Dakota Access Pipeline Protests

[Seneca]

Round em up, shut down the casinos.

Screw you too.

[Zarn]

From what I know of this, their water could be contaminated, as a result. That's property damage there. Damaging another's property in a big no-no. This requires a lot of patience on the parts of all involved, which didn't seem to happen. Given the the pipeline is built eventually, the responsible party in a contamination issue should be whoever built the pipeline.

The upheaval of sacred ground/ burial sites is quite disturbing but in of itself legal.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

who have already gone against the President building closer than 20 miles from the Mississippi.

While one can argue whether it is wise for the company to continue construction on non-public lands when the fate of their desired crossing of the Missouri remains in limbo, just because the President asks, doesn't mean they have to.  We're not yet at the point where our President is an Emperor in all but name.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

who have already gone against the President building closer than 20 miles from the Mississippi.

While one can argue whether it is wise for the company to continue construction on non-public lands when the fate of their desired crossing of the Missouri remains in limbo, just because the President asks, doesn't mean they have to.  We're not yet at the point where our President is an Emperor in all but name.

True, but the country has basically become an oligarchy where people peacefully protesting have no say in oil contaminating their water.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

who have already gone against the President building closer than 20 miles from the Mississippi.

While one can argue whether it is wise for the company to continue construction on non-public lands when the fate of their desired crossing of the Missouri remains in limbo, just because the President asks, doesn't mean they have to.  We're not yet at the point where our President is an Emperor in all but name.

True, but the country has basically become an oligarchy where people peacefully protesting have no say in oil contaminating their water.

Excuse me, but when was protesting ever an automatic way of getting your way?  For good and ill, we're still a democratic republic.  Unless protests can galvanize enuf votes to affect elections, they aren't going to succeed.

Also, it's one thing to argue that the pipeline needs to go someplace else, but you seem to be arguing that we shouldn't have any pipelines.  When it comes to transporting oil, pipelines are the worst option, except for all the others.  Do you really want North Dakota oil to continue to be limited to overworked rail transport?  Because that's the alternative to building a pipeline, not the oil being magically left in the ground instead of continuing to be pumped from already active wells.

[Lyin' Steve]

who have already gone against the President building closer than 20 miles from the Mississippi.

While one can argue whether it is wise for the company to continue construction on non-public lands when the fate of their desired crossing of the Missouri remains in limbo, just because the President asks, doesn't mean they have to.  We're not yet at the point where our President is an Emperor in all but name.

True, but the country has basically become an oligarchy where people peacefully protesting have no say in oil contaminating their water.

Excuse me, but when was protesting ever an automatic way of getting your way?  For good and ill, we're still a democratic republic.  Unless protests can galvanize enuf votes to affect elections, they aren't going to succeed.

Also, it's one thing to argue that the pipeline needs to go someplace else, but you seem to be arguing that we shouldn't have any pipelines.  When it comes to transporting oil, pipelines are the worst option, except for all the others.  Do you really want North Dakota oil to continue to be limited to overworked rail transport?  Because that's the alternative to building a pipeline, not the oil being magically left in the ground instead of continuing to be pumped from already active wells.

Thank you!  The left seems to have forgotten how protests work.  They think that just because some people protested something means you have to listen to them or they have the right to become more and more and more of a pain in the ass or even eventually turn violent (like these protesters) and nobody else has a right to push back against it.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

who have already gone against the President building closer than 20 miles from the Mississippi.

While one can argue whether it is wise for the company to continue construction on non-public lands when the fate of their desired crossing of the Missouri remains in limbo, just because the President asks, doesn't mean they have to.  We're not yet at the point where our President is an Emperor in all but name.

True, but the country has basically become an oligarchy where people peacefully protesting have no say in oil contaminating their water.

Excuse me, but when was protesting ever an automatic way of getting your way?  For good and ill, we're still a democratic republic.  Unless protests can galvanize enuf votes to affect elections, they aren't going to succeed.

Also, it's one thing to argue that the pipeline needs to go someplace else, but you seem to be arguing that we shouldn't have any pipelines.  When it comes to transporting oil, pipelines are the worst option, except for all the others.  Do you really want North Dakota oil to continue to be limited to overworked rail transport?  Because that's the alternative to building a pipeline, not the oil being magically left in the ground instead of continuing to be pumped from already active wells.

Thank you!  The left seems to have forgotten how protests work.  They think that just because some people protested something means you have to listen to them or they have the right to become more and more and more of a pain in the ass or even eventually turn violent (like these protesters) and nobody else has a right to push back against it.

