist? Then afterwards, we blame THEM for not finding a job again. We blame THEM for a shitty educational system where REAL and DAMAGING disparities in funding and resources exist. To say we actually gave them equal opportunity is one of the greatest lie in our country.
See, this is why you are so offensively ignorant. One of the great cycles of pain we had in Capitalism was the speed-ups in the 19th century. We made so much product, that in our ignorance (or was it?), that we caused our own economic issues. Just like the welfare programs did last century prepping people for service jobs that didn't exist just to be doing *something*.
So don't even fucking act like we had a chance to do it right, or that it wasn't fucked from the start of it. Most of those programs in the past weren't designed to do much for people ultimately, but just temporarily remove them from the workforce as unemployed people. Lowering the barrier for education, providing loans, GI Bill, and not pumping up the educational system to handle the load is another example of engineered failure.
I might be onboard with your version of reality if the Repugnicans didn't fight tooth and nail the entire time in the same way the South fought back against their loss by instituting Jim-Crow and fucking terrorizing African-Americans for nearly 100 more years. I bet according to your logic, the civil war was a failure to bring equality, and the fault lay with the African-Americans?
This is why you should spend eternity in the most painful area of Hell. It's not a USEFUL thing to do, you offensive sniveling piece of shit, but the RIGHT thing to do. We DESERVE equality and living wages from a moral and ethical standpoint. You stupid fuck, we CREATE the WEALTH. Why would we create ANYTHING just to sit in squalor afterwards with Elites looking down us with that wealth telling us, "Idle hands are the devils playthings, and working 16 hours a day is good for you"? Meanwhile, they play in elaborate and lavish parties held in the mansions of the coal and railroad robber barons. Were the Elites of the time really working hard labor for 16 hours a day to make sure their OWN HANDS didn't become tools of the Devil?
I'm going to give you some credit and believe you didn't mean to put in equality in that statement so dismissively. Otherwise, what the fuck is wrong with you?
Interesting. Something we agree on. Incidentally, we don't need everyone to join a revolution, but just enough to engage in civil war to the extent that we can finally have change. Quite possibly, without any blood shed at all were the participation levels high enough.
Ohh fuck you, you arrogant piece of shit. You haven't set any thresholds of ideas to be "beaten". You haven't proposed anything but continuing on with the status quo, and you REFUSE to acknowledge a living wage as a right due to all the work the people are performing every day. You instead continue with this idea that a janitor needs to be punished all his life as somebody that failed to achieve anything, and as a just reward, he lives in squalor. The entire time ignoring that somebody else is taking the majority of all the wealth he helps create every single day. You think his manager, or owner (de facto chattle slavery, but less for the slave essentially), actually deserves the lion's share of the wealth for some management?
I can accept that some people can earn a shit load more than anyone else, as a reward for their intelligence, ambition, and achievements, but I will NEVER accept that people need to live in material deprivation while working 2 jobs. Or 3. That's where the inequality lays you piece of shit.
This is why if I ever meet you, have a body guard with you. That's how offensive of a barrier you are to our progress towards equality.
It's not mental failwaiving you offensive fuckwad, but political and regulatory capture to the extent all the programs were engineered to fail, improperly funded due to hell bound Senators and Congressmen playing fucking Jim-Crow style games to make absolutely sure the programs never had a chance.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Burn in Hell.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 08 2016, @08:02AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @04:46PM
"Drain the swamp" was a catch phrase used quite a bit... But this is just another example of cognitive dissonance with trump supporters. At some point you'll have to realize trump is betraying every promise he made.
(Score: 2) by Anne Nonymous on Monday December 05 2016, @04:54PM
> "Drain the swamp"
That's the new motto over at EPA.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @06:52PM
There are thousands of people that could do it better and be less compromised.
To think otherwise is naive.
He is a corrupt hypocrite like every republican and democrat before him.
I just love watching the mouth breathers play political party tennis as if both parties are not complete shit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @07:10PM
> He is a corrupt hypocrite unlike any republican and democrat before him.
FTFY
Trump embodies the caricature of politicians that venal entertainers like Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, et al have been selling to their audiences.
Two decades of non-stop exaggeration have normalized his kind of failings so that a completely unqualified and unsuitable candidate could appear acceptable to a large enough segment of the population just because they've been lead to believe that he's their corrupt hypocrite.
They've generated hundreds of millions in revenue by blurring the distinction between human imperfection and utter moral turpitude. Because of that you've lost your ability to distinguish between the two.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @09:11PM
This ^
Ethics and morality now regularly take a back seat to profit, corporate rights / desires, and straight up imperial tactics such as running an oil pipeline through an area that would most likely damage the nearby Native Americans. Thankfully the Armoy Corps has stepped in, I think it would be amazing if the US military was able to take the moral high roads and stop acting as global enforcers for corporate interests.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday December 05 2016, @07:18PM
He has not much time to put a team together. Two months isn't very long when you consider the import of the positions he's trying to fill. He's going to do what most managers do and go with people he knows, if he can. He's going to choose people who will be loyal to him, if he can. The Chief of Staff is typically the person that helps guide that effort, so that's why his choice for that role pretty much insta-killed every campaign promise he made.
If a candidate elected to office had a ready-made roster of non-partisan, independent, acclaimed and accomplished people ready to take up those roles and work for the good of the country rather than the private benefit of a connected few, Trump could hire from that. But I don't think such a thing exists; at least I've never heard about one.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @07:31PM
Obama nominated 3 and got 2 republicans for his cabinet.
His campaign obviously had prepared a list of potentials that weren't just loyalists ahead of the election.
Trump's so ill-prepared that he's literally running his cabinet selection process like a season of the bachelor.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 06 2016, @07:52AM
There are thousands of people that could do it better and be less compromised.
They wouldn't get elected. At some point, you have to go with what you have, not what you wish you had.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Monday December 05 2016, @07:05PM
Don't start in with the apologia. "Drain the swamp" does not mean, "do exactly what everybody else always does." Trump is casting his administration in the mold of the status quo, because those people he appoints run the government. When he goes around the table in his cabinet meetings theirs are the voices he will hear as he ponders transportation, monetary policy, matters of state, etc. Theirs are the advice he will hearken to.
So writing what you write is not how his feet are "held to the fire," as his supporters vowed the morning after the election. It's paving the way for the same old abuse because you're too besotted with the appearance of victory to care.
Tear into Trump, honestly, with the force you applied to tearing into Obama and Hillary. Make him know he serves at the sufferance of the American people who put him in that chair. It's your job as a citizen, and if you don't do your job he will never do his.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 05 2016, @07:45PM
Tear into Trump, honestly, with the force you applied to tearing into Obama and Hillary.
Phoenix666, I'll tear into Trump when he actually does something wrong. Crying "wolf" is wasting my time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06 2016, @01:56AM
There is no crying wolf here, trump has chosen a lot of his cabinet. No guessing, no wondering, no maybes. It is terrible, and you should feel betrayed.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 06 2016, @08:31AM
trump has chosen a lot of his cabinet. No guessing, no wondering, no maybes.
And a hell of a lot of bullshit. I suggest you take my advice here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @09:16PM
Dems hate his guts. Most republicans don't like him.
Whos left?
The people who can be paid to do as they're told.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Monday December 05 2016, @09:21PM
This is the "double standard" that liberals have been complaining about all election. Nobody listened, I guess because they were tired of hearing that feminist message.
Of course the real reason it works this way is because while Clinton spent her time proving her innocence to Congressional witch hunt committees, Trump spent his time on the media driving the national conversation. It's really about who's better at politics. And now we can see exactly how much a Republican party member can rein in the abuses of the Republican establishment.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Tuesday December 06 2016, @01:29AM
According to Mr. Trump's disclosure form [wix.com], he had an investment in Goldman Sachs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @03:00PM
The reading comprehension may be on your part:
So he owned that stock in May, no mention if he still owns it today. Unfortunately, I can't tell you how long selling those amounts of stock etc.. usually takes. But you are assuming he still owns them, and you are also assuming he is trying to circumvent his forced selling of them. Both of which the story has no info on.
