Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday December 05 2016, @01:13PM   Printer-friendly
from the embrace-extend-extinguish? dept.

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."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by VLM on Monday December 05 2016, @03:07PM

    by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 05 2016, @03:07PM (#437165)

    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?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Troll=1, Insightful=1, Interesting=3, Overrated=1, Total=6
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday December 05 2016, @03:33PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 05 2016, @03:33PM (#437179) Homepage Journal

    " 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.

    --
    There is a supply side shortage of pronouns. You will take whatever you are offered.
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @03:36PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @03:36PM (#437182)

    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

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 05 2016, @03:41PM (#437186) Homepage Journal

      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.

      --
      There is a supply side shortage of pronouns. You will take whatever you are offered.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @03:47PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @03:47PM (#437190)

        > 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

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 05 2016, @03:54PM (#437198) Homepage Journal

          If we're going full childish here, I can tell you what YOUR MOM told me last night!

          --
          There is a supply side shortage of pronouns. You will take whatever you are offered.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @03:58PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @03:58PM (#437202)

            Still zero evidence for your claims.
            VLM SOP

            • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday December 05 2016, @04:10PM

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 05 2016, @04:10PM (#437210) Homepage Journal

              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.

              --
              There is a supply side shortage of pronouns. You will take whatever you are offered.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @04:14PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @04:14PM (#437212)

                "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

                  by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 05 2016, @05:43PM (#437271) Homepage Journal

                  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?

                  --
                  There is a supply side shortage of pronouns. You will take whatever you are offered.
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @05:46PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @05:46PM (#437274)

                    > 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

                      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 05 2016, @05:52PM (#437276) Homepage Journal

                      So - you're a racist lazy cuck. Do you wish to log in, so that we recognize the racist lazy cuck when he posts?

                      --
                      There is a supply side shortage of pronouns. You will take whatever you are offered.
                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @09:14PM

                        by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @09:14PM (#437387)

                        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

                          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday December 06 2016, @01:39AM (#437504) Homepage Journal

                          Moron - I was the real life runaway. It's descriptive, not some moral thing.

                          --
                          There is a supply side shortage of pronouns. You will take whatever you are offered.
                    • (Score: 2) by Mykl on Tuesday December 06 2016, @02:22AM

                      by Mykl (1112) on Tuesday December 06 2016, @02:22AM (#437514)

                      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

                by butthurt (6141) on Tuesday December 06 2016, @03:10AM (#437525) Journal

                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

                  by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday December 06 2016, @01:47PM (#437667) Homepage Journal

                  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.

                  --
                  There is a supply side shortage of pronouns. You will take whatever you are offered.
                  • (Score: 4, Informative) by butthurt on Tuesday December 06 2016, @08:31PM

                    by butthurt (6141) on Tuesday December 06 2016, @08:31PM (#438010) Journal

                    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

                      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 07 2016, @12:52AM (#438145) Homepage Journal

                      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.

                      --
                      There is a supply side shortage of pronouns. You will take whatever you are offered.
                      • (Score: 2) by butthurt on Wednesday December 07 2016, @03:08AM

                        by butthurt (6141) on Wednesday December 07 2016, @03:08AM (#438186) Journal

                        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

                          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 07 2016, @03:21AM (#438190) Homepage Journal

                          [...] 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.

                          --
                          There is a supply side shortage of pronouns. You will take whatever you are offered.
                          • (Score: 2) by butthurt on Wednesday December 07 2016, @11:53PM

                            by butthurt (6141) on Wednesday December 07 2016, @11:53PM (#438555) Journal

                            [...] 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

                              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 08 2016, @01:15AM (#438576) Homepage Journal

                              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.

                              --
                              There is a supply side shortage of pronouns. You will take whatever you are offered.
                    • (Score: 2) by butthurt on Thursday December 08 2016, @12:25AM

                      by butthurt (6141) on Thursday December 08 2016, @12:25AM (#438562) Journal

                      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

        by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 05 2016, @04:52PM (#437242)

        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

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 05 2016, @05:40PM (#437266) Homepage Journal

          I'd make that +5 insightful, but can only mod one point at a time . . . .

          --
          There is a supply side shortage of pronouns. You will take whatever you are offered.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @05:43PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @05:43PM (#437272)

            "+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

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 05 2016, @05:48PM (#437275) Homepage Journal

              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.

              --
              There is a supply side shortage of pronouns. You will take whatever you are offered.
              • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Monday December 05 2016, @07:51PM

                by Scruffy Beard 2 (6030) on Monday December 05 2016, @07:51PM (#437350)

                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

              by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 05 2016, @06:18PM (#437288)

              "+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

                by mhajicek (51) on Monday December 05 2016, @07:01PM (#437309)

                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

                  by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday December 06 2016, @12:59PM (#437642)

                  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

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @03:39PM (#437185)

    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

      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 05 2016, @03:51PM (#437195) Journal

      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

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @04:06PM (#437206)

        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

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @04:18PM (#437214)

          > 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

            by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 05 2016, @04:40PM (#437228)

            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

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @04:45PM (#437231)

              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

                by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 05 2016, @05:10PM (#437253)

                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

                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @05:26PM (#437258)

                  > 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

          by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Monday December 05 2016, @05:31PM (#437260) Journal

          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

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @08:35PM (#437373)

            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

              by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Monday December 05 2016, @10:44PM (#437432) Journal

              > 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

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @06:19PM (#437289)

          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

        by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 05 2016, @05:32PM (#437261)

        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

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 05 2016, @05:41PM (#437268) Journal

          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

            by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 05 2016, @06:24PM (#437294)

            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

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 05 2016, @07:02PM (#437310) Journal

              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

      by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 05 2016, @04:23PM (#437215)

      > 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

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @04:32PM (#437221)

        > 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

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @03:53PM (#437197)

    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

      by edIII (791) on Monday December 05 2016, @06:57PM (#437307)

      "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

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06 2016, @09:20AM (#437595)

        Offense cannot be given - only taken.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by RamiK on Monday December 05 2016, @04:04PM

    by RamiK (1813) on Monday December 05 2016, @04:04PM (#437203)

    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

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 05 2016, @04:34PM (#437223) Journal

    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

      by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 05 2016, @06:00PM (#437280)

      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

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 05 2016, @06:16PM (#437286) Journal

        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

          by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 05 2016, @06:41PM (#437303)

          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

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 05 2016, @07:32PM (#437330) Journal

            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

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @07:48PM (#437346)

        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

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 07 2016, @10:51PM (#438542) Journal
          Narrower rivers generally are faster flowing ones with more capability to erode. A longer stretch of tunnel might be a good trade off for not having the river cut into your pipeline.