How did you get from "protests don't mean automatic change" to "protests don't have the right to bother me"?

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

who have already gone against the President building closer than 20 miles from the Mississippi.

While one can argue whether it is wise for the company to continue construction on non-public lands when the fate of their desired crossing of the Missouri remains in limbo, just because the President asks, doesn't mean they have to.  We're not yet at the point where our President is an Emperor in all but name.

True, but the country has basically become an oligarchy where people peacefully protesting have no say in oil contaminating their water.

Excuse me, but when was protesting ever an automatic way of getting your way?  For good and ill, we're still a democratic republic.  Unless protests can galvanize enuf votes to affect elections, they aren't going to succeed.

Also, it's one thing to argue that the pipeline needs to go someplace else, but you seem to be arguing that we shouldn't have any pipelines.  When it comes to transporting oil, pipelines are the worst option, except for all the others.  Do you really want North Dakota oil to continue to be limited to overworked rail transport?  Because that's the alternative to building a pipeline, not the oil being magically left in the ground instead of continuing to be pumped from already active wells.

Thank you!  The left seems to have forgotten how protests work.  They think that just because some people protested something means you have to listen to them or they have the right to become more and more and more of a pain in the ass or even eventually turn violent (like these protesters) and nobody else has a right to push back against it.

How did you get from "protests don't mean automatic change" to "protests don't have the right to bother me"?

plus it's entirely his own problem that he finds human rights a "pain in the ass"

[ProgressiveCanadian]

who have already gone against the President building closer than 20 miles from the Mississippi.

While one can argue whether it is wise for the company to continue construction on non-public lands when the fate of their desired crossing of the Missouri remains in limbo, just because the President asks, doesn't mean they have to.  We're not yet at the point where our President is an Emperor in all but name.

True, but the country has basically become an oligarchy where people peacefully protesting have no say in oil contaminating their water.

Excuse me, but when was protesting ever an automatic way of getting your way?  For good and ill, we're still a democratic republic.  Unless protests can galvanize enuf votes to affect elections, they aren't going to succeed.

Also, it's one thing to argue that the pipeline needs to go someplace else, but you seem to be arguing that we shouldn't have any pipelines.  When it comes to transporting oil, pipelines are the worst option, except for all the others.  Do you really want North Dakota oil to continue to be limited to overworked rail transport?  Because that's the alternative to building a pipeline, not the oil being magically left in the ground instead of continuing to be pumped from already active wells.

Thank you!  The left seems to have forgotten how protests work.  They think that just because some people protested something means you have to listen to them or they have the right to become more and more and more of a pain in the ass or even eventually turn violent (like these protesters) and nobody else has a right to push back against it.

How did you get from "protests don't mean automatic change" to "protests don't have the right to bother me"?

plus it's entirely his own problem that he finds human rights a "pain in the ass"

Oil is more important than H20 to him obviously. Damn these pesky native Americans trying to protect their land that the Oil company is currently on per treaty (which whites have always loved to ignore anyways) It's not like any other renuable energy like solar and wind power exist. Let's pump oil until the whole state of North Dakota explodes!!

[Lyin' Steve]

who have already gone against the President building closer than 20 miles from the Mississippi.

While one can argue whether it is wise for the company to continue construction on non-public lands when the fate of their desired crossing of the Missouri remains in limbo, just because the President asks, doesn't mean they have to.  We're not yet at the point where our President is an Emperor in all but name.

True, but the country has basically become an oligarchy where people peacefully protesting have no say in oil contaminating their water.

Excuse me, but when was protesting ever an automatic way of getting your way?  For good and ill, we're still a democratic republic.  Unless protests can galvanize enuf votes to affect elections, they aren't going to succeed.

Also, it's one thing to argue that the pipeline needs to go someplace else, but you seem to be arguing that we shouldn't have any pipelines.  When it comes to transporting oil, pipelines are the worst option, except for all the others.  Do you really want North Dakota oil to continue to be limited to overworked rail transport?  Because that's the alternative to building a pipeline, not the oil being magically left in the ground instead of continuing to be pumped from already active wells.

Thank you!  The left seems to have forgotten how protests work.  They think that just because some people protested something means you have to listen to them or they have the right to become more and more and more of a pain in the ass or even eventually turn violent (like these protesters) and nobody else has a right to push back against it.