And that's the BS grandparent is talking about, and it's what I'm seeing over here in Europe to. I'm not saying he should get a free pass, just that he'll be treated as others have in his shoes. And from what I'm seeing, that's currently not the case.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday December 05 2016, @03:26PM
"he'll be treated as others have in his shoes"
So - one of the richest men around wears hand-me-down shoes? Who'da thunk it!
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @03:28PM
> So he owned that stock in May,
Yes he owned it in May.
And he owend DAPL stock and has said he sold that.
But has not said he sold the Phillips 66 stock
So it is entirely reasonable to assume that he still owns the Phillips stock.
The logical contortions of trump apologetics are ridiculous.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 06 2016, @07:56AM
(Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Monday December 05 2016, @04:41PM
Let's also not forget that Energy Transfer Partners LP donated to Trump's campaign in excess of federal campaign finance limits. [theguardian.com]
(Score: 3, Offtopic) by fishybell on Monday December 05 2016, @03:17PM
I'd be more concerned about international conflicts of interest. National conflicts are par for the course with politicians, and unfortunately, no one really cares. Jumping on every company that Trump owns stock in (especially small amounts) will be akin to crying wolf. There are more important issues to watch out for.
Trump has already caused an international stir by calling the president of Taiwan. Trump is planning on building a new resort in Taiwan. That is the type of conflict of interest that could result in people dying.
Background info on Taiwan/US relations [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Monday December 05 2016, @07:25PM
I'm not sure the international status quo isn't ripe for a shake-up. Trump's response to China's protests over the Taiwan call was correct: China did not consult the rest of the world before devaluing its currency and did not consult the world before building a military base in the South China Sea (an area disputed by many members of ASEAN, which had been negotiating with China for a couple decades about the issue). China must know that if it means to throw its weight around, others will respond.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday December 05 2016, @07:56PM
My reading on the Taiwan call is that Trump will be the playground bully, as so many of his electors wanted.
He's either clueless, or telling China "I don't care about your diplomatic stuff. I'm the boss. I do what I want. Too bad if you don't like it, try to retaliate if you can".
Whether he realizes how much leverage the little guys can get on the bully, by quietly ganging up on him or going around him, that's the 19.9 Trillion dollar question.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 05 2016, @08:09PM
My reading on the Taiwan call is that Trump will be the playground bully, as so many of his electors wanted.
Funny how a phone call becomes "bullying".
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday December 05 2016, @08:17PM
Then you misread.
The behavior of doing whatever he feels like, regardless of prior convention and sensitivities, is what I interpret as an indication that he is likely to act as a bully in international relations.
He's had bully behaviors before, with journalists and some of his opponents, so I'm not exactly going out on a limb by seeing a pattern.
It could just be that he's self-centered, but considering how he's built a persona of being the big guy in the room, I'm predicting international tensions each time he applies his mandate of America First.
We'll see if he does reach W-levels...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 05 2016, @08:26PM
The behavior of doing whatever he feels like, regardless of prior convention and sensitivities, is what I interpret as an indication that he is likely to act as a bully in international relations.
That's not much of a behavior to go on especially since China would be a remarkably poor target for bullying (being too powerful for that to work).
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday December 05 2016, @08:47PM
If you recoil because the other guy is getting bigger, are you really the big guy?
Unless Trump international has significant assets in China, what's to stop President Trump from showing his allegedly-adequate manhood by pushing them around a bit? That's his promise to his electors, and never settles with his enemies...
The Chinese know how long a US president lasts, they won't start WW4 over a bit of rude behavior, right?
We'll see when he takes office. But you can't deny that giving someone like him the silly "leader of the free world, most powerful man on the planet" title isn't exactly the first step to making him humble and tactful.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 05 2016, @10:17PM
We'll see when he takes office.
Yes, let's give the man some rope. Forecasting from a single phone call is silly at the moment, particularly when the whole reason the phone call is significant is because of a completely different party's bullying (here, China).
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Tuesday December 06 2016, @12:47AM
> [...] his most recent disclosure statement in May [...]
Here's a link to a PDF of it. Phillips 66 is listed on page 49, as are Shell International Finance B.V., Exxon Mobil, Halliburton and Trans-Canada Pipelines. Occidental and Valero are listed on page 45, with Schlumberger on page 42.
https://media.wix.com/ugd/61e09d_8c635af726ea4b05b9873c78ef7b1b0f.pdf [wix.com]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by VLM on Monday December 05 2016, @03:07PM
I did some research on this because its highly corporate propagandized and BSed up and it turns out everyone involved is a dirtbag.
The geography of the pipeline is Bismarck is immediately upstream along the river. The folks putting the pipeline in know it'll leak sooner or later. Originally they were going to put the pipeline in upstream of Bismarck. They don't want white people drinking crude oil so they paid off the indians because who cares if redskins drink crude oil so they planned to run the pipeline upstream of the reservation and downstream of Bismarck. Now I'm pretty far right wing but even I'm WTFing at this, I mean its good white people don't have to drink leaked crude oil but the redskins are getting totally Fed over and whatever bribe they took just isn't worth it. I mean I'm super biased, and I know it, and even I'm like WTF its 2016 I think the era of smallpox blankets is kinda over. I mean, WTF were they thinking with that pipeline route?
Also supposedly 3/4 or more of the protestors are white dirtbags only there because Soros paid them to attend and fund the protests so they can be dirtbag social signallers about their brave protests. I'd like them to be even more brave by re-enacting my favorite scenes from Kent State. Told you I was kinda right wing and I know it. I can't respect a protest thats 90% cat ladies from New England and the people they're protesting in favor of are like F all this I'm staying home and drinking firewater so the stupid white people can get mauled by attack dogs and chemical weapons and beaten. Its the pipeline company vs Soros not the trail of tears part 2. Its dirtbag white people fighting dirtbag white people, the protests are nothing to do with the indians themselves other than a couple figureheads.
The 1/4 or so of the protesters who aren't white college dirtbag kids from Massachusetts with daddy issues, signed a freaking contract and took a pile of cash to build that pipeline, so admittedly racist and stupid as the pipeline design is, they're dirtbags for signing up and taking the money and then fighting it. Yeah yeah I know the supermarket I shopped at on Saturday doesn't have the best price for oranges and I voluntarily participated in the market, but only a complete dirtbag would go back on the deal weeks later and spin protest signs at the supermarket. The pipeline has a shitty route because they were compensated financially to accept it, not because the US Army re-enacted Shermans March to the Sea out west and the pipes were welded in place under protective machine gun fire.
They're just all dirtbags, all of them, on both sides. All of them. The cat ladies from MA and hippies from SF who are protesting for social status signalling, the indians who took the money on an idiotic contract, the govt regulators who approved that idiotic route, the idiots who proposed the "smallpox blanket" route upstream of the rez and downstream of all the white people, just all human filth as far as the eye can see on every side.
Personally I suspect the end result will be routing upstream of Bismarck via the original route, or downstream of the reservation, and they're trying to accumulate enough semi-provoked civil rights violations that they won't have to return the money after the reroute is complete even though they're no longer using the rez land.
In an ideal world they'd machine gun the white protestors, make the indians give back their firewater cash, and build the pipeline upstream of bismarck as originally routed a long time ago because water clean enough for redskins is clean enough for whites, right?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday December 05 2016, @03:33PM
" Now I'm pretty far right wing but even I'm WTFing at this,"
Man, you would be amazed at the shit we've done to the Native Americans. I was a team driver with a half-breed Apache for several months. I looked up to the guy like a mentor. One of his stories involved a corporation which wanted mining access on Indian owned land. They offered to build new homes for the tribe, and they did. Really nice, beautiful houses, up on a high hilltop. The one thing they did NOT DO, was to pipe water in. When the tribe started checking things out, they found that bringing water to the hilltop would cost about a hundred times the value of all the homes combined.
It seems the white man always has an angle, and the red man is always a step behind on every deal. Indians need a devious gene or something. They're just to damned honest and trusting.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @03:36PM
Why are cat ladies and hippies dirtbags for protesting? Because they are social signalers (something you can't prove)? Because they are paid off by Soros (again, let's see the proof)? Or because they believe in something and are doing what they feel is right?
If all sides are dirtbags, don't forget your own side. You're a dirtbag not only because you are making up shit from your armchair and shitting all over people who aren't as mean, lazy, and closeminded as you are. You're also a dirtbag because you're human scum. All humans, animals, plants, solar systems and everything else should be eliminated. How dare you have any kind of motivation or goal. Fuck you all.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday December 05 2016, @03:41PM
I think we've covered the matter of protestors. A large number of them are Soros paid part time activists.
I'll salute the Indians, and I'll salute the veterans. I respect both. I have a little less respect for the so-called cat-ladies and hippies, but I'll toss them a salute anyway. Those people who are HIRED to protest against (or for) something are worthless, mercenary scumbags. Those same people would be just as willing to change sides to attend a counter-protest if the pay was right.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @03:47PM
> I think we've covered the matter of protestors. A large number of them are Soros paid part time activists.
No matter what your mommy told you, repeating your deepest wishes won't make them come true.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Monday December 05 2016, @03:54PM
If we're going full childish here, I can tell you what YOUR MOM told me last night!
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @03:58PM
Still zero evidence for your claims.
VLM SOP
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday December 05 2016, @04:10PM
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1237 [discoverthenetworks.org]
If you have to have it spelled out, you can start unraveling the connections from that page. Soros has spent more billions to undermine and destablize the United States than the mere 14 billion spent doing the same in Ukraine. Soros is a disruptive element, and I can't figure out why he's still alive. He probably has a pact with the devil.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @04:14PM
"Go google it" is the last refuge of the intellectual coward
VLM, and apparently you, know it to be true. So you must have already done the research.
Ain't no reason you can't share it with us. Unless you are liars.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Monday December 05 2016, @05:43PM
You're a lazy cuck, aren't you? You try to shame your betters into spoon feeding you. What research have YOU done on Soros? I've given you a page full of his organizations. That was given to me, free of charge, by another member here, and I passed it on, at the same price. But you? You can't be bothered to read it, or to think about it, or to follow any leads from the page.
I've got an idea for you. Just fuck off and die, alright?
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @05:46PM
> You're a lazy cuck, aren't you?
Always knew you were a racist.
Didn't realize you were into watching black men dick your wife.
> You try to shame your betters into spoon feeding you.
You made the claims, the burden of proof is on you.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday December 05 2016, @05:52PM
So - you're a racist lazy cuck. Do you wish to log in, so that we recognize the racist lazy cuck when he posts?
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @09:14PM
You keep using that word and you don't even realize what that advertises to the world about who you are.
And now you want to whine about the fact that you are arguing with an AC because you believe using the label "runaway" is some sort of moral triumph.
What a petty, vapid narcissist you are. You've already said you have no intention of making a good faith argument, you deserve shit.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday December 06 2016, @01:39AM
Moron - I was the real life runaway. It's descriptive, not some moral thing.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Tuesday December 06 2016, @02:22AM
Don't know why I'm getting involved here, but cuckolding does not necessarily need to involve someone of a different race. Perhaps showing some of your own biases here, AC? Or maybe just your Pornhub preferences...
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Tuesday December 06 2016, @03:10AM
According to the page you linked to, Mr. Soros has donated money to an NGO called Earthjustice, about which your page says:
This group seeks to place severe restrictions on how U.S. land and waterways may be used. It opposes most mining and logging initiatives, commercial fishing businesses, and the use of motorized vehicles in undeveloped areas.
I did a cursory Web search for pages mentioning both "Standing Rock" and "Soros". RedState [archive.org] asked "Have Environmental Radicals Led the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe to Commit Perjury?" in an essay which is critical of a lawsuit filed by Earthjustice on behalf of the tribe. That sounds rather different from the claim made in this thread, which (as I understand it) is that Mr. Soros is providing financial support so that protesters can travel from other parts of the United States to North Dakota. Am I right in guessing that the outrage is over the idea that outside agitators are astroturfing? I too find astroturfing distasteful, but as others have said no evidence of it has been offered. The other side has allegedly been using violence including rubber bullets, flash-bang grenades, water cannons (it's winter in the U.S.), and attack dogs. If people have been "protesting" purely for the money, either they're crazy or they were paid handsomely. If a billionaire is paying travel expenses and a modest per diem, well, that has been done before. [theatlantic.com] If you find it inappropriate for people to travel between states to attend a protest, perhaps a loose federation of states [wikipedia.org] would be more to your liking. Leaving aside the native territory, the Dakota Access pipeline, as planned, would extend through four states.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday December 06 2016, @01:47PM
TBH, I really need to find some real evidence, on the web, that I can link to. Parts of what I know about these demonstrations comes from the radio. There was a demonstration against some hotels in Houston, which did not pay their employees $15/hr. SIEU, I think it was? Let me look - - - http://www.seiu.org/ [seiu.org] The radio guy attended the protest, and interviewed a lot of the protestors. He found that almost no one that he interviewed was from Houston. He found several people from Austin and vicinity, but few locals from Houston. He found more who were from out of state. Our interviewer is a person who dresses to look rather scuzzy, so that he can get "in" with migrant workers, vagrants, druggies, and whoever else. He got a number of protestors to admit that they were being PAID to come to the protest. Three busses from out of town were parked nearby, and the interviewer estimated that the busses would hold more than 3/4 of the total protestors on hand.
Articles like this http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/14/george-soros-funds-ferguson-protests-hopes-to-spur/#content [washingtontimes.com] don't really provide proof, but I more or less believe them.
This one isn't much easier to "verify" - http://www.democracy21.org/archives/issues/527-groups/george-soros-seiu-each-contribute-2500000-to-the-fund-for-america-a-recently-formed-pro-democratic-527-group/ [democracy21.org]
And, another - http://www.corson.org/archives/soros/soros13_022211.htm [corson.org]
Now, getting back to these radio interviews. Individual protestors were asked a number of questions, and a "consensus" seemed to be that socialism and/or communism is a good thing. They want to do away with capitalism, completely. Oddly, most of the people being interviewed couldn't identify prominent figures in communism, such as Karl Marx, Cesar Chavez, Stalin. Most, but not all, of the interviewees were nominees for those videos on You-Tube of vacuous fools who couldn't pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the bottom.
Those (seemingly) more intelligent interviewees were far less willing to admit where their money was coming from. Asked directly whether SEIU were funding the demonstration, one of the people was quite clear that SEIU was NOT funding the demonstration, instead the funds were channeled through another organization. I can't remember which org that was, but the DJ's immediately jumped on it as another Soros funded org.
And, no, it's not a "right wing" or "Republican" radio show. You can tune in anytime, to see what they are up to. http://www.waltonandjohnson.com/ [waltonandjohnson.com] They are more Libertarian than anything - crazy bastards, all of them. Their take on the recent election? Americans are freaking crazy to elect Trump, but the alternative was worse. My kind of station, and my kind of people.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 4, Informative) by butthurt on Tuesday December 06 2016, @08:31PM
There was a demonstration against some hotels in Houston, which did not pay their employees $15/hr. [...]
Now, getting back to these radio interviews. Individual protestors were asked a number of questions, and a "consensus" seemed to be that socialism and/or communism is a good thing. They want to do away with capitalism, completely. Oddly, most of the people being interviewed couldn't identify prominent figures in communism, such as Karl Marx, Cesar Chavez, Stalin. Most, but not all, of the interviewees were nominees for those videos on You-Tube of vacuous fools who couldn't pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the bottom.
The Walton & Johnson site has archives of their shows, but (like you) I didn't find the one you're writing about. You describe it as a protest "against some hotels," not an explicitly pro-communist event. If, as you seem to be describing, Walton and Johnson approached people and asked if communism would be a good idea but the marchers didn't know much about it, there's nothing sinister about their ignorance. If they really were low-paid hotel workers, I would expect them to be poorly educated. The abrasive, confrontational style I saw in a couple of Walton & Johnson's videos could discombobulate people.