How did you get from "protests don't mean automatic change" to "protests don't have the right to bother me"?

plus it's entirely his own problem that he finds human rights a "pain in the ass"

Oil is more important than H20 to him obviously. Damn these pesky native Americans trying to protect their land that the Oil company is currently on per treaty (which whites have always loved to ignore anyways) It's not like any other renuable energy like solar and wind power exist. Let's pump oil until the whole state of North Dakota explodes!!

Typical Atlas chain here.

First Citizen obviously misconstrues what I said, I think it's pretty clear that what I said was that protests don't have the right to continue to escalate their method of bothering people until they turn violent, OR to bother people and not expect any pushback or consequences.  If I go stand on the street corner and throw rocks at people I'd expect there to be repercussions.  Just because I decide that I'm doing it to save the children or something doesn't mean I'm suddenly immune.

Then evergreen just does a drive-by insult.  Jackass.

Finally ProgressiveCanadian has a big fat strawman to beat up.  For some reason Atlas really likes this type of sarcastic putting-words-in-people's-mouths type of post.  Whatever makes you feel smart, folks.  But you're right I do not care a bit about water and want to "pump oil until the whole state of North Dakota explodes" and it's all because I just don't believe that solar and wind power are a thing.  Also the casual racism of "whites always loved to ignore" booooo whites booooo we hate you because your skin is white booooooo

All in all another productive day of discussions on this miserable website.  Now go spend another sleepless night thinking of snarky replies and wondering why stupid people like old Lyin' Steve refuse to accept that a bunch of paid protesters and professional activists have the right to violently harass construction workers building a 100% legal pipeline that underwent an extensive review process from various federal agencies while the natives refused to provide input native people have human rights!

[Lyin' Steve]

And by the way, just to go back to the original point, protesters don't automatically get their way because they went out and protested.  They need to either convince the people in power of their point of view or convince the voting public to elect new officials who share that point of view.  Unfortunately for these protesters, the people in power (other than those like Bernie who have nothing to contribute except stoking the anger) have enough knowledge of the situation to realize that the protesters are silly, and they'll probably never get more than 50% of the vote because as you can see from this thread there are several deplorables like myself who took the time to actually read the facts and understand the situation and watch the videos and come to the conclusion that the protesters are in the wrong.  Just screaming and lying down in front of bulldozers and throwing stuff at construction workers or riding horses at full speed towards groups of security guards isn't going to change my opinion, and if you don't change my opinion I won't vote for your people, and if I don't vote for your people then you don't have the power to enact change.  Sorry, folks, that's how democracy works.

[Zarn]

Upon researching this more, it seems sacred burial sites may not actually be disturbed in this, and there is a plan in place to avoid water pollution. However, I also heard the company has a bad track record, but that could be he said, she said nonsense.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

And by the way, just to go back to the original point, protesters don't automatically get their way because they went out and protested.  They need to either convince the people in power of their point of view or convince the voting public to elect new officials who share that point of view.  Unfortunately for these protesters, the people in power (other than those like Bernie who have nothing to contribute except stoking the anger) have enough knowledge of the situation to realize that the protesters are silly, and they'll probably never get more than 50% of the vote because as you can see from this thread there are several deplorables like myself who took the time to actually read the facts and understand the situation and watch the videos and come to the conclusion that the protesters are in the wrong.  Just screaming and lying down in front of bulldozers and throwing stuff at construction workers or riding horses at full speed towards groups of security guards isn't going to change my opinion, and if you don't change my opinion I won't vote for your people, and if I don't vote for your people then you don't have the power to enact change.  Sorry, folks, that's how democracy works.

Yes, but you're claiming that just because you don't find these protestors' cause worthwhile they automatically shouldn't be protesting on the basis that you don't like what they're protesting about. Becoming more and more of a pain in the ass is the point of a protest. It's supposed to get your attention by inconveniencing you. And just because you've come to value judgement either rightly or wrongly about said protest doesn't mean they shouldn't be out there protesting despite whatever your opinion is.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Upon researching this more, it seems sacred burial sites may not actually be disturbed in this, and there is a plan in place to avoid water pollution. However, I also heard the company has a bad track record, but that could be he said, she said nonsense.