By the way, Cesar Chavez wasn't a "prominent figure in communism." He's known for being a trade unionist; I doubt he was a communist at all:
In 1977, taking a cue from Mao, he staged shouting matches at meetings to drive out colleagues. Sometimes he accused them of being spies for the Republicans or the Communists.
-- http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/04/14/hunger-artist-2 [newyorker.com]
I did find two Walton and Johnson shows that were related to the SEIU:
http://kprcradio.iheart.com/onair/walton-and-johnson-51391/minimum-wage-protesters-are-asked-how-14618482/ [iheart.com]
http://kprcradio.iheart.com/onair/walton-and-johnson-51391/mcdonalds-employee-admits-seiu-paid-him-11706226/ [iheart.com]
The textual description of the first, titled "Minimum Wage Protesters Are Asked How Much Their Union Leader Gets Paid," uses the term "Union thugs" to describe highly-paid union executives. In the video, demonstrators are also asked whether they work at the protest site, and freely acknowledge that they don't. The latter is titled "McDonald's Employee Admits SEIU Paid Him $15 to Protest WW2 Vets" and I viewed the associated video. It does indeed show a marcher who said he was being paid $15--or perhaps $50--to march. Perhaps he really was, or perhaps he just wanted the rude interviewer to stop bothering him.
I glanced at the articles you linked; they seem to be about Mr. Soros donating to organisations that tried to influence the 2004 and 2008 elections, perhaps improperly, and about Soros donating to groups that were active in Ferguson, Missouri. Snopes has a page about the latter:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/sorosferguson.asp?ref=patrick.net [snopes.com]
Certainly astroturfing is a thing, and from the cursory look I took there seems that Mr. Soros contributes to groups that do it.
I did find an essay that is critical of the protests at Standing Rock, titled "Protesting at Standing Rock? You May Be Helping George Soros!":
https://www.oathkeepers.org/protesting-standing-rock-may-helping-george-soros/ [oathkeepers.org]
It has a photo of Mr. Soros with a native head-dress photoshopped in. In spite of that and having Soros' name in the title, it doesn't specifically show how he is associated with the protests, just vague insinuation that I don't find credible. I watched the video linked from the essay, but there's no mention of Mr. Soros in that.
I looked at another article that's critical of the protesters:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160909143409/http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/09/08/no-those-north-dakota-pipeline-protestors-attacked-by-security-dogs-arent-the-victims-n2215750 [archive.org]
It doesn't make the charge of astroturfing. I'm just not seeing a credible claim of astroturfing at Standing Rock.
More generally, the right of corporations and unions to spend money to advance their political agendas has been affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court on several occasions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v_FEC [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_National_Bank_of_Boston_v._Bellotti [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo [wikipedia.org]
There are efforts to place restrictions on such spending. I'm not sure that many conservatives support such efforts, but perhaps they should look at the co-opting of the Tea Party by the wealthy Koch brothers and ask whether that was in the interest of conservatism.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday December 07 2016, @12:52AM
Just a comment on the Snopes article:
"Soros-sponsored organizations helped mobilize protests in Ferguson, building grass-roots coalitions on the ground backed by a nationwide online and social media campaign."
Building grass roots coalitions? Really? Snopes has been accused of being biased left before. Here, they are justifying outside intervention into the situation in Ferguson, with an insane claim. A grass roots movement, by definition, needs no outside intervention - it springs up from the ground.
grass roots
noun
plural noun: grassroots
the most basic level of an activity or organization.
"the whole campaign would be conducted at the grass roots"
synonyms: popular, of-the-people, bottom-up, nonhierarchical, rank-and-file
"a grassroots movement"
ordinary people regarded as the main body of an organization's membership.
"you have lost touch with the grass roots of the party"
It's impossible to say how much of the Ferguson thing was actually "grass roots", and how much was astroturfing. I've read accounts of outsiders, I've read accounts of real grass-roots people. Some of the grass roots were complaining about the astroturfers, on more than one occassion. But, apparently, the astro-turfing was funded by Soros, however indirectly.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Wednesday December 07 2016, @03:08AM
That does sound contradictory. Earlier they say:
[...] Mr. Soros gave at least $33 million in one year to support already-established groups that emboldened the grass-roots, on-the-ground activists in Ferguson, according to the most recent tax filings of his nonprofit Open Society Foundations.
which doesn't sound like an oxymoron. Perhaps the passage you quoted is a poorly-worded restatement of that.
They print the claim of a director of Soros' organisation, who said
[...] although groups involved in the protests have been recipients of Mr. Soros' grants, they were in no way directed to protest at the behest of Open Society.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday December 07 2016, @03:21AM
[...] although groups involved in the protests have been recipients of Mr. Soros' grants, they were in no way directed to protest at the behest of Open Society.
There's that "plausible deniability" thing. No officer of the US Navy ever "directed" me to wound a civlian. But, the day we had to clear a riot demanding entry to the ship, my squad went out on the quay, and moved the riot off of the quay. In the process, some civilians were incidentally wounded. (no fatalities, thank God)
All that is needed, is a "gentleman's understanding" that people who participate in approved activities are more likely to be granted money or positions by the organization.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Wednesday December 07 2016, @11:53PM
[...] my squad went out on the quay, and moved the riot off of the quay [...]
...and perhaps the secretary of the navy, the secretary of defence, the president, and the public (your ultimate employers) never knew about your efforts in more detail than the fact that your ship was at a certain port on a certain date, and left on a certain date?
Earthjustice say their goals are "to protect people’s health, to preserve magnificent places and wildlife, to advance clean energy, and to combat climate change" (http://earthjustice.org/tags/oil [earthjustice.org]). I would think that that may be specific enough for Mr. Soros; it aligns perfectly with his intention "to undermine and destablize the United States [soylentnews.org]." Earthjustice are a non-profit; if he wrote them a cheque and accompanied it with a note saying "I hope you'll do something about the Dakota Access Pipeline" would that be improper?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday December 08 2016, @01:15AM
Maybe improper, maybe not. But that sort of detail isn't going to be made public, and I'm not in a position to ever learn about it.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Thursday December 08 2016, @12:25AM
I meant to write "Certainly astroturfing is a thing, and from the cursory look I took t̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ it seems there may be evidence that Mr. Soros contributes to groups that do it."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Monday December 05 2016, @04:52PM
Those same people would be just as willing to change sides to attend a counter-protest if the pay was right.
They're the same type of people as the private security guards sending attack dogs after peaceful although obnoxious kids and throwing gas grenades. About the only difference is the rentacops can mostly pass a pee test.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday December 05 2016, @05:40PM
I'd make that +5 insightful, but can only mod one point at a time . . . .
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @05:43PM
"+1 Insightful" is not "+1 I totally agree with you!". You readily admit to abusing the moderation system.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday December 05 2016, @05:48PM
I have readily admitted - yes, I have - that mercenary sumbitches are mercenaries, no matter which side they are working for. You know what? Most people don't understand that. When two hippies meet, they recognize each other as kindred spirits. When two cops meet, they recognize each other. Neither pair understands that the other pair is very much like themselves.
It is you who is lacking insight, and you refuse to understand insight when it is serve to you on a silver platter. Idiot.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Monday December 05 2016, @07:51PM
I attended an anti-white power rally to counter a white power rally many years ago.
In reviewing the pictures, I noticed that both sides generally wore similar counter-culture clothing. Generally surplus military fatigues with various badges.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday December 05 2016, @06:18PM
"+1 Insightful" is not "+1 I totally agree with you!".
My original controversial point was all sides are dirtbags, to one level or another, and this was a crystal clear individual example of theoretically opposing sides unified as being outsiders only in it for themselves, in it for the money for example, or for social/street cred.
I'm sitting here trying to think of a better compare and contrast example from the whole multi-party battle and not having much luck. It really is almost the perfect platonic form of what I don't like about the protests. If anyone can think of a better example then chime in with the actual example itself, not "ur mods sux".
Apparently some folks have themed the protests as some kind of simplistic star wars good vs evil or Tolkien-esque story or the 60s civil rights movement part two, and there's lots of unhappiness when its pointed out that everyone in the battle on every side is at least somewhat dirty. There is no purely good side in this particular fight.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Monday December 05 2016, @07:01PM
Perhaps there is no purely good side, but if you are willing to assault non-violent protesters you are definitely evil.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday December 06 2016, @12:59PM
I came up with a good analogy last night that the whole thing is like personnel stationed on the Star Wars Death Star. Some folks did very little wrong, just signed a contract and took some probably minimal paycheck to mop the floors, and there's distinct levels of badness all the way up to Darth Vader and the Emperor. Or another way to put it is there are no good guys in this fight but there are better and worse guys.
Probably I'd rate the engineers who routed the pipeline as most evil, followed by the attack troop guards.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @03:39PM
Man do you talk a lot of shit.
> so they paid off the indians
Really? Come on. You can't just accuse them of being indian-givers without some evidence.
> Soros paid them to attend and fund the protests
Where'd you learn that? Breitbart?
> They're just all dirtbags, all of them, on both sides. All of them.
And you most of all. Your entire post was nothing more than "social-signalling" to the max. Accusing everybody of being hypocrites while proclaiming yourself the one true honest person is the ultimate hypocrisy.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday December 05 2016, @03:51PM
AC, whoever you are, THANK YOU. Things like this need to be said, and people like VLM need to have them said to their faces.
As to you, VLM, it's interesting we found your "I'll do anything for love (but won't do that)" moment. So you stop JUST short of slow extermination by environmental poisoning. But only just. And everyone who was protesting is a "dirtbag" too including the people who would end up drinking shit in their water that makes Flint look like a Catskills reservoir. Nice. Fucking nice.
As they say, when someone shows you who they are in the dark, believe them the first time :/ I've always hated you.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @04:06PM
So are you saying that the tribe wasn't paid for access to their land?
I think he made a pretty good case for calling out the hypocrisy in all parties involved. I can't say I agree with his Soros statements, but he is spot-on about the SJW's who are basically defined by the desire to elevate their own feelings of self-worth by finding a cause to protest. They don't give a shit about what they are protesting about. All they care is that they have something to protest because they need to define themselves in some sort of simplified good-vs-evil world where they can live out the Hero Saga all the while feeling frustrated that they were born suburban white and not some sort of "cool" minority like Native American (but it has to be "Dances With Wolves" cool Native American, not real-life rampant alcoholism Native American). "SJW" is a dirty word because it exemplifies the self-absorbed selfish moralizer. They are the TV evangelists who are in it for themselves and not for the cause they are pushing. "Don't worry my brave little unfortunate, although you may not be intelligent enough to know you are being wronged, I will take up your cause in your name and save you!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @04:18PM
> So are you saying that the tribe wasn't paid for access to their land?
He made a claim that indulges in the most well-known racial stereotype of native americans with exactly no proof.
Hitchen's razor applies. Absent that, he's just another dirtbag.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday December 05 2016, @04:40PM
He made a claim that indulges in the most well-known racial stereotype of native americans with exactly no proof.
Well, no, not really.
They get dumped on for being genetically predisposed to alcoholism and they get dumped on for twisting their hunting/fishing special permissions to an extreme, but I've never before seen them picked on for selling the same land twice or demanding payment multiple times for land or pretending land their grandparents sold is still theirs. That's total white guy stereotype fraud like selling the brooklyn bridge to multiple people or Florida swamp land swindles in the 20s.
I'm not saying there's never been an indian or indian tribe ever involved in a land dispute, but at least at this high level its unique behavior as far as I know.
Their grandparents lost control of that land in the 50s and didn't get much money in exchange but its water under the bridge now.
Conceptually it is an interesting idea that best case governmental response could be something like gimmie back the roughly $100M and you can have your land back and decide who runs what pipes where. Or the tribe could purchase solely pipeline and mineral rights for substantially less, probably.
My grandparents sold a suburban house in the 60s that could sell for quite a bit more today, but I don't get to tell the current owners where I permit them to lay garden hoses in 2016. They may have gotten a good deal, maybe not, but either way it isn't 1960 anymore.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @04:45PM
Are you fucking joking?
You are now arguing whether "indian giver" is the most well-known racial stereotype of native americans as a defense of your use of that stereotype?
Jesus christ you are a dirtbag.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday December 05 2016, @05:10PM
Normally there's no point in arguing with AC but WRT
your use of that stereotype
Obviously either we disagree on the definition of "indian giver" or disagree on the facts of the situation and I'm mildly interested in which. Could just be trolling or there might actually be something interesting behind it.
Clearly their grandparents sold some land in eminent domain at a ripoff price so they feel ownership is at least partially invalid so they still have some ownership rights. At least any historical definition of "indian giver" seems to involve giving something away thus an excessive implied debt is owed by the gift recipient, but this was more of a land swindle than a gift situation. Unless the definition of indian giver has dramatically changed it would not apply. From what I read of the original 50s dispute over building the dam in the river the locals did not exactly happily gift it away.
Possibly you have some historical reinterpretation and additional facts or possibly 2010's urban dictionary redefinition either way I'm sure it'll be interesting.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @05:26PM
> At least any historical definition of "indian giver" seems to involve giving something away
Oh jesus fucking christ.
A retreat to literalism is no defense of the odious.
The idea that they voluntarily gave up the lands in trade and now want to unjustly claim sovereignty on them is core of your argument. And its the same old stereotype.
(Score: 3, Funny) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday December 05 2016, @05:31PM
I guess you haven't logged into Breitbart for a few days so you're not up to speed, you obviously missed the memo:
You can stop posting about "SJW"s now. Now you have to use the phrase "identity politics" in every third sentence.
You're welcome.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @08:35PM
Well actually, SJW refers to those people who rampage for illiberal causes. Identity politics refers to broad classifications of people based upon superficial commonalities promoting division, not specific to liberals.
Even some one as dense as you should be able to figure that out.
I'm personally trying to get Social Jihadist Warrior accepted into parlance to describe the left beyond all reason and taste to self-destruct, especially after Trump's election :)
(Score: 3, Funny) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday December 05 2016, @10:44PM
> beyond all reason and taste to self-destruct, especially after Trump's election
This bit I can agree with - Trump's election was certainly beyond all reason and taste.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @06:19PM
So I suppose if your neighbor gets paid to let them store radioactive materials in barrels. You know the same ones that have a history of leaking but these don't leak today. You would be ok with this because someone was paid for the use of their land?
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday December 05 2016, @05:32PM
So you stop JUST short of slow extermination by environmental poisoning. But only just.
Rather than the absolute, for me its a relative fairness thing although what triggers me doesn't really matter. Its about equally hard to cross the river upstream of the white people, upstream of the indians, or downstream where none of this matters so naturally they move it upstream of the indians when the white people merely ask, and won't move it downstream of the indians even after massive protests, and its like wow could you possibly be more overtly racist for no apparent reason holy cow. Its just a freaking pipeline like zillions that cross rivers, the engineers should just close their eyes and pretend the rez is a white people exurb and move it downstream so it doesn't matter anymore, but no they gotta make the point that indians haven't been screwed over by the white people quite enough so maybe they can "get them" one more time.
When its "us or them" I support my team every single time, so to speak, but this is just embarrassing engineering where nobody need take any hit, therefore they screw them over just to stir the pot. Really dumb strategy. No need for a racial fight so lets pick one via careful pipeline placement because the fight will benefit... who?
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday December 05 2016, @05:41PM
Ah, so if I'm reading you right, the problem is that the evildoers lacked style and made it a little too obvious what they were doing, then...?