They were digging up their ancestors while pushing the natives back so they couldn't see. They knew where the sites we're they didn't care.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

And by the way, just to go back to the original point, protesters don't automatically get their way because they went out and protested.  They need to either convince the people in power of their point of view or convince the voting public to elect new officials who share that point of view.  Unfortunately for these protesters, the people in power (other than those like Bernie who have nothing to contribute except stoking the anger) have enough knowledge of the situation to realize that the protesters are silly, and they'll probably never get more than 50% of the vote because as you can see from this thread there are several deplorables like myself who took the time to actually read the facts and understand the situation and watch the videos and come to the conclusion that the protesters are in the wrong.  Just screaming and lying down in front of bulldozers and throwing stuff at construction workers or riding horses at full speed towards groups of security guards isn't going to change my opinion, and if you don't change my opinion I won't vote for your people, and if I don't vote for your people then you don't have the power to enact change.  Sorry, folks, that's how democracy works.

It's called an Oligarchy my lying friend.

[Lyin' Steve]

And by the way, just to go back to the original point, protesters don't automatically get their way because they went out and protested.  They need to either convince the people in power of their point of view or convince the voting public to elect new officials who share that point of view.  Unfortunately for these protesters, the people in power (other than those like Bernie who have nothing to contribute except stoking the anger) have enough knowledge of the situation to realize that the protesters are silly, and they'll probably never get more than 50% of the vote because as you can see from this thread there are several deplorables like myself who took the time to actually read the facts and understand the situation and watch the videos and come to the conclusion that the protesters are in the wrong.  Just screaming and lying down in front of bulldozers and throwing stuff at construction workers or riding horses at full speed towards groups of security guards isn't going to change my opinion, and if you don't change my opinion I won't vote for your people, and if I don't vote for your people then you don't have the power to enact change.  Sorry, folks, that's how democracy works.

Yes, but you're claiming that just because you don't find these protestors' cause worthwhile they automatically shouldn't be protesting on the basis that you don't like what they're protesting about. Becoming more and more of a pain in the ass is the point of a protest. It's supposed to get your attention by inconveniencing you. And just because you've come to value judgement either rightly or wrongly about said protest doesn't mean they shouldn't be out there protesting despite whatever your opinion is.

That's not at all what I'm claiming.  If someone was out there protesting in favor of green tech grants or gun control or some other cause I'm sympathetic for and do find worthwhile, I'd still say that if they got violent or out of control or were hindering other people, for instance if they were blockading a gun show or something, then they should be removed by private security or the police.

And I get the point of a protest.  I got it the first time you said that too.  And yes I've heard that "it's SUPPOSED to inconvenience you!" line used by activists to justify their behaving like jackasses.  Just because that's what it's supposed to do doesn't make it ok when it does that, because protests are not inherently a good thing and they certainly are not inherently unassailable.  When they become a sufficient enough inconvenience that action is required to remove them, then that action should be undertaken, that's just how the system works.

Let me put this a different way.  What if David Duke organized the KKK to go blockade a bunch of highways for hours chanting about white power and anti-Jewish slogans, and then when people were honking at them they started banging on people's windows and waving assault weapons around and threatening them?  What if one KKK member even broke someone's window and grabbed the driver by the hair and told her that she's a blood traitor for having a black baby in the backseat?  At what point in any of that does the state have a legal right to remove the protesters, in your view?  If the protesters choose to pick a fight when the state tries to remove them, is the state in the right to react with force to ensure their removal?  Or do you think that because "a protest is SUPPOSED to inconvenience you!" that makes their inconveniencing ok and unassailable and they should be allowed to stay there forever?  What about if it was a privately-owned road, like a road leading to a car factory outside of Detroit?  Would GM have the right to hire private security to protect its employees and remove the KKK protesters?

[Devout Centrist]

And by the way, just to go back to the original point, protesters don't automatically get their way because they went out and protested.  They need to either convince the people in power of their point of view or convince the voting public to elect new officials who share that point of view.  Unfortunately for these protesters, the people in power (other than those like Bernie who have nothing to contribute except stoking the anger) have enough knowledge of the situation to realize that the protesters are silly, and they'll probably never get more than 50% of the vote because as you can see from this thread there are several deplorables like myself who took the time to actually read the facts and understand the situation and watch the videos and come to the conclusion that the protesters are in the wrong.  Just screaming and lying down in front of bulldozers and throwing stuff at construction workers or riding horses at full speed towards groups of security guards isn't going to change my opinion, and if you don't change my opinion I won't vote for your people, and if I don't vote for your people then you don't have the power to enact change.  Sorry, folks, that's how democracy works.

It's called an Oligarchy my lying friend.

OILIGARCHY!1!1!1!1!1!