Jesus. Motocrossing. Christ. You are, as has been said about a zillion times on this thread, an utter dirtbag.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday December 05 2016, @06:24PM
Ah, so if I'm reading you right
Naw not really, but I am enjoying trying to simplify my message so we have a mutual understanding.
How about something aphoristic, like "if there's no reason to be unfair, never do something unfair". That seems hard to argue against. If you take that as a starting point, then the area of disagreement must be in the complicated task of applying that to the situation...
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday December 05 2016, @07:02PM
Okay, now go back and apply that maxim to your entire life and worldview. I won't hold my breath while you finish; if anything I'll be dead of old age by the time you do. ...yeah, didn't think so. It's only for certain, VLM-defined values of "unfair" and "reason to" isn't it?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday December 05 2016, @04:23PM
> so they paid off the indians
Really? Come on. You can't just accuse them of being indian-givers without some evidence.
Their Pick-Sloan settlement was kind of a ripoff, twice, sorta.
$12M in '58 and $91M in '92 in recognition that the $12M payment was a ripoff.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pick%E2%80%93Sloan_Missouri_Basin_Program [wikipedia.org]
http://nativeamericannetroots.net/diary/406 [nativeamericannetroots.net]
On one hand the inflation adjusted equivalent of a years decent pay per family is generous for 10% of your undeveloped land. On the other hand if you're trying to live off that land and you no longer have it and it was the best land you had, it is kinda a ripoff. On one hand they didn't get a terribly good price, on the other hand they accepted payment, twice, so at some point ya gotta admit its sold and move on.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @04:32PM
> so they paid off the indians
Really? Come on. You can't just accuse them of being indian-givers without some evidence.
Their Pick-Sloan settlement was kind of a ripoff, twice, sorta.
What is it with people like you who cite things that say the opposite of your claims as support for your claims?
The Pick-Sloan "settlement" was the result of the government condemning indian lands. They didn't agree to it, they had it imposed on them.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @03:53PM
It's like the loudest "protesters" against the Washington Redskins team name (or the other sports teams) are white trying to score the social consciousness points as well. The majority of the indians aren't offended, or don't care. The Redskins issue was all the rage a couple of years ago, but I guess the fad has moved on.
A good percentage of your typical college-aged "protester" is made up of women who are (or want to think they are) socially conscious, and guys, most of whom don't know or care what the issue is, but they want to look socially aware and sensitive because they're trying to lay the protester chicks. It is like the glorification of the 60s protests. I have had several colleagues who were of that prime age at the time and they all have said that pretty much what I just said. Different ages, but the same thing.
(Score: 5, Informative) by edIII on Monday December 05 2016, @06:57PM
"Redskins", or red-skins, greatly offends all native Americans, if you cared to look into what it refers to.
I don't object to Redskins because I'm virtue signalling, or any of those pathetic attempts here to tear down protestors and their motivations. Fuck ALL OF YOU that are doing that especially you VLM. The objection came after I decided to LEARN about it. Superficially, it would seem to be a reference to native Americans themselves through skin color, but that is NOT true.
Redskin is not a term of racism to indicate skin color. It's a disgusting and horrifying reference to the mass murders of native Americans during the time in which the U.S government (among others) paid for SCALPS. Yeah, the native Americans were not the only people taking scalps! You ever hear about some regiments that prided themselves that some of their leather equipment was MADE FROM HUMAN SKIN? It became a sick industry, and the RED portion of Redskin referred to the BLOOD layered all over the SKIN.
So THAT is where that name comes from. Do you still feel all good about it? Does it make you want to watch fucking baseball?
The original term was 'red-skin' [esquire.com]. Notice the hyphen, it's fucking important. Ignore the website, because the article you can ignore. It's all in the photographed portion of The Daily Republican newspaper in Winona, Minnesota from Sept. 24, 1863. An additional explanation comes from native Americans themselves [manataka.org].
History and facts though might be inconvenient to your narratives painting all of us liberal protestors as idiots without principles wholly lacking in any sophisticated understanding of our positions......
Yep. I just want to impress some college pussy with my sensitivity :)
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06 2016, @09:20AM
Offense cannot be given - only taken.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by RamiK on Monday December 05 2016, @04:04PM
Sparing you the obvious analog of Flint, Michigan and their drinking water, why should anyone feel obligated to honor the deals & decisions of politicians elected using foreign campaign contributions?
Petroleum corporation pour so much money into getting their guys in office at the states and reservations level that you might as well follow a Manchurian candidate while saying "because that's the rule of the game" as he marches you off a cliff.
Presidential elections and international cash don't mix. Reservations(/states) and inter-state funds shouldn't either. Until that happens, protesting seems the mildest form of resistant considering I would personally won't hold it against them if they chose to arm up and take down "their" council by force.
compiling...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 05 2016, @04:34PM
They don't want white people drinking crude oil so they paid off the indians because who cares if redskins drink crude oil so they planned to run the pipeline upstream of the reservation and downstream of Bismarck.
It's worth noting here that several thousand "redskins" would be drinking Bismarck water too just due to the much larger population of Bismarck. The Bismarck route simply affects far more people. What is so hard to understand about that?
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday December 05 2016, @06:00PM
The Bismarck route simply affects far more people. What is so hard to understand about that?
I don't really see what the problem is. If its safe enough for indians its safe enough for white people, right? The CivEng team originally thought the safest way to cross the river was upstream of Bismark, so that's what they should do. Or if its not safe for humans of any race they should cross the river downstream of the rez.
Its almost like someone stopped designing for minimal cost and started designing for maximal race riot for no reason obvious to me. Its just bad engineering.
The other triggering part of the design is for all the money spent on BS, they could have crossed the river in 24 inches of battleship armor plating or dug an automotive and pipeline tunnel under the river or maybe a bridge over it all of which would result in less oil entering the water over the lifetime of the system. Imagine a ditch like bridge top with bulldozered out concrete lined depressions on each shore capable of theoretically holding a million gallons of leakage. I wonder with infinite money and motivation with horizontal directional drilling they could have gone a mile from each shore and 5000 feet below the river. But no we're gonna get protests and poison "someone's" water instead, we're just fighting over who ends up downstream of the leaks...
Worst possible way to environmentally engineer low pollution is to spend all the money and time arguing over who gets the privilege of being downstream.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 05 2016, @06:16PM
I don't really see what the problem is.
More than an order of magnitude more people.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday December 05 2016, @06:41PM
Its useful to point out that the Missouri does not end just south of the reservation. Its hard to get a straight answer but wikipedia implies 12 or so million people in the watershed nearby the river. Of course some are upstream of Bismarck, and in the watershed doesn't necessarily imply they rely on the river for drinking water, etc.
Certainly every drop of crude oil dripped into the river will flow past two orders of magnitude more people just in the greater St Louis metro area, eventually, and all that water or crude or whatever flows past New Orleans eventually, etc.
Its a very local issue to put either everyone, just the local minorities, or nobody local at all, at risk in that local area. The numbers are small and don't matter because millions of people will live downstream and be affected by leaks one way or another so arguing on the basis of thousands doesn't matter much.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 05 2016, @07:32PM
Certainly every drop of crude oil dripped into the river will flow past two orders of magnitude more people just in the greater St Louis metro area, eventually, and all that water or crude or whatever flows past New Orleans eventually, etc.
Most of those people won't be getting their water from the river in the first place.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @07:48PM
What's puzzling to me is that the current proposed crossing is where the river is ~1/2 mile wide (800 meters?). Not too far north of this, and still south of Bismarck, the river is a few hundred feet wide.
So why did Dakota Access Pipeline choose this option that called for much more expensive boring under the wide spot in the river?
Are there actual geological or other reasons, or did it just look like it might be easier to get the Indians to give them a Right of Way, instead of other land owners?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 07 2016, @10:51PM
(Score: 0, Troll) by jmorris on Monday December 05 2016, @04:29PM
That is what this story is about. The enviros have run the EPA and the rest of the regulatory machinery for the last eight years. This pipeline was approved. But hippies never admit defeat, and why should they when they know they can go lawless without paying any penalty other than when their idiocy causes an IED to go off early and blows one up. And no I am not comparing them to terrorists. I am calling them terrorists straight up. Because in the end they ain't no more tolerant or even more compatible with America than ISIS is.
So they whipped up an 'encampment' and of course Obama gives them everything they want.... while everyone knows the block will only hold a few weeks. So why do it? So Trump will own it, and the fresh outrage and screams of 'helping the rich destroy precious tribal lands' will be thought to delegitimize Trump. As usual lately the Blue Team totally misunderstands the mood of the country. Cracking hippie heads and BUILDING THE DAMNED THING will confirm in Trump voters that they made the correct choice.
We are tired of absolutely nothing getting done without years and years of fighting hippies, our own goddamned government, the courts and usually cycling around through all of them a few times. Obama pissed away hundreds of billions on what were supposed to be 'shovel ready jobs' only to later admit there are none, that even the Light Bringer can't cut the red tape and actually build anything. It was all mostly diverted to just keeping the big city machine union workers employed doing nothing.
Everything takes so much longer and costs so much more now, almost entirely due to government regulation. Even the government is paralyzed with inaction now. A few blocks away my town has been trying to do an expansion of the courthouse. Just an expansion project, adding on some square footage to the two wings. The whole court operation has been moved out to temporary quarters in a old nearby church that recently moved out for going on two years now and it is clear this job will go far past the two year mark before the safety fences come down around the place and any thought of moving back in can happen. The highway project to four lane the primary artery of traffic north south on this side of the State has taken decades and still isn't quite done. I remember when work started in my home town when I was a small child and I am not one of those anymore. We used to be able to build stuff. Saw a documentary recently and was blown away with a side fact. Disneyland went from closing the deal on the land to opening the gates to visitors in ONE YEAR. Think about that. How far would regaining that kind of can do attitude do toward Making America Great Again?
And this whole issue is a lie anyway. The tribe doesn't get all its water (if any, that isn't entirely clear) from that source, others are available and more could be quickly be made available if needed. The land is NOT tribal lands, there are no artifacts or human remains involved. The tribe in fact wishes the protesters invading the area would simply go away and stop trying to adopt them as a mascot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @04:42PM
> of course Obama gives them everything they want.... while everyone knows the block will only hold a few weeks. So why do it? So Trump will own it,
Grow up.
The Corps initiated the review months ago, back when Obama clearly expected Clinton to win.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/09/493280504/judge-rules-that-construction-can-proceed-on-dakota-access-pipeline [npr.org]
the Justice Department, the Department of the Army and the Interior Department announced that construction in an area of Army Corps' land that is particularly significant to the tribe will not go forward pending further evaluation.
"The Army will not authorize constructing the Dakota Access pipeline on Corps land bordering or under Lake Oahe until it can determine whether it will need to reconsider any of its previous decisions regarding the Lake Oahe site under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or other federal laws," the statement read.
The agencies asked the pipeline company to "voluntarily pause all construction activity within 20 miles east or west of Lake Oahe."
(Score: 4, Informative) by Zz9zZ on Monday December 05 2016, @05:58PM
Given the human predilection to do things the easy way it seems we have to require certain performance levels. Human bureaucracy is always behind the cutting edge creative builders, so occasionally you will get regulations that are at odds with common sense. The trade off is making sure our world is built well and taken care of in the long term but in return you have to meet a bunch of standards.
We should be talking about how to improve the system, not just make it easier for companies to do whatever they want; which always seems to end up with unintended consequences because safety measures are expensive and thus ignored. Talk about specific problems, but don't whine about the things that protect the people and the planet.
The enviros have run the EPA and the rest of the regulatory machinery for the last eight years. This pipeline was approved. But hippies never admit defeat...
You show your cultural ignorance, along with the level of propaganda that has settled into your brain. Your intentions at least are very clear, profit/oil/money/power/capitalism above ALL else. "It was approved" you say, "they found nothing to worry about" they say, "studies found no significant side effects (*cough* cept little stuff like depression, 10% chance of anal leakage, and 1% increased chance of death)" some scumbag pharma reps said after dumping millions into research and not wanting such a big loss. Yeah, lets use your version of reality, where lies don't matter and neither does integrity.
This issue is larger than the Dakota pipeline, its about setting a new precedent of "people first". The planet is getting too crowded to keep going cowboy on expansion. Take it to space guys, go mine up some asteroids and build us a space station! I hear you can catch sun 24/7, and the "hippies" already built these cool panels that get you free power (well, the Sun pays for it, with its LIFE so be grateful yeh bastards). Imagine the profit margin when energy cost is zero except for base infrastructure to capture it, and with the EM drive you will soon have free fuel for your trip. Ok, the last bit is still a big question mark, but as physicists like to say, "That's just an engineering problem now." Which isn't a dig, its a statement of "it works" and now we need some clever builders to make it work WELL :)
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Monday December 05 2016, @06:27PM
The trade off is making sure our world is built well and taken care of in the long term but in return you have to meet a bunch of standards.
Ok, Disneyland was built in a year and still operates today, as perfectly safe as any human activity has ever been. So what was so wrong about its construction practices? What has been gained by making the regulatory environment so complex that such a thing simply could not be built today? We announced a plan to land on the Moon in under a decade and did it not so long ago, now we announce twenty year plans that go nowhere, replaced with fresh twenty year roadmaps that everyone understand will also just waste money going nowhere. Again, you seem to see these as improvements, I see it as a major step backwards. Why am I wrong?
You guys are so terrified that any activity MIGHT have a negative side effect that you prefer doing nothing, refusing to realize that too is a choice and has consequences, many of which are bad. Our infrastructure is in a sad state of disrepair because at the current rate it can't be maintained as fast as it wears out, even if money were no object.
Take it to space guys, go mine up some asteroids and build us a space station!
Thou art an innumerate fool. Math, try it sometime. Until we reduce the cost to orbit by a LOT we will never send enough people into space to even make a dent in the population here on Earth or their resource consumption. Especially with your morons regulating the holy hell out of any attempt. Good luck getting a real spaceport permitted these days and can you imagine the environmental impact studies and protests a space elevator project would fire up in the current political environment?
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Monday December 05 2016, @08:53PM
I'm all for investigating regulation which is really just government corruption, but I'm not willing to take the stance of complete de-regulation. Down that road we have already been, and it is ugly.
As for space, that was a projection into the future of where you "builders and doers" can be productive since progress/growth must be made at all times... Stop treating the planet as an expendable source of material, we need to carefully recycle/reuse, energy cost is the biggest barrier there at the moment. As for this pipeline, the protesters simply want less oil. Stop the tar sands, stop the fracking, invest in sustainable energy already! Real investment, not token projects and meager private home subsidies.
As for campaign rhetoric, we would be better off funding renewable energy projects than building a 2k mile wall... Real, tangible energy independence. Oil markets going nuts? That sucks, but renewables would alleviate the impact and put the US in a better position in the future.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 4, Insightful) by edIII on Monday December 05 2016, @07:19PM
You're a fucking moron being played by the Elites like a flute. Keep trying to paint us as terrorists because that will foment civil war, and then the good part when that happens, is we get to see you die.
1) It wasn't legitimately approved. Meaning, the regulatory agency bypassed its job to approve it.
2) Obama had nothing to with the encampment, and didn't help nearly as much as you want to alter reality to make it so.
3) WE, as in the protestors, MADE the encampment. With our money and our activism. So I'm one of the terrorists right? :D
4) Fuck you and your assertion that no artifacts or sacred sites exist on THEIR LAND. That's reality distortion you offensive fuckwad.
5) Stop your idiotic bitching about regulatory agencies making everything more expensive. That's the fault of the executives because we are always *forced* to tell them to do the right things. Regulations are just common sense that we shouldn't need to explain to them. In other words, if we don't force them to act human, they will only act like soulless profit machines.
6) If oil and gas pipelines were better managed, like how they are in Canada, then perhaps we wouldn't need to be so concerned? Note, not paranoid, but legitimate concern. Check the facts you stupid, stupid, fuck. Pipelines are not safe in the U.S, and leaks happen quite often. Those safety factors are bullshit once you factor in how much flows through it. An allowance of over 250,000 barrels of oil lost is NOT a safety factor.
7) Many of those you claim to be "straight up terrorists" are VETERANS. ~4,000 military veterans decided to be like ISIS? I'd like to see you say that their faces, boy, would that be a Christmas present. Of course, you're too much of a fucking coward to do that.
7) Die in a fire mother fucker.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Monday December 05 2016, @08:30PM
Keep trying to paint us as terrorists because that will foment civil war, and then the good part when that happens, is we get to see you die.
Wow. The Blue side is largely hipsters anthilled up in cities that would experience cannibalism inside a week of any sort of disruption that stopped the trucks (and trains) rolling in 24/7 to keep you useless people fed. You reject the idea of private ownership of weapons so even if you could get some you wouldn't know what to do with one. And you think you would win a Civil War? Laughter is the only rational response here. A Smurf Massacre is more like what it would look like.
Pipelines are not safe in the U.S, and leaks happen quite often.
Nothing is safe, your demand for total perfect safety is nothing but an excuse to do nothing; which happens to be your preferred policy position. Greens oppose humanity. I oppose greens because I pick humanity. A pipeline only need be safer than the alternatives to be preferable and they meet that test. Measured by loss to accident per barrel/mile transported nothing else comes close. Not trains, not trucks, not tanker, nothing comes close. Now you either go silent or confess that your actual goal is to leave it in the ground and push alternate energy that costs far, far more in a effort to make us 'greedy' Americans settle for less. Less energy, less food, less lifestyle, eventually less people.
Many of those you claim to be "straight up terrorists" are VETERANS.
So? John "I served in Vietnam" Kerry is still a douche. Signing up for a hitch doesn't automatically convey wisdom, even the service academies can't bat 1000. Especially in the current military more concerned with gender equality than killing people and breaking things. The quality officers have been purged under Obama, leaving mostly politically correct types more suited to NATO meetings. Hopefully "Mad Dog" brings a much needed corrective.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06 2016, @03:11AM
wow stupid ignorants like you are the reason trump won, go fuck yourself with that mccarthy rethoric
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Monday December 05 2016, @09:15PM
Environmentalists want all this pipeline and fracking crap denied, but that's not what Obama did. Obama has pursued the "rainbow" energy policy that pisses off environmentalists because it includes fossil fuels, and conservatives still get to whine about green energy because some people remember the 70s when democrats actually were willing to stall the energy economy for environmentalism.
You should really have more sympathy for the "hippies". They are coming around to the distrust of government that rural Republicans have held for decades. The "mood of the country", at least in Iowa where I live, is that this pipeline is a garbage deal. Local farmers that voted Trump have had their lands dug into and polluted in the name of "eminent domain" abused for private corporations. The real tragedy is that the really stupid global warming argument against the pipeline delayed the local right-wing response enough that it passed through before the rural people knew that it wasn't just a liberal thing.
All this garbage is a result of corruption, and the "big government" arguments against liberals are just a scapegoat. Think about it. Building codes are a local issue, and local governments are run by Republicans more often than not. I've been party to these building codes and they are written to protect local permitted contractors from competition. Sometimes these locals don't know WTF they are doing - we had to hire one to run plumbing for a rental property, but the result obviously wasn't to code and had we been allowed to do it ourselves, it would have been.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 1) by Sourcery42 on Monday December 05 2016, @06:11PM
The Native Americans' issue with the pipeline is one thing, but environmental activists opposition to pipelines is harder to grok. If there's money in it, the crude oil gets produced anyway, you just create a minor transportation barrier getting it to users without pipelines. Largely the Bakken oil has found its way out on railcars, at times with tragic results: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaster [wikipedia.org]
Railcars have long been rolling storage for dangerous chemicals. When passing a railyard near where I live I routinely make note of propane, vinyl chloride, sulfuric acid, chlorine and other unsavory chemicals. However, it isn't a mile long unit train of that shit. The sheer number of crude oil unit trains on the rails combined with the tremendous amount of stored energy in a mile long train certainly feels like it is upping the potential frequency for disasters like what happened in Lac-Megantic, no matter how safe the industry tries to make it.
That being said, is this project economically DOA anyway? I thought the Williston basin was in bust mode right now with all the cheap oil available. It would seem Energy Transfer Partners is putting in a pipeline to drain the swamp where drilling probably isn't all that lucrative at the moment.
(Score: 5, Informative) by edIII on Monday December 05 2016, @07:37PM
The environmental objection comes down to mismanagement, cost cutting, and piss poor safety factors.
My deal is super simple. Go 3 years with ZERO incidents on the pipelines, or demonstrate a responsible safety factor and response to any event that does happen. Do that and I will be willing to discuss operating a pipeline, setting aside of course that we need to be bringing less carbon up to the surface, not more. We are at the stopping point already, but of course that is a pointless discussion because Climate Change is a hoax right?
You see, they can't stop fucking up. They truly fucking suck at it [wikipedia.org]. What makes no sense at all, is when you also look at the levels of technology they CLAIM to have in place. I forgot where the page is, but it comes direct from Enbridge somewhere stating MRI level technology to analyze micro fractures in their lines. Dual-diameter automated pigs going through pipelines, xray, automated monitoring, etc. Yet, with all of that CLAIMED, they still do remarkably worse than others with pipeline safety.
I agree in principle. Pipelines should be safer. That being said, U.S companies seem to be completely inept, unwilling, or just to corrupt to engage in the correct behaviors.
Remember, it was greedy executives that caused the massive fuckup in the Gulf. They were warned that their blowout preventer had problems by engineers, ignored it, had a party to celebrate their "excellent" safety practices, and then left before the explosion killed unlucky employees.
This is why you need to forget about technology, and concentrate on people. Technology can get us to the fucking moon, but people are what caused the Great Depression ongoing since 2008. Avarice will always fuck up technological progress, because you make more money by cutting corners than following rules.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @07:38PM
the pipe is fine with most environmentalists.
The location of the pipe and where the crude goes when it leaks--is not. This is under a lake, along and under a river -- if it leaks under or along either of those things, the mess is much worse than if it just foiled the compacted soil around itself. It will ruin water supplies.
Some people are against nearly everything, this is not that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @07:53PM
What's puzzling to me is that the current proposed crossing is where the river/lake is ~1/2 mile wide (800 meters?) Not too far north of this, and still south of Bismarck, the river is a few hundred feet wide (100 meters).
So why did Dakota Access Pipeline choose this option that called for much more expensive boring under the wide spot in the river?
Are there actual geological or other reasons, or did it just look like it might be easier to get the Indians to give them a Right of Way, instead of other land owners?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by meustrus on Monday December 05 2016, @09:35PM
The meaningful political battles have been fought and lost months ago. State utilities boards granted eminent domain to a private corporation over the objections of their citizens. Federal agencies granted permits over the objections of its citizens. The federal government and its corporate cronies have successfully ignored the sovereignty of tribal lands. The local police forces have gotten away with in assaulting peaceful protesters for the benefit of private corporations.
At no point has the battle of local citizens' control over their own land been won. We are all at the mercy of the authorities. It just so happens that this time, the authorities are somewhat less corrupt and have actually reviewed the evidence of a particular claim. But just because the authorities are now being magnanimous on one claim - the potential for water contamination affecting a protected community - that doesn't mean we have really gained anything larger. On the contrary: it is now firmly established that the only way to protect your land is to appeal to every authority you can and hope that someone, anyone, will review the merit of your claim. Nowhere in that process is the individual or even communal right to determine how our land is used. That right belongs only to the government cronies.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06 2016, @12:48AM
If you cry and get in the way, you get your way. A bad precedent has been set.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06 2016, @09:23AM
You're right. It's much better to passively roll onto your back and let other have their way with you without resistance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06 2016, @09:41PM
I see you totally missed the